Not Buju Banton's Original Sin

In response to the article in the Sunday Gleaner, “Buju Banton’s Original Sin” printer November 1, 2009, written by C. Cooper. Located online here: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20091101/cleisure/cleisure3.html

I tend to like reading Cooper because she writes copiously on issues of Jamaican culture inclusive of matters related to Dancehall music, in which I have a keen interest due to among other things the fact that it is through dancehall music I learned most of what I knew about Jamaica before moving here in 1998. The song in question Boom By By was released during my junior high school year and was an instant hit in Grenada. The language barrier conquered by my inquisitive mind and a careful listening of the song, I sang along word for word, line by line with little thought of anything else. Today of course its an entirely different matter.

I suspect that the writer of the article chose the words ‘original sin’ as one of the many puns that she used in the article deliberately, but I cannot help commenting that that too falls into the category of my first concern with the article, that is the twisting of theology presented therein. While I can understand why that statement may have been necessary given her location of her arguments in the Torah, beginning with the creation accounts in Genesis and proceeding to the Levitical code, I have a difficulty passing it off as just a play on words. My concerns are as follows. 1. Original sin is relegated to Adam and ought not to be applied to anyone else.

2. Fundamental theology should not be made to be synonymous with ‘taking the Bible literally.’ There are parts of the Bible that are to be taken literally and others that are not to be taken literally. It is true that Biblical interpretation has ‘matured’ (even to the extent of a hermeneutic that may totally strip the Bible of any super natural-ness) but a part of that maturing also involves a systematic way of viewing the Bible as God’s progressive self revelation, understanding the difference between Israel’s theocratic governance in the Biblical era, and how the principles enshrined in such matters as the Levitical code find their application in the postmodern era in which we now exist.

3. Reducing the creation of Eve in Gen. 2 to God’s attempt to fix a mistake that He had made. The writer’s reflection on Gen. 2 gives the impression that the woman was an afterthought. I read and re read to see if there was any hint that the writer so feels about herself but found none, but if that’s the way she understand the text, I assume it may have implications for her overall view of the Bible, which I am not privy to. For God to make a mistake is for Him to cease to be God. This idea presented here therefore flies in the face of a core attribute of God. The writer quoted Gen 1:27 “So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.” Then she quoted from Gen. 2: 18 “”And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an helpmeet for him.” It seems enough to simply put those two verses side by side to see that there is no suggestion of after thought in them necessarily, however let me offer more than that. Gen. 2: 18 – 25 against the backdrop of 1: 27 is merely the details of the creation of male and female in His image. The details are provided in chapter 2 of the woman’s creation. A careful reading of the text will show that before the animals were created God had already spoken about the woman being in place (2: 18). You should also notice that it is Adam himself who realized that his kind was not among the animal, it wasn’t God who pointed that fact out to him. I believe God allowed the interim period to heighten the excitement of Adam when Eve was presented to him. Note the tone of excitement is his exclamation bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh and his subsequent naming of her. Chapters 1 and 2 ought not to be seen as two accounts of the creation of humans, but a continuum. The writer makes some statements of opinion and then passes them off as Biblical statements. Yes she was taken from his rib and yes the word helper is used, and here is where I will agree with her use of the word archaic to describe the language of the King James Version, because the translation to helper does carry a very negative connotation. Again Gen. 1: 27 is instructive here, notice both male and female were created in God’s image, hence there should be no hint of male superiority here. Admittedly many in the church have used the very word helper/helpmate to justify their subjugation of women even to this very day. To this is I say “Down with that!” It is therefore not accurate to say ”Is not me seh so; is di Bible.” I must hasten to reiterate that such thinking is shared by notable figures in the realm of Christendom as well so this is in no way meant to discredit the writer (who I think would hardly claim to be a theologian).

4. The article hints subtly or not so subtly that sex was that which they were inveigled to indulge in. Again

a common argument both in and out of the church raises its head. This erroneous view is extremely

pervasive, and as she rightly said sex has been pathologized for all time. Sex has been taught by the

church for years through the lens of fall theology, rather than image theology.

Notice that if we go back to my point that chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are not conflicting accounts but

corollary accounts many issues become clearer, including this point here. Look again at chapter 1: Gen

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he

created them. Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and

fill the earth …..” Notice the highlighted sections. This proves the corollary nature of the two accounts

but also proves that sexual activity was part of their mandate before the fall (unless we want to argue that

humans were meant to reproduce asexually originally). I feel somewhat red in the face now as a part of

the church, because the church has played its own part all too well in creating the belief that it is the

serpent who introduced sex to the couple. I am not quite sure what effect the writer meant to conjure with

the introduction of the play on ‘dem bow’ in that section of the article. At that point she misses the mark

again, for it is after sinning that they felt ashamed of their nakedness, they did not discover that it was

shameful to be naked, for in 2: 25 after their wedding we see that the man and the woman were both

naked and not ashamed. Shame implies a sense of guilt, which they did not yet have.

5. As it relates to her comments on the matter of the abominable nature the homosexual act and how Buju’s mindset being influenced by the Bible may have led to the penning of the song, I have already hinted at the proper way to interpret the Levitical laws in our time. Cooper correctly identified that the same context that prescribed capital punishment for the guilty homosexuals prescribed it for adultery among other things. It is often amazing to see the vehemence with which persons advocate the killing of homosexuals, yet they themselves are subject to the same penalty if this system of governance was still in place. Humans tend to be very selective beings. It is hypocritical to cry for this ‘crime’ and not for rape and murder. We cannot build a system of thinking on a faulty approach to Biblical interpretation because we are not living under the theocratic rule of Israel, which had Leviticus as its judiciary handbook. I categorically condemn all violence against any kind of sinner, and while I uphold that homosexuality is an aberration of the creative order to advocate for violence against homosexuals whether as mere creative art or catharsis in song is to stand on a very slippery slope. There are member of the clergy and many in the pews who uncritically join with the prophets of anti gay songs calling for the slaying of homosexuals, and I humbly suggest to them that we look again at the Jesus of the Gospels, not the one on our calendars with a lamb in his hand and a halo around his head. The Jesus who was accused of being ‘the friend of sinners,’ the Jesus who said to the woman taken in adultery ‘neither do I condemn you.’ Any influence that the ‘archaic language of the King James’ may have had on Mr. Myrie in this regard seems speculative (unless the writer knows otherwise) and even then it boils down to more of the interpretative technique of the teachers of the day. As one who appreciates Buju as a writer and musician I am pleased that there are other ‘archaic expressions’ that are more lucidly voiced, such, as ‘the destruction of the poor is their poverty…’

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Time To Major In The Minors

Your Slice of Online Real Estate