FOOLS FOR CHRIST:
-- Humor & the Poverty of Modern Theology --
[another scripture essay by textman]

'Alexamenos worships his god'
proclaims this anti-Christian Greek graffito found on the Palatine, showing a crucified man with an
ass's head. (I) [Graffiti and text cited from 'The Crucible of Christianity' (1969) by A.Toynbee; p.295.]

CONTENTS:
1. Introduction
2. Irony & the Comic Spirit
3. Theology & the Comic Philosophy
4. For Example: Spiritual Sci-Fi
5. A Certain Puzzling Blindness
6. The King of the Jews
7. Turnabout is Fair Play
8. The Poverty Illustrated
9. Hebrew & Greek Attitudes
10. The Literature of Holy Humor
11. A Theology of Laughter?
12. Or a Joyful Theology?
13. Addendum's & Works Cited

1- Introduction
.
Theology is a Joyful Science - Karl Barth

  The first intention of both theology and preaching is to engage men and women wherever they are; and where they are is in the midst of whatever particular culture surrounds them and enters them through the very air they breathe. Now the essence of religion is the response, in the depths of one s mind and heart and soul, to whatever is profound and meaningful in human experience. This is what Tillich's 'ultimate concerns' means. "By this definition, the opposite of religious feeling is indifference, superficiality, aloof detachment from the concerns of men and women" (Rice 3). Accordingly, this essay will attempt to demonstrate that comedy and humor are far less indifferent and detached from our ultimate human concerns than modern theology is. Now there are various ways in which Christian thinkers (and thus theology in general) can participate in the so-called post- modern' culture of the global techno-village: through liturgy and prayer, through time spent in solitude and meditation, through silence and dialogue with the inner-most self, through encounter with the City and its peoples, and with the cycles of nature. All this can position theology aright to savor the essence of the common culture that prevails in all the international urban centers. If there is any meaning to be found in the madness and chaos of a hungry and fearful world, then it will have to be searched for among those precious few things of high quality: "the aesthetic meaning of life in art, in music, in literature, in human encounter" (Mous ix).

    And in comedy. But the more refined comic spirit, being so difficult to define and capture, tends to confine itself mostly to the mundane, everyday world of work and leisure and society, and so rarely even makes its way into 'the arts' and theology. Occasionally, however, an exceptional writer will come along in whom the comic genius is apparent to all. The first, though certainly not the greatest, of these talented men in modern times is the ever amazing Soren Kierkegaard. he is that Christian individual who wrote (among other things) the 'Concluding Unscientific Postscript', which is the real starting point for all serious reflection on the Comic spirit. Back in the 20C, Charles Shultz has first claim on the theologian's attention; but there are certainly a few others! So what is humor, anyway? Professor Kane offers an interesting definition: "Humor is the meeting place of the human and divine; it affirms our humanity and the possibilities God gives us in life for growth ... It opens the door to humility by inviting us not to take ourselves so seriously ... Humor deals with the emotions, so it is a psychological subject. Since theology can (or should be) applied to all aspects of life, it is fitting to talk about a theology of humor" (Cote 7).

  Now Greeley has a similar understanding; but his definition confines itself - unnecessarily, in our view - to but one aspect of humor, namely, irony: "Irony, however, is required for more than the humility that ought to be a virtue zealously pursued by those who engage in theological reflection. It is an absolute prerequisite for theology.Without irony one forgets the essential nature of human nature as creature, indeed funny creature. Pomposity, self- importance, and self-righteousness make theological reflection impossible because they turn the theologian into the object of reflection; and the theologian is by definition not God" (Greeley 287).

2 - Irony and the Comic Spirit

"Rejoice and be glad ..." (Mt 5:12).

  For Father Andrew Greeley (sociologist and novelist), the comic spirit represents the triumph of hope over despair and tragedy, and the happy ending . [But it is surely more than this.] In the newspaper comic-strips, the comic spirit manifests itself as "an arcade of philosophy and social criticism" (Gre 278). These comics are sensitive to the absurdities and contradictions and ironies of life. Their moral and philosophical message is "more lively, more pointed, and more effective" than other forms of social commentary; and they "often drive home the moral or philosophical point with more power than a year of Sunday sermons. The homilist who does not find material for a homily in almost any day's comic page has lost all sense of creative imagination' (Gre 283). Now creative imagination is sometimes closely attached to the comic spirit, but Greeley's view of the comic spirit does not seem to extend very far beyond an appreciation for the spiritual value of irony and wise- cracks'. In fact, comedy and humor have a great deal more to contribute to a healthy spiritual life. Indeed, humor in general is a fine vehicle for many gospel truths. In the film 'Life of Brian' (by the Monty Python group), most 'religious observers' see only a scathing attack on Jesus and Christianity; but this is far from being so:

    [While walking through the streets of Jerusalem, Brian finds himself being accosted by a beggar ... ]

X-leper: Alms for an ex-leper, sir?
Brian: Did you say 'ex-leper'?
X: Yeah, 'ats rights, I did sir.
B: What happened?
X: Cured sir! It's a bloody miracle!
B: Who cured you?
X: Jesus did, sir. I was just 'opping along one day, minding mi own
business, and he comes along; cures me! Without so much as a 'by
your leave'! One minute I'm a man with a trade; and the next, nothin'.
... [soon Brian arrives at home; and ...]
B: Here you go. [Brian puts a coin in the ex-leper cup, and starts to
walk toward his house. Meanwhile, the ex-leper retrieves the coin
and examines it closely.]
X: Half a denarii for mi bleedin life story?!?!
B: There's just no pleasing some people. [Brian goes inside.]
X: That's just what Jesus said! [Ex-leper hops away.]

