The Gospel According to Biff: Pedagogical Uses of Satire
By Joseph Laycock
Christopher Moore’s Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, is a satirical novel about the life of Christ. The narrator is Jesus’s sarcastic childhood friend Levi, also known as Biff. The two grow up together in Galilee and Biff typically refers to his friend as Joshua or just “Josh.” Lamb parallels to stories about Jesus told in Gospels with an added twist: In order to learn more about his mission as savior, Josh and Biff travel to Asia to seek out the three magi, who are in fact a Taoist master, a Tibetan rinpoche, and a Hindu sadhu. After these adventures, Josh and Biff return to Jerusalem and the more familiar story of Jesus resumes. The most notable difference from the Jesus of the Gospels is the total lack of prophesy. Moore’s messiah is interested in loving one’s neighbor and not in the eschaton.
Although Moore is not a scholar, Lamb represents a significant amount of research on both the Biblical world and Asian religions. In addition to being a best seller, Lamb has been assigned in several college courses on the New Testament and at least one Bible study group. While the academy is engaged in the production of knowledge, artifacts of pop culture are increasingly becoming the medium by which this knowledge is disseminated. Many Americans now know about the Church of Latter Day Saints and Scientology only by their portrayals on South Park. With a low rate of religious literacy, even Christianity is known to many Americans only through the filter of pop culture. Innovative religious leaders have already begun to adapt to this situation. Controversial “Indie Rock” minister Mark Driscoll begins his book Vintage Jesus by describes Jesus as portrayed by South Park and Mind of Mencia before citing any scripture: Driscoll knows his audience has more familiarity with Comedy Central than with the Gospels. I propose that non-sectarian educators can effectively utilize popular satire too.
Learning from satire is not necessarily a bad thing. As a genre, satire actually offers several advantages to a discussion of religion. A weakness is that it presents rhetorical obstacles to understanding religious claims that are different from the views of the satirist. One of the marks of a great educator is the ability to turn weaknesses into strengths. Lamb presents a good case study in how this might be done. I argue that Moore offers a useful introduction to religious ideas in a format that is pleasurable and lowers the reader’s intellectual defenses. Meanwhile, the weaknesses of the text are reflective of the entire Western enterprise of comparative religion. By discussing these underlying assumptions, Lamb can also lead to a fruitful discussion of the theoretical dimensions of the study of religion––an area that students are sometimes reluctant to engage in.
Lamb and the Genre of Satire
Matthew Hodgart in his theory of satire notes that it is not a well-defined category, but rather a convenient expression that covers a variety of literary works. The essence of satire is that it combines “aggressive denunciation” with “aesthetic features, pleasing to the spectator.” Lamb can be called a satire because it does contain an aggressive element. However, the book’s denunciation is not directed at a specific person or group, but rather at the state of humanity and the world it occupies. According to Hodgart, “The perennial topic of satire is the human condition itself.” Specifically, Lamb falls within Hodgart’s framework as a “fantastic narrative,” a sub-species of satire exemplified by Candide and Gulliver’s Travels. (Moore describes an encounter between Jesus and a Yeti in Tibet. If this is not a fantastic narrative, I do not know what is).The fantastic narrative is one of the least polemical forms of satire because the aggressive element is diffused into a denunciation of almost everything.
It should also be noted that satire is not necessarily irreligious and has been used to convey religious truths. Jewish culture, in particular, has made effective use of satire. In fact, there are very interesting parallels between Lamb’s two Jewish protagonists and the comedic tropes of the shtetl tradition: the schlemiel and the schlemazl. The first character, the schlemiel, is described by Ruth R. Wisse as a fool, a loser, someone, “out of step with the march of events.” But by being a fool, the schlemiel challenges the status-quo. Wisse gives a typical example of this character:
“The Battle of Trannenberg was at its height when a Czarist officer drew up his company and addressed them, “The moment has come! We’re going to charge the enemy. It’ll be man against man in hand to hand combat.” In the company was a Jewish soldier who was not fond of the czar or his war. “Please sir, show me my man.” he cried, “Perhaps I can come to an understanding with him.”
At first glance, readers of Lamb will note that this is precisely the sort of comment that Levi might make. However, the schlemiel’s is not actually sarcastic; rather it is indicative of a genuine inability to understand war. Joshua, not Levi, is the schlemiel. When Joshua is escorting a caravan that is attacked by bandits, he shows his inability to understand combat by resurrecting a slain opponent. Joshua also does not understand sarcasm––Levi must explain it to him. And when Joshua sets out for Asia, Mary insists that he take a more street-wise companion with him.
