vulgar homiletics and lowbrow theology
why vulgar homiletics? | about dave | contact dave
In contrast to the Alabama political commercials I posted the other day, there is this locally-produced comedy-news show, View of the City, which shows a different side of Alabama.
Since Glenn Beck keeps ranting about left-leaning Christians* who use the word “social justice” to advance their agenda, I thought I’d also point out a few other groups who have infiltrated the church, many of whom use the Bible to support their agendas:
18. White Supremacists
17. Atheists
16. Pagans
15. Right-wing Tea-party Fruitcakes
14. Pedophiles
13. New Agey Crystal-Wearing Vegans
12. Labor Unions
11. Jerks
10. Libertarians
9. Glenn Beck Listeners
8. Self-avowed, Practicing Gays and Lesbians
7. Self-avowed, Practicing Homophobes
6. Self-avowed, Practicing Evangelicals
5. Unreformed Calvinists
4. Unrepentant Arminians
3. Closet Papists
2. Sinners
1. Christians
These people are inside your church! Some of them are clergy! Scary!
——————————————————-
*He didn’t actually say “left-leaning” - he said “communist” and “Nazi.” That’s part of what makes this particularly dishonest. He knows very well what he’s talking about: Christians who support healthcare reform and justice for the poor because they believe in the Biblical mandate to love their neighbor with more than superficial charity.
I really hope he keeps talking about this. The more he talks the more transparent he becomes.
Edit (3-13-2010): Credit where credit is due: Lewis Archer was the first person I heard the phrase “self-avowed, practicing evangelical” from. Now I think I want a bumper sticker with that phrase.
I’m enjoying teaching the short-term Bible study “The Bible, Uncensored.” If you’ve visited this blog before, you probably know this is a theme of mine. I think we get more of a sense of the radical nature of the Gospel when we translate passages that are meant to be shocking into their shocking English equivalents. By noting the vulgar aspects of Biblical language, we also get a better understanding that these stories are often about real life, and not just some idealized heartwarming Christian version made for the Family Channel.
For example, when Saul, angry with his son Jonathan for helping David, calls him a “son of a perverse and rebellious woman,” who is “a shame to [his] mother’s nakedness” (NRSV, 1 Sam 20:30) some translations choose to make this into a propositional statement. The Good News Bible says, “How rebellious your mother was! Now I know you are taking sides with David and are disgracing yourself and that mother of yours!”
Taken literally, Saul’s statement makes no sense. How could Jonathan’s shameful acts shame a shameful woman? But Saul’s statement is not meant to be taken literally. It is an insult. Eugene Peterson gets it better in The Message when he writes, “You son of a slut! Don’t you think I know that you’re in cahoots with the son of Jesse, disgracing both you and your mother?” I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone call someone else a “son of a slut,” but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen. Also, like the Good News, he leaves out the crude reference to his mother’s reproductive system.
I’ve said before that my understanding of Hebrew is only slightly worse than my understanding of html. In other words, if I sit down with a dictionary, a grammar, and several translations, I can more or less figure things out. So I confess that my grasp of this particular passage may lack some nuance. But I think it’s pretty clear what Saul means. He is using an almost universal kind of vituperative rhetoric which every child learns on the playground: when you really want to insult someone, you do not insult them. You insult their mama.
The NRSV and JPS have almost identical language. My Oxford Study Bible has this helpful scholarly-sounding footnote:
By calling Jonathan the son of a perverse, rebellious woman Saul means to brand Jonathan as genetically disloyal, but the choice of words points the insult at Jonathan’s mother; his mother’s nakedness refers euphemistically to her pudenda, which are shamed by his having entered the world thereby.
I love it! In the future, when someone cuts me off in traffic, this is what I will do: I will honk, shake my fist and yell “you son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Your mother’s genitals are shamed by your having entered the world thereby!”
The Access Bible has a similarly helpful footnote: “Nakedness is a euphemism for the genitals. Saul’s remark is coarse and insulting. He accuses Jonathan of treason and says that he is a shame to his mother’s genitals.”
Okay. Granted, there is a theme here of genetic disloyalty. Saul cannot believe his own son would act to divest his family of power. So genetic disloyalty, treason, or whatever you want to call it is wrapped up in this statement. But that’s where the actual relevance of Jonathan’s mother ends. Saul is not primarily concerned with Jonathan’s mother. He is not giving his son a stern talking-to, saying, “your mother would be very disappointed in you.” This is coarse, vulgar, your-mama kind of language. We have a similar phrase in English that English-speakers use when they want to level an insult at someone which involves their mother’s reproductive system. Samuel L. Jackson has perfected the delivery of this versatile noun/adjective/verb to such a point that thousands of high school and college boys across the nation practice it at least four or five times daily in front of a mirror. Again, this compound word may be colorful, but it is in no way descriptive of any actual state of affairs. When Jules in Pulp Fiction refers to himself as “a mushroom-cloud-layin’ m*****f*****,” this is not a propositional claim about nuclear weapons reproducing in incestuous ways. It is colorful and vulgar. But it has nothing to do with his mother.
So, although “M.F.S.O.B.” may not be the most accurate translation of this lengthy phrase, I think it captures the intent a lot better than the alternatives. I’m also not suggesting that Bibles actually use this vulgar phrase, but I think Bible students ought to realize that ancient kings used language that was no more regal or dignified than street punks. And if Saul sets the precedent, other kings follow suit. David and Rehoboam also use stereotypically macho vulgar language.
Why is this important? It’s important to me because the Bible has been censored so long, and in so many ways, that one of the big arguments in church is about “relevance.” We’ve got some sincere preachers desperately trying to make the Bible relevant to their culture, and other Barthian preachers stiffly arguing that the culture should be made relevant to the Bible. It’s a bunch of crap. Relevance should be a non-issue. These things are already relevant to each other, and it’s our M.F.ing preaching that’s created the supposed “homiletical gap” between the world of the Bible and the culture we think we know so well. What we have is not a relevance issue. What we have is a credibility issue.
I want to blow up the whole equation. The Bible doesn’t say what we think it does. The culture doesn’t mean what we think it does. Rather than trying to make one relevant to the other, we should immerse ourselves in both.