    Eventually we come to realize that the comic spirit is at the very center of Christian history and being. Indeed, it was literally nailed to the cross along with the all-too-human body of Jesus of Nazareth. Today, most theologians interpret the Passion as a supremely tragic and solemn event; one full of mystery and majesty, to be sure, but also one devoid of all hint of comedy or humor. While some will admit some element of irony to the proceedings, these same are very reluctant to acknowledge that irony is, of its very nature, a necessary expression of the universal comic spirit within humankind. St Paul, however, clearly recognized both the irony and absurdity of Christ and his Way, and even dared speak of such things as bluntly as only a true poet can. In the nineteen centuries that have followed him, none but St Francis and his earliest followers have been seriously interested in the 'lighter side' of things. In general, Christianity has been, at least since Reformation times, rather solemn and sober, and even somewhat wanting for laughter and joy. The symbol of the 'ever-somber Christian' is one that indeed applies well to many modern Christians; but certainly not to all.

3 - Theology and the Comic Philosophy

"One must philosophize, and at the same time laugh, and take care of one's household,
and use the rest of our personal goods, and never stop proclaiming the
utterances of correct philosophy." -- ancient greek maxim

 Now the expressed agenda of modern theology is quite specific: "Acknowledging theological and philosophical pluralism, we must work together, seeking to understand the most representative patterns of thought of contemporary intelligent men and women" (Pad 373). How is it, then, that theology cannot see the comic spirit in Christ and humanity? Basically, it comes down to two causes, both of which are largely driven by inertia: (1) Theologians are quite content with the 'ever-somber Christian', and so feel no need to examine an irrelevant and irreligious aspect of human nature. (2) Theology as a human enterprise is, and has been from the very beginning, a profoundly conservative entity that is literally glacial in its responses to a dynamic and evolving Cosmos. If one cares to examine the long and mysterious history of theology, the most amazing thing about it all is "the incapacity of classical Christian thought to come to terms with change'' (Pad 375).

    So the modern distinction between the Secular and the Sacred stems from Augustine's famous images of 'the City of Man and the City of God'; but the biblical view of the nature of humanity is widely recognized as being very concrete and this-worldly, and makes no such sweeping separation between the divine and human realms. [Hence the best OT name for God is Immanuel, or 'with us is God'.]

   For the ancient Hebrews the human being is an animated body, rather than a soul imprisoned in flesh. The Jewish view of human nature is thus holistic and integrated, and emphasizes the fullness of Being. By contrast, many theologians speak of the expanding secularization of the 'city of man', and the corresponding reduction of the sacred sphere. This means that the field of the Sacred, and the scope of religion, is increasingly bounded by, and confined to, the sacred and VERY solemn liturgy. Since there is no room for laughter in the liturgy, it only stands to reason that comedy and humor have no role in the Christian religion. Of course, the Bible itself does not support such a circumscribed vision of the sacred, but allows a role for the Comic spirit, and even for madness, in the religious life of God's People. The biblical human being is always secular and sacred and social at one and the same time: ''personal or individual salvation must he seen within the matrix of community and even of cosmic redemption" (Padberg 391).

   This humanity is also eschatological, and like the Modern-human, looks to the future for the final and supreme fulfillment and fullness of being. The secular, social, and eschatological qualities in human nature are mutually interactive, and together they encompass the full range of human being and becoming. In the dynamic growth of individuals and civilizations, no aspect of human behavior is without some spiritual significance, and therefore nothing is unworthy of the theologian's attention.

4. For Example: Spiritual SCl-FI

    But some theologians have even of late taken a religious interest in the popular social-cultural movement tagged to the logo of Star Trek. Of course, it is precisely its popularity that gained their attention in the first place (as opposed to any quality within the phenomena itself). And as far as any real spiritual substance goes, there is precious little of that to be found in the usual space opera setting. Nor does Star Trek represent the best that science-fiction has to offer; it's only the best that Hollywood can do. This distinction is very important to bear in mind, because the very best sci-fi literature has never been 'televised'; and we thank God constantly for it! You see, the very best science fiction is profoundly spiritual, precisely because it is fully serious about the nature of our shared reality: everything from microbes to the far reaches of the universe to the hidden depths of the human heart and soul. Thus where theology deliberately overlooks vast stretches of reality, sci-fi overlooks nothing, not because it is proper methodology to proceed thus, but simply because everything is interesting! Unseen things require much faith just to catch a glimpse of them, now and then, out of the corner of your eye, sometimes, if you're very lucky, maybe. So how much more difficult it must be to catch these slippery fiends on camera! Why, it's enough to drive any director nuts.