Wisse explains that Jews in the early 20th century, “used the schlemiel as the model of endurance, his innocence a shield against corruption, his absolute defenselessness the only guaranteed defense against the brutalizing potential of might.” Moore reminds us of this role when Levi is helping Joshua write the Sermon on the Mount. Levi asks, “Come on, Josh, why can’t we have any powerful guys on our team? Why do we have to have the meek, the poor, the oppressed, and the pissed on? Why can’t we, for once, have blessed are the big powerful rich guys with swords?” Wisse argues that the schlemiel is the Jewish loser as winner. Moore’s adaptation of this trope reminds us that in the Christian tradition, Jesus is the ultimate loser as winner.
The schlemazl is also a loser, but in a different way. Jay Boyer writes that, “The schlemazl tries to integrate more information than he should. Try as he might to hold one set of beliefs fixed in his mind, try as he might to maintain one logical superstructure, new information bombards him. He cannot revise quickly enough to keep up with events.” Levi, who discovers theories of both gravity and evolution in the course of his travels, is the consummate schlemazl. The fate of the schlemazl is to fail despite doing everything that his culture says he must do to succeed. Despite Levi’s ingenuity, political savvy, training in explosives, poisons, and kung-fu skills, he is unable to prevent Joshua’s death on the cross. Moore’s alignment with the shtetl tropes may be deliberate, or it may it may be an unintended side-effect of writing comedy with Jewish characters. I include it here, because it reminds us that satire has traditionally been used to explore religious themes––especially theodicy.
Pedagogical Strengths and Weaknesses of Satire
Satire has two features that are relevant to the pedagogy of religion: first, it works to lower the tension experienced discussing unpleasant concepts. Second, it places logic above other types of claims. Used correctly, both of these features can lead to a richer discussion of religion. Hodgart writes that,
True satire demands a high degree both of commitment to and involvement with the painful problems of the world, and simultaneously a high degree of abstraction from the world. . . . The tension and bitterness evoked by unpleasant personal relationships are transmuted into delight at the creation of a beautifully absurd figure, which is both like and unlike the subject.
This element of simultaneous commitment and abstraction may help students to have earnest discussions about anxiety-producing topics. Traditionally, Americans have been taught that religion is not a polite topic of conversation. Tension may cause students to suspend judgment or to fall back on relativism when discussing other religions. This tension has been especially difficult in New Testament studies, where Christian students are frequently uncomfortable and defensive when asked to consider alternate interpretations of their sacred texts. The pleasurable elements of Lamb may serve as a sort of mental lubricant allowing for a less painful entry into historical criticism. Moore’s narrative allows us to imagine an alternative perspective of the scriptures, but because Lamb is patently ridiculous, the ideas presented are less threatening. Of course, satire remains an inherently aggressive genre, which always has the potential to offend when combined with religion. This was starkly demonstrated in 2006 when a Danish newspaper published cartoons featuring Mohammed. However, I was not able to find a Christian group that has expressed offense at Lamb.
Hodgart also writes that, “The general drift of satire is to reduce everything to simple terms: the appeal is always to common sense, plain reason, and simple logic.” This feature of satire is evident in Lamb where common sense is the measure by which Joshua passes judgment on various religions: the reader is not compelled to agree with Joshua out of respect for revelatory charisma, but rather out of sympathy for his common-sense assessment of the situation.
The drawback is that by prioritizing logic, satire presents an obstacle to understanding another religion on its own terms. The claims of religion, which are often transcendent, are not given a fighting chance within satire. This is probably why, as Edward and Lilian Bloom have noted, satire was the weapon of choice in polemical battles between Protestant sects for much of European history. At the same time, religion scholars also privilege logic over religious claims. A frank discussion with students of these rules of engagement can lead to a better understanding of the difference between the study of religion and the practice of religion.
For example, Joshua and Levi’s journey is delayed by an enormous wall, which they dub “the ostentatious and unpleasant wall of China.” This critique of the Great Wall ultimately extends into a critique of Taoism and even Chinese culture as being too passive. Most students reading this story can easily see why the Great Wall of China was a valid project within a cultural value system of China. At the can see Joshua and Levi as outsiders making a “common sense” criticism of this project. The ability to understand two different worldviews simultaneously is not only foundational to the study of religion but, ideally, something that all educated people should be able to do.
