A good-natured dig at my friend Jim Wolfe, who gets carried away at times with his religious earnestness--GF

Jim Wolfe, who just recently became past President of the Indianapolis Peace & Justice Center (IPJC) when his term expired in April, is a nice guy, an ordained Presbyterian minister, and professor in the Religious Studies department at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI). He also has a penchant for quoting the Bible in support of his positions, and there lies the interestingly troublesome rub.

Because, traditionally, the Bible has been regarded as the infallible Word of God, its thoughts dictated directly to men by God, who then wrote them down as best they could, but did so under the direct guidance of this omniscient, omnipotent, infallible God. Difficulties of translation and interpretation are thus—well, just difficulties of translation and interpretation, not factors that compromise or nullify the Bible’s infallible message. Now, many of the more liberal ministers within the various Christian denominations will not regard the Bible as being as infallible as the older tradition would have it, perhaps; but they do regard it as a quite authoritative presentation of what God had in mind. And when these liberal ministers, such as Jim Wolfe, quote from the Bible, they regard that which they quote as pretty authoritative. And, in common with that older tradition, this authoritativeness rests in the whole of the Bible, not just in certain parts or passages of it.

Infallible or not, the Bible is still the authoritative Word of God. It is thus not only authoritative, but also sacred. Period. Finis. End of discussion.

Now, what could be more sacred to both God and Man than the construction of that Sacred Home for God’s Own Ten Commandments, the original Ark of the Covenant that God instructed the Hebrews to build according to his specifications. Pretty heavy stuff, and one would expect God’s instructions to be laden with sacred import, to be both portentous and profound, not simply pompous and arbitrary, right? But when we go to those passages in Exodus that give these instructions, we find God being as persnickety as a Carmel housewife haranguing the contractor who’s constructing her Dream Home. Just consider God’s instructions, as given at great length in Exodus 25:10-40, 26:1-19. A little difference in translation between the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the King James Version is of much interest, import and relevance here. The RSV gives the specific wood specified by none other than God himself to be used in construction as acacia wood, while the King James Version renders the wood to be used as shittim wood. Now, I suppose these specifications of wood are equivalent, but, as the King James has a venerable, hoary tradition in Christianity, I can’t help wondering more about this “shittim wood.” Shittim wood? Shittim wood, and shittim wood alone, to be used for the Ark of the Covenant by God’s Chosen People? Well, I’ve known lots of people who go around acting as though they were God’s Chosen People, but it’s not with these that I associate shittim wood. Because, based on my experience, I always surmised that God’s Chosen People actually shittim bricks!

But leaving that aside, let’s note that the Bible has always been regarded as giving God’s rules for righteous conduct by humans, delineating precisely, through its many stories of the servants of God doing good deeds and acting uprightly, what he expected of each and every one of us, which is, above all, don’t sin, and, especially, don’t commit sins of the flesh. For, as Christianity, as the Rev. Jim Wolfe knows well, has been very much preoccupied with the sins of the flesh and God’s especially wrathful punishment of them, as depicted in the fate of Onan. And among those servants of God who notably stood out as exemplary in God’s eyes was Lot. So, it’s a little surprising to read this little vignette about Lot and its favorable cast, as given in Genesis 19:30-36. (all quotations from the Bible are from the RSV):

Now Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters. And the first-born said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.

But didn’t the Ten Commandments set forth such a definitive list of “Thou shalt nots” that such supposedly immoral sin of the flesh would not be viewed favorably even when done by one of God’s own? That surely, as we now condemn incest and its favorable depiction, would not it be the same with adultery? And as we know, one of God’s own was King David. This is the story given in 2 Samuel 11:

It happened late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking upon the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” So David sent messengers, and took her; and she came to him, and he lay with her.

The story continues on with Bathesheba becoming pregnant by David, David arranging for Uriah to be killed in battle, then marrying Bathsheba after her period of mourning. But while the chapter does end with “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord,” lots of things ended up displeasing the Lord, so this is not an especially bad displeasing. But, along with the story of Lot above, it is an interesting morality play.