5. A Certain Puzzling Blindness.

   It is rather odd, then, to consider that in all the thousands of tons of theological literature in the world today, there are only four or five books that discuss Charles Shultz' famous 'Peanuts' comic-strip. Indeed, it seems that most theologians (as far as we can tell from their writings) are almost completely blind to the gospel when it comes at them under the aspect of humor. On the other hand, many theologians and teachers have some sort of wise or religious-type comic-strip on their office door; one that embodies some witty and amusing, but still eternal, truth. There is thus a kind of affective/symbolic break or discontinuity between the theologian's work and the theologian's life. Clearly something is amiss in the Great Land of Theology! The neglect of the comic spirit, just because it is so difficult to quantify, define, and measure, is nothing less than an ironic tragedy. Yet insofar as the comic spirit provides a direct pipeline to ultimate and cosmic concerns, this potential theological resource is immense, and remains virtually untapped!

v
Moreover, I will banish from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness.
The voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride. The grinding
of the millstones, and the light of the lamp. (Jer 25:10).

  For D.N.Powers, the central task of modern theology is the contemporary mediation of cult to culture. Such a noble
project must be "more explicitly attentive to the human subject and to the functioning's of the symbolic" (Pow 13).
Now language is surely the most fundamental of the universal human qualities, since without it we are reduced, and
quite literally so, to the mode of being of animals. But it could easily be argued that humor and laughter are just as
universal, and just as basic and necessary to authentic human being . Indeed language, in and of itself, is nothing
more than a 'carrier' of meaningful symbols, a useful but empty conduit that only has value when used to express the
multiplicity of human being. Now awe and laughter are equally valid responses to the glory of God and Creation. Both
provide language with the meaningful content that shapes our becoming:
.
  The power of [comedy, humor, and laughter] to express the transcendent, their capacity so to construe human
experience as to reconstruct it, are attained through a process of demythologization and critical reflection, which
opens the mind and the heart to a fresh and liberating hearing of the word of God. The remembrance of Jesus Christ
can be received in this way as gift, and simultaneously as challenge to our inner selves and to our public conduct.
(Powers 13-14 ) [In this quote I use the words 'comedy' etc in place of the author's all but useless term 'symbols' in
order to better clarify and indicate what we are talking about. Normally, I do not like to change another's words in
any way, shape or form; but sometimes it's necessary.]
.
  Despite Powers' obvious concern for the "fundamental human experiences in which religion is grounded", and which
also transforms life into a meaningful reality, one would never  know (judging from the information in his book) that
the human creature was even capable of such a thing as laughter, let alone that humor and comedy might be, in
some odd way, relevant to the spiritual and religious life of humanity (Pow 30). Consequently, Powers, like most
theologians, seems to have no awareness of the existence of comedy and humor in the service of the Sacred, and
so we may certainty judge his work according to his own words: "Even though it may possess an apparent nobility,
a religion [or any theology] which has nothing to say about these factors of human existence will eventually be
ignored" (Pow 30). Let us then ignore Powers by all means. 

"... a time to weep, and a time to laugh ... " (Eccl 3:4).

  While Powers' textbook on 'culture and theology' may indeed well represent the current state of scholarship in this
area of theological concern, the final judgment of it was already written a decade earlier. In 1981 Langdon Gilkey
published his 'Society and the Sacred' wherein he defines what the so-called 'theology of culture' is not: "This
reflection is not directed at the phenomena of religion or of religious language, and asking questions about the
character of the former and its relation to other concerns, and about the latter's meaning, validity, and relation to
the languages of other disciplines. Such an enterprise is correctly called philosophy of religion" (Gil ix). For Gilkey,
theology of culture asks
 
questions of meaning or of meaninglessness, of the ambiguity even of creativity, of the freedom AND the
bondage of the will, of the strange, inexorable inheritance of evil, of the career of good and evil in the
passage of time, of the contradiction of even our highest values, of the tension between affirmation and
tolerance, between pluralism and truth, and of the promise of new possibilities and the need for hope for
the future. (Gilkey x)

  In Gilkey's book we again find no treatment of comedy and humor, but at least his conception of the theology of
culture focuses attention in the right direction, such that it certainly allows for the recognition of the importance of
laughter and humor in the sacred sphere. This alone puts Gilkey light-years ahead of Powers and his humorIess cohorts.

"Hope demands effort. Despair does not" (Greeley 108).

  On the other hand, some few Christian thinkers have given some attention to humor and such things, although not always to the best effect. In 'Discerning the Signs of the Times' (1946), Niebuhr has all but defined comedy and humor as 'a no-mans-land between faith and despair'. This highly negative definition doubtless covers some aspects of the lighter-side (eg. humor as unholy and blasphemous, or humor as vulgar profanity, or humor as malicious attack, mockery, derision, etc); BUT it does not address the better aspects of the Cosmic Comic Spirit. [However, given the times in which Niebuhr conducted his 'discernment', this oversight is certainly understandable, if not entirely forgivable.] ... Incidentally, it should also be clear that the most universal and appealing of the many shades and tones of comedy and humor are the more obviously profane and direct sorts. For example: Homer J. Simpson found the film about 'the guy catching a football with his groin' so funny that he voted it best-film, despite the fact that everybody else (including his wife, Marge) much preferred another (far less comic) film! Now Homer speaks for the masses, to be sure, and so most theologian's take the vulgar and profane aspects of humor to represent the very essence and substance of all comedy.

  In fact, the Comic Spirit is not at all confined to 'the naughty bits', but rather travels freely through the cosmos, disregarding all barriers between the sacred and the profane, between the high and the low, between pain and joy, between love and hate, between the majestic and the gross, between strength and weakness, and also between the divine and the human. It is therefore somewhat appropriate that the multi-lingual joke-sign 'King of the Jews' shines forth over the dying head of the Way; confounding the pious and the theologians alike. The placard stands, as it were, at the very center of the Way of Love, at the focal point between heaven and earth; and at the very heart of human-divine relationships. Indeed the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth could never be correctly understood if we could not even
see the humor of our Laughing Lord?

6. The King of the Jews

  Now the Gospel of Mark occasionally displays a good sense of humor; and even a fine sense of comedy (including the slapstick variety). A good example of comedy in Mark can be found at 14:51-52, where the soldiers seize the young man (the author himself) by the shorts, and literally wind up 'holding the rag' while their would-be-prisoner runs buck-naked through the countryside. HA! Another example of Mark's humor is at 16:1, where the three women go to anoint the Anointed One. Now this is a rather obvious and amusing pun that is somehow overlooked by the vast majority of commentaries. ... Do you wonder why?

  In Mark, humor and fear, anger and sarcasm, love and hate, compassion and brutality are all part of the spectrum of human experience; and, of course, must be acknowledged and accepted. Therefore it makes perfect sense that the earliest editions ended with the word 'fear'. But Mark s honesty and openness, as well as his sense of humor, were cause for embarrassment in some parts of the early Church. Thus Matthew's gospel was deliberately written as a revised, expanded, and corrected version of Mark. Naturally, Matthew deletes the two episodes mentioned above, and changes Mark's very understandable final 'fear' into the mysterious and highly unlikely 'fearful yet overjoyed' (Mt 28:8). But Matthew is not satisfied to simply associate fear and discipleship; and so in his mission discourse (10:26-42) he goes out of his way to emphasize the theme of 'Do not fear'.

  In the same way, Matthew's handling of the mocking and sarcastic placard is deliberately designed to remove the excessive sharpness of its bite. Here s how it works: Mark uses the phrase 'The King of the Jews' a total of five times; all of them in the same climactic chapter (15:2,9,12,18,26). The last reference is the placard inscription itself, and all five uses are heavily weighted with mockery and derision. Now Matthew uses the phrase only four times; three of which are in the climactic chapter (Mt 2:2; 27:11,29,37). Significantly, the first instance is on the lips of the eastern astrologers, and is clearly used with great respect and admiration. The next three are carried over from Mark s text; but notice how Matthew changes the placard inscription to read "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." Ah ha!

  Now this is no minor gloss at all; for by adding the Lord s name before the title Matthew has substantially changed the mockery and intended insult into a simple statement of fact! How so? Well, Matthew sees Jesus as the humble Messiah; which is to say, as a humble king of mercy and compassion. Now Jesus' humility and compassion are well illustrated throughout the gospel; but even more revealing is Matthew s use of the title 'Son of David' as the symbol and true name of the humble king of mercy. Now Mark uses this phrase only three times in all, whereas Matthew uses it a total of ten times. That alone clearly suggests its importance to Matthew! In fact, the way Matthew uses the phrase makes it apparent that this title is of primary significance. In his text 'Messiah', 'Son of David', and 'King of the Jews' are all closely linked together, thereby de-emphasizing the scandal of the Cross. Indeed, the identification of Jesus as the Son of David ultimately justifies the placard inscription, such that it merely makes a straightforward factual and theological statement.

  All this can be easily demonstrated. Just compare the openings of the two gospels: (1) "The beginning of the good news of Jesus the Anointed One" (Mk 1:1). (2) "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" (Mt 1:1). And if that s not clear enough for you, Matthew's last use of the phrase makes this crystal clear: "'What is your opinion about the Messiah? Whose son is he?' They replied, 'David's'" (22:42). If even the Pharisees know that Christ is the Son of David, then we can be assured that the placard contains far more irony than mockery, and far more truth than insult and sarcasm.

  Now Matthew can also be funny on rare occasions. For example, at Jesus entry into Jerusalem, he has the Lord riding along upon two different animals at the same time. But unlike Mark, this and other bits of comic relief are purely unintentional. In this case it results from Matthew s need to show Jesus' actions as the fulfillment of prophecy, coupled with a far too literal reading of the specific verses in question. Matthew s humor, then, results from error, largely because he seems to lack a well developed sense of humor within himself. This is best revealed in his heavy- handed treatment of Mk, and in his complex handling of the placard (as shown above).