And while we’re on sins of the flesh, one of the most abominable, according to both the Old and the New Testaments, is homosexuality. Jim Wolfe tries boldly and eruditely to skirt the prohibition against homosexual sex with an elaborate theological treatise, “It’s Okay to be Gay,” in the March 2005 Indianapolis Peace & Justice Journal, where the non-specialist reader is thrown right into the abyss of theology, translation and interpretation of ancient languages, and reconciling of the traditionally-taught in Christian religion with new insights drawn solely from the realm of the secular. Wolfe states baldly, “It’s okay to be gay. It is neither wrong nor right.” Why? Because “God’s creation underlies all, and the promises of the Gospel are for all.” Somehow I don’t think gay rights activists need a preacher’s approval to continue being themselves and fight for all-inclusive, nondiscriminatory human rights that protect and empower all. And it’s a little presumptuous for the Rev. Wolfe to assume that such reassurances are needed, especially as the conclusion of an arcane theological tract. But as the sign in front of an Indianapolis Baptist church on the North Side put it, “God Discriminated at Sodom,” and that is, indeed, what traditional Christianity and Judaism teach, and have always taught.

Certainly it’s unenlightened. But, as has been true ever since the actual days of the Enlightenment itself, real enlightenment is, first and foremost, secular and irreligious, and the religious gloss of a Jim Wolfe more than a little irrelevant. But I like Jim, and hate it as I might, I just have to say that “It’s Okay to be Gay” is very much filled with self-aggrandizing pietism and religiosity.

But Jim Wolfe means well, and he is concerned, rightly, with advancing the claims of humanity and justice over the war-making prerogatives and presumptions of the state. Trouble is, he doesn’t get much support form the Bible he likes to quote on this either. Consider St. Paul in Romans 13:1-7:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who insist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to a good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you must also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

The same straightforward lack of ambiguity on obedience to the state is found in the Old Testament as well. Exodus 22:28 reads, “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.” Here, the Law clearly and directly links support for the leaders of one’s country to honoring God. But what is Jim Wolfe to make of all this? He went to painstaking lengths in “It’s Okay to be Gay” to uphold the authoritativeness of St. Paul, as well as granting authoritativeness to Scripture generally, albeit with modifications. His article tries, with great attention to detail, etymologies, and precise analysis of specific words and phrasings used at different times, to show that St. Paul and the Scriptures generally, even the Old Law as given in the first five books of the Bible, are not in contradiction, are not antithetical, to his new liberal theology, but, indeed, uphold it.

His elaborate effort was forced then, and must seem even more so when his method there is now confronted with what we just quoted above. For both St. Paul in Romans 13 and the Law of the Old Testament, as given in Exodus 22, agree on this: the political rulers are given their authority directly by God, and are as sacred, as deserving of honor, as God himself, and, like God, are not to be opposed. How can it be clearer? George W. Bush “is God’s servant for your good”! As for the others who, altogether, constitute the forces of the political state, we are admonished, “Pay all of them their dues,” and don’t subvert them, do not deny them “honor” and “respect” through political opposition!

Jim Wolfe might retort, as did the lead article in the December, 2005-January 2006 Indianapolis Peace & Justice Journal, that we are bound by the Gospel to love our enemies, as Jesus so admonished in Matthew 5:44: “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” And the rationale for this is given just momentarily later, in verse 48: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” A nicely impossible set of ideals to meet, but a set given us in earnest by none other than the Redeemer himself. But what the Redeemer gives is in earnest and seriousness, that iconoclastic deflator of all pomposity, the late Frank Zappa, gives us better, through the irony and sarcasm of the We’re Only in It for the Money LP. Love one’s enemies? Of course, for it is stated there on track 1, “I will love everybody. I will love the police as they kick the shit out of me on the street.” [!!!]

Of course, Jesus said the above words early in his ministry, and ended up on the Cross eating them, which is another, equally valid, way than the traditional to interpret Luke 23:34: “And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’” But it is given to the insight of Frank Zappa to really understand. Frank Zappa, who, when confronted with sadistic cops, would never dismiss their brutality with some rueful “they know not what they do.” Too much street smarts for that!

I’ve picked on Jim Wolfe at length here, but what I say applies generally to all his associates in the IPJC. I may call Jim a “Wolfe in ‘Sheesh!’ clothing,” but I can just as readily reference a Haldeman in Sheesh! clothing (actually, two Haldemans in Sheesh! clothing), a Wiles in Sheesh! clothing, a Van Der Linden in Sheesh! clothing, a Washington in Sheesh! clothing, and a Bernie Whitton, a Sue Craig, and a Sr. Rachel West also all in Sheesh! clothing. Indeed, as one who once was deeply active in the IPJC and served on its Board of Directors for several years, I know well, along with others of Indianapolis’s left, the timidity, fear of un-respectability, the begging “Pretty please!” of Power involved in IPJC’s outlook and approach. So much so that one can readily say of the whole of the IPJC itself, that it is, in its totality, nothing but—a flock of Sheesh! And if that kind of blunt honesty doesn’t keep the Wolfe at bay, then what does!