7. Turnabout is Fair Play

  In 1676 one of the best writer's of the early Quaker movement published an important document entitled 'Apology for the True Christian Divinity'. In it Robert Barclay had much to say on the nature of Christian sobriety. This involved a few observations about the comic spirit as well: "It is not lawful ... nor harmless mirth" (Hyers 22f). This negative assessment of humor may be taken to express the essence of the traditional Christian attitude which is almost as old as the Church. [Buddhism (and especially Zen) has a far more relaxed attitude to the lighter side of reality. In fact, only a little determination and application are necessary in order to uncover dozens of humorous anecdotes and observations and meditations.]

  But three centuries later, another eminent Quaker corrected the excesses of what has since become the prevailing and very dominant Christian attitude (ie. religion as deadly serious and solemn). In 'The Humor of Christ' (1964) author Elton Trueblood recognizes 'the neglected aspect': "Full recognition of Christ's humor has been surprisingly rare. In many of the standard efforts to write the Life of Christ there is no mention of humor at all, and when there is any, it is usually confined to a hint or two. Frequently, there is not one suggestion that he ever spoke other than seriously" (Hyers 176). It is perhaps of no small significance that the recognition of the Lord's humor should come from the most spiritual of the free-churches. And while the Quakers remain among the smallest of the minor Christian sects, their vision surpasses almost all others.

8. The Poverty Illustrated

  In his book called The Reflection of 'Theology in Literature: A Case Study in Theology and Culture', W.Mallard explores "literature and theology as an interdisciplinary field". This field is important in that a "critical study of literature in its relation to theology may serve as a case study (broad though it is) of theology's relationship to modern Western culture generally" (Mal vii). This project involves, first of all, an exhaustive analysis of language: First & Second Order Discourse, Metaphor, Symbol, Narrative, etc. Eventually (ie. near the very end of the book) Mallard discusses what is meant by a theological reading of literature. It seems that theological literature as such presents the 'proper' theology, whereas non-theological literature may be called 'reflected theology' insofar as it presents a reflection of the proper theology hidden and obscure under various guises. The main distinction here is that "the theology reflected in literature is finally an ambiguous theology" (Mal 253). Having thus reduced literature to a second-rate form of theology, the next step is to determine if the works in question "seem either clearly in harmony or clearly in disharmony with the Christian confession" (Mal 253). Of course, the theologian must exclude from serious consideration any work that is deemed 'an aesthetic failure'. Mallard thus observes that 'Slaughterhouse Five' is a prime example of just such an artistic failure:

  The story contains many pungent critiques and comments on existence, but the author [Kurt Vonnegut Jr] admits that he was simply at a loss to know how to deal in fiction with the bombing of Dresden. Invoking the imaginary realm of the Tralfamadorians provides a dreaming release in which evil is not real, and indirectly comments on the ungovernable horror too grisly to imagine or portray. The book therefore loses aesthetically, though it remains a biting comment on contemporary experience. Much futuristic writing and science fiction also surely fail as art because of the lapse into gnostic speculation. Such a popular work as Robert A. Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land' falls into this category. (Mal 254)

  In our humble opinion, Mallard's analysis of these two sci-fi classics is idiotic in the extreme (as is his thinking in general). But given his presuppositions and assumptions about what constitutes a literary work worthy of the theologians attention (ie. it must be 'serious and meritorious'), we are not at all surprised that he should summarily dismiss both of these wonderful books! Indeed, in part two of his book, Mallard devotes two chapters to a much more lengthy analysis of two other famous works of modern literature. These apparently 'worthy' stories are Faulkner's 'The Sound and the Fury', and Kafka's 'The Trial'. Now the choice of these two works, out of all that modern literature has to offer, speaks volumes about the fundamental theological orientation toward literature and culture in general.

  Indeed, from our perspective it would be literally impossible for us to select any other two works that could match these for sheer oppressive bleakness and utter humorlessness. This leads us to suppose that the real reason the sci-fi books mentioned above are rejected is simply because the one has a strong streak of comedy in it (ergo it is not serious), while the other is shockingly immoral (ergo it is not meritorious). Now if the author had simply admitted all this, instead of speaking of aesthetic failure, he would at least have earned our respect for being honest. As it is, Mallard s book only serves to demonstrate the utter failure of modern theology to grasp the essence and spiritual meaning of the comic spirit, and so of literature (and life) in general!

9. Hebrew and Greek Attitudes

"The opposite of joy is not sorrow. It is unbelief."
[L.Weatherhead, 'This is the Victory', 1941]

  But Scripture is no stranger to humor! The whole book of Jonah is nothing less than a comic masterpiece. The story of
Balaam and his amazing talking ass is also most amusing; and there are many other little bits and assorted pieces of comic
relief in the Old Testament. Even in the New Testament the comic spirit is sometimes acknowledged; and this is even
recognized by the bravest among biblical scholars. In 1Thessalonians, Paul advises us to "Be joyful always" (5:16); and
Matthew stresses the flip side of this command-idea: "And when you fast, do not look dismal" (6:16). Both of these early
Christian wisdom sayings can be easily understood within the context of the Scriptures as a whole, and within the strong
Jewish cultural and psycho-social environment:
 
   The ancient Hebrews had to know laughter as a friend. You had better be able to laugh at a God
who goes by the name of 'I Am Who I Am'. Moses is reported to have remarked, 'What is this, a joke?'
Yahweh answered, 'You can call me "I Am" for short. On second thought, don't call me; I'll call you'.
-- (adapted quote from Liebenow p.1)


  By the time that Luke composed, compiled, and edited his nameless history- in-two-parts (after the manner of Josephus;
c.115CE), the Parting-of-the-Ways between Judaism and Christianity was already old news, and the new religion had
well established itself in the  pluralistic and syncretistic cultural Climate of the Great Empire. Accordingly, the other three
gospels must be viewed primarily through Jewish lenses, while Luke- Acts must be seen through Greco-Roman lenses. Once
we do this, however, we wind up with a rather different attitude toward the lighter side: "Woe to you who laugh now, for
you will mourn and weep" (Lk 6:25b). Apparently, there will be quite enough joy and mirth in heaven, so it's best to just
wait for that. Moreover, the age of martyrs and persecutions is hardly the sort of thing to encourage an appreciation for
comedy and humor. Thus the Greek Church much preferred Luke's theology-of-humor (or rather, non- humor), and developed
it through Augustine and many others, such that it became the normal and accepted view of all such lighter-things.

  In his remarkable novel 'The Name of the Rose', author Umberto Eco tells a story of murder and mystery set in a 13C Benedictine monastery. At the end, the villain of the piece (an old and blind monk) sets the library aflame rather than let a certain book escape his grasp! And what kind of book could motivate a man of God to kill and terrify and destroy; you ask? Why only a small treatise by a philosopher: Aristotle's meditations on humor and comedy! This, then, explains (but not excuses) the poverty of theology as regards its treatment of biblical man and the lighter-side of reality. In truth, an ocean of light and life co-exists with the ocean of darkness and death (George Fox); but theologians seem unaware that this is the fundamental nature of both humanity and the Cosmos. The ancient Greek artists and playwrights, by way of contrast, were well aware that human life was a constant movement between the two contrasting poles of comedy and tragedy (with tragedy usually winning in the end).

 


10. The Literature of Holy Humor

"A clown accepts chaos as the normal living situation." - (Liebenow p.ix)

  As we move closer to the present, we observe a general improvement in the theological climate overall, and this development has reached even into the theology-of-humor. Even the Catholic Church has participated in addressing the lighter side. In his fascinating collection of essays by Catholic scholars determined to explore the furthest reaches of religious experience, G.Devine goes so far as to include an essay by Robert E. Neale called 'Surprise - The Horrible, the Humorous, and the Holy'. Also, Harvey Cox devotes the last chapter in 'The Feast of Fools' to an interesting discussion of 'faith as play', and 'Christianity as comedy'. Now Cox is far more optimistic than us, and even speaks of the tide beginning to turn. But we do agree that there can be found "an increasing amount of work on Christianity and the comic sensibility. The comic, of course, has to do with more than the funny. It is a perspective on life" (Cox 149).

  All of this is perfectly true, and perfectly acceptable to theologians concerned to bring culture and religion together again; but the big problem still remains: What will theology do with the wisdom of foolishness? In fact, few theologians have the courage to dare venture into these uncharted waters; and the bulk of the work that has been done to date constitutes little more than a few tentative and preliminary charting surveys. Indeed, the best 'theologian' in the world today is not Kasper or Balthasar or any other of those foolish German types, but is a modest American named Robert L. Short. In 1965 he published 'The Gospel According to Peanuts', and a few years later 'The Parables of Peanuts' (1968), and more recently 'Short Meditations on the Bible and Peanuts' (1990). These three books should be tattooed onto the brain of every seminarian in the world today because there is no better antidote to the usual rubbish that passes for theology these days!

  Theology aside; Western literature has much to boast of as far as merging religion, humor, philosophy, wisdom, and popular writing. First there was A.A.Milne with 'Winne-the-Pooh' (1926) and 'The House at Pooh Corner' (1928). Then (ie. much latter) came two books by Robert M. Pirsig: 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' (1974), and 'Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals' (1991). Also of recent vintage is a pair of books by Benjamin Hoff: 'The Tao of Pooh' (1982), and 'The Te of Piglet' (1992). All of these six books were inspired by Buddhist/Taoist ideas and/or principles. And thanks to Buddhism's more relaxed and open (and we might say: 'more realistic') attitude toward sacred texts, all six books will qualify as prime examples of 20C English sacred scripture ...

  Christianity can also boast of having modern sacred texts; mainly through the works of Russian writers such as Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekov. But the Russians are hardly even aware of the comic spirit, let alone inclined to write about it! In fact, there is a strong streak of the somber in both Vonnegut and Pirsig, which is not surprising since both Christianity and Buddhism recognize that the Four Noble Truths come first, last and always. The lighter side must somehow fit between the cracks of this ever-gloomy enveloping infinity of darkness and decay. It is largely the Chinese religious spirit (through Taoism) that saved Buddhism from Christianity's humorless fate, and elevated it from being a mere philosophical psychology to being the second greatest religion in all human history. [Of course, there is nothing to prevent Christianity from absorbing the wisdom of Taoism as well ...] The closest thing that Christianity has to a comic sage is Vonnegut. And he is a very stubborn agnostic! Alas & Alack! But it surely doth seem that Christianity is simply incapable of bringing together, between two covers, a pleasing blend of the Christian spirit and the comic spirit.

  If biblical and theological language is unfit to serve as a vehicle for the evangelization of the modern world (as Rice suggests), are we left with only Peanuts and B.C.? Not at all. In fact, an enlightened psychology provides a technical and flexible language that can well transmit gospel truths. Rest assured that there is a very good reason why the most favorite book (beside the Bible) of American deacons is Dr Peck's 'The Road Less Traveled'. Now his psychology is not flawless by any means; BUT he does leave an important role for joy (which is, of course, the cosmic category that encompasses all comedy, humor, laughter, ecstasy, and other yummy things). In other words, his language is both precise and powerful, and could easily be adapted to adequately deal with the many facets of joy and humor. It seems, then, that the best theologians in the world today are anything but professional theologians. Surely there is an important lesson here to be learned by the modern 'science' of theology!

  In light of the scant attention the comic spirit receives from theology, especially systematic and dogmatic theology, the first step in creating a viable theology of humor would appear to be the recognition of this general neglect, and the reasons for it. In 'The Lord of Confusion' (1970), Orsy clearly recognizes that Christians "seem to suffer from a chronic lack of a sense of humor" (48). we would only add that while this is certainly true of theologians and most other professional Christian writers, it is by no means true of all non- writing Christians. Indeed the average Christian is far more open to the divine humor than the academics. Perhaps that is why the Roman Catholic Church is foremost among those few who take humor seriously. Fr Cote (omi) has even proposed the development of a theology of laughter. Such an enterprise will, of course, affirm that "humor is an integral dimension of Christian faith, and to have lost a sense of humor - whether in Christian living, spirituality, or theology - is to have lost a vital element of our faith" (Cote 11).

  Now humor is not only vital to faith, but also vital to communication. This latter is important because "living means being spoken to" (Buber 112). And the fullness of biblical anthropo-morphism demonstrates that God speaks to us in many ways and means. All of this makes a theology of laughter possible (Cote 43). Neither is such a theology devoid of roots in the Christian tradition. Back in the 14C, Meister Eckhart suggested that "God laughs out of an abundance of divine life, energy, and love. He tells us we should never put our trust in a spirituality that is devoid of laughter, because good humor and laughter characterize the innermost relations between the persons of the Trinity" (Cote 54). On the other hand, any theology of humor will affirm not only the divine humor, but also human ignorance and blindness; and this will not sit well with most theologians (who are, of necessity it seems, experts in blindness).

r
12. Or a Joyful Theology?.

  Now Mallard's convenient separation of Christianity and science-fiction also tells us about the faith that lies between the lines of his book:

...it is a faith so little that it cannot conceive of itself except as existing in some tiny, closed compartment; a faith that does not have relevance to all of life, and hence is no faith at all, but only a small hole large enough at best for the head of a human ostrich.  A faith that can find no significant meaning in art and laughter, in the tragic as well as in the hilariously comic, is a faith that will find no joy in life itself. (Short/65 p.32-33)

 And will certainly find no joy in theology either! In that sense, Mallard and Powers well represent the bulk of modern theologians who perhaps are not even aware that the faith they defend is based upon a clear denial and betrayal of Barth's confession that theology is a joyful science. But in truth, only a theology that is fully equipped to embrace the fullness of Mystery & the Comic Spirit (in all its human, cosmic, and divine aspects and manifestations) can realize the practical goal of uniting joy and science. However, to do this is also to put the entire theological enterprise at risk. This is because a "theology of laughter is a 'subversive' theology: it not only dares to laugh at everything we take for granted, everything that appears to make sense, but it also subverts our understanding of human progress" (Cote 10). Now this suggests that the best philosophical basis for any adequate comic- theology is the 'unsystematic' philosophical analysis called Deconstruction.

  And so a deconstructive comic-theology necessarily affirms that Jesus was not only prophet, messiah, and teacher, but also a deconstructionist! The whole thrust of the Lord's proclamation, "which Christian laughter keeps alive in the world, is a challenge to conceive the inconceivable, to say what cannot be said, to applaud what should not be applauded, and to do what cannot be done" (Cote 71). A joyful theology therefore subverts and deconstructs Scripture, art, theology, and even life in general. But it can only do this from a position of humility and holy fear. This is essential because a joyful-theology is wholly dependent on Mystery (sacred and profane), and gives witness to that Mystery. This latter witness-function is admitted simply because it is unavoidable: "Confession, or witness, is the basis of a Christian interpretation of art as it is the basis of a Christian interpretation of anything" (Shor 65 p.32) . In the same way, the affirmation of Mystery is both necessary and unavoidable. This is because Mystery is a vital part of Being (human, cosmic, and divine). Indeed, 'Mystery' (like 'Love' ) is simply another word for God. Accordingly, the first maxim of a serious joyful-theology is the simple equation:

    I realize that to speak in this way of mystery, of what is unknown yet which gives meaning to our lives, is no easy matter. This is because we become aware of mystery, not by the head knowledge that dominates our schools, but by the heart knowledge that must be deeply experienced and felt. And our modern world, as I said earlier, excludes feelings and forbids talk of what is not of human origin. In daring to speak of our experience of mystery, this book on the echoes from the heart is part of a small yet growing protest movement against this arrogance that claims humanity is the one and only source of intelligence and morality. In countless ways today, people are becoming deeply aware of the emptiness of all attempts to live as if there were no mystery, no non-human source of life and love. There is a growing sense of the personal worth of individuals that results from letting ourselves be surprised and led by the unknown mystery that gives meaning to this life of ours (O'Call 5)

   Consequently, a theology of humor hangs suspended between two polar extremes: Mystery & Love on the one (divine) end, and Blindness & Hard-Heartedness on the other (human) end. Somewhere in the middle, if we are very lucky, we may find the lost pearl of holy humor ...

  In the long and varied history of the Church (or rather, the many churches), there have always been things like the medieval 'Festival of Fools' and other general silliness. Apparently, such whimsical social affairs are needed to offset the otherwise oppressive sobriety and solemnity of the various liturgies and religious functions. A good way to illustrate this point is to take a quick peek at the strange history of Russian piety! Now the Russian Church is surely unique in its absolute emphasis on religion as a 'very-somber-thing'. In spite of this - or, more correctly, because of this! - the Russian people have created incredibly varied, and often quite bizarre, non-orthodox forms of religious expression and spirituality. Here you may find everything from the ultra-orthodox 'Old Believers' to the ecstatic sects that went in for "savage sexual orgies" (Ars 70). You also have your Castrates and Screamers and Elders; and Rasputin and Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy and Chekov; and sundry pilgrims and idiots and beggars and ascetics and monks, etc etc. Many - if not quite all - of these are shining examples of what it means to be a true 'Fool for Christ'! Some of these (usually the more philosophically minded) even have some slight interest in things humorous; but ultimately there is little room for levity in the tormented Russian soul, which seeks, above all else, simplicity, calm, purity, and the soothing 'silence of the heart'. Of course, nothing upsets this silence of the heart quite so much as a fine indecent joke!

WORKS CITED

Arseniev, N.  Russian Piety.  Trans. A.Moorhouse. New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1964.

Buber, Martin. The Knowledge of Man.  New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965.

Cote, R.G. Holy Mirth: A Theology of Laughter. Whitinsville: Affirmation Books, 1986.

Cox, Harvey. The Feast of Fools: A Theological Essay on Festivity and Fantasy.

            Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1969.

Devine, George.  New Dimensions in Religious Experience.  Staten Island: Alba House, 1971.

Gilkey, Langdon.  Society and the Sacred: Towards a Theology of Culture in Decline. New York: Crossroad, 1981.

Greeley, A.M.  God in Popular Culture.  Chicago: Thomas More Press,1988.

Hyers, M.C., Ed.  Holy Laughter: Essays on Religion in the Comic Perspective. New York: the Seabury Press, 1969.

Liebenow, Mark.  Is There Fun After Paul?: A Theology of Clowning. San Jose: Resourse Publications, 1987.

Mallard, William.  The Reflection of Theology in Literature: A Case Study in Theology And Culture.
            San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1977.

Moustakas, C.E.  Loneliness and Love.  New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

O'Callaghan, Michael.  Gorilla vs. Chimp Christianity.  Battleford: Marian Press, 1980.

Orsy, L.M. The Lord of Confusion.  New Jersey: Dimension Books, 1970.

Padberg, J.W., Chairman.  Theology in the City of Man. Saint Louis University: Cross Currents, 1969-70.

Powers, D.N.  culture and theology.  worship series. Washington: the Pastoral Press, 1990.

Rice, C.L. Interpretation and Imagination: The Preacher and Contemporary Literature. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.

Short, R.L. Short Meditations on the Bible and Peanuts.  Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.

______. The Parables of Peanuts.  New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

______. The Gospel According to Peanuts.  Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1965.

ADDENDUM TWO:

THE THEOLOGIAN'S ANSWER

Now theologian's are certainly a strange breed of bird;
With an abounding interest in many things ...
But if art, passion, humor, and/or unreason should dare
to approach their perfectly ordered Cosmos ...
Well, the response is quite unsurprising and typical:

And many will even go so far as to adopt
and promote a unique method of dealing with
Various Unsavory Topics & Realities ...

textman