Finally, I argue that it is precisely because of its insistence on logic that satire has come to be a medium of religious literacy in modern society. Many young people may be more inclined to trust the claims of a satirist than a missionary for an accurate assessment of a religious tradition. As an educator, I believe that young people are more sensitive to insincerity than adults. The satirist is trusted to expose every weakness, while the missionary is assumed to present the rosiest picture possible.
Practical Uses of Lamb
Moore provides a thorough description of the research that went into Lamb: In addition to the canonical gospels, he also draws on The Gospel of Thomas and other apocrypha. He read relevant historical and archaeological research on Jewish tradition under Roman rule and even visited Israel in order to create more accurate descriptions of the novel’s landscape.
Moore does an excellent job of depicting the various factions and cultures that would have influenced Jesus’ world. In the first section of the novel, Levi and Joshua encounter Greeks, Romans, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, a Sicarii, and a Cynic philosopher. These historical elements are imbued with a quality of apprehension because they have been given a face and incorporated into a narrative. For this reason, Lamb would be an excellent choice for a secondary or undergraduate course on the New Testament.
Lamb’s second act, in which Joshua studies under the three magi could provide useful fodder for an introductory course on world religion or Asian philosophy. Lamb provides some basic vocabulary for the study of world religions andcites the major texts of Asian traditions such as The Tao te Ching, The Baghavad Gita, and The Upanishads. Joshua and Gaspar the rinpoche also engage in a detailed conversation comparing the Buddhist idea of the Boddhisattva with the Jewish concept ion of the messiah, providing a useful demonstration of interfaith dialogue.
James R. Lewis in his book Legitimating New Religions has written on the history of “Jesus-in-India” narratives, which he describes as a pseudo-tradition unto itself. He demonstrates how each individual who has perpetuated this story has done so to legitimate their own brand of spirituality. Moore is guilty of this too, and juxtaposing Lamb with Lewis’ chapter on Jesus in India could make for a very interesting discussion. More importantly, the role of the educator in using Lamb must be to point out the book’s assumptions about religion:
1) that there is an “essence” of religion
2) that the teachings of the Gospels are somehow superior to other religions
3) that religious traditions can be easily bifurcated into good and bad practices.
In an interview with Christianity Today, Moore stated that, “Faith and religion are different things.” This idea, which is shared by many students, corresponds to a view of pluralism in which all religions share “an essence” of truth couched within a cultural tradition that is more or less arbitrary. Lamb can be read as the story of Joshua extracting this essence from Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. This is a decidedly modern undertaking. In fact, many undergraduates take religion courses as part of their own process of extraction.
Because Jesus is the protagonist of the story, this model of pluralism leads to a teleological view of world religions as waiting to be perfected in Christian teachings. Taoism is flawed, but teaches Joshua the importance of action; the Buddhist concept of the bodhisattva is the inspiration for the command to love thy neighbor as thy self; the Hindu caste system exists to teach Jesus that gentiles must be welcome in the kingdom of heaven; and the cult of Kali convinces Jesus that God does not desire sacrifices. It should be remembered that this method of exploring other religions by emphasizing their similarities to Christianity was once the reigning paradigm of comparative religion, exemplified by the first World Parliament of Religions in 1893.
Finally, any use of Lamb must address Moore’s treatment of Hinduism, which is poor. Stephen Prothero has written on the American reception of Hinduism and noted that at least since Ralph Waldo Emerson, Americans have tended to celebrate ancient Hindu texts, while condemning lived Hindu practices. Moore fits this pattern perfectly. In India, Joshua learns yoga from Melchior the sadhu and the Hindu concept of Atman ultimately serves to inform his understanding of the Holy Spirit. However, Joshua and Levi must also lead a rebellion of untouchables to rescue children from being sacrificed to Kali. The rescue involves Levi interrupting the ritual disguised as the goddess and announcing, “I am Kali! Goddess of destruction and all this disgusting crap you have here!” When this fails, he stops the sacrifice using hand-grenades made using Chinese alchemy. After this adventure, Levi says of Hindus, “Whatever they might believe, in practice their religion is hideous.” Moore’s understanding of the cult of Kali was informed by Joseph Campbell, who in turn is drawing on “eye witness reports” from British soldiers. This is an excellent way to introduce students to source criticism.
Certainly, Lamb has some pedagogical pitfalls. However, educators can turn these weaknesses into strengths. The assumptions about other religions that Moore brings to Lamb are the same assumptions that American students bring to religion classes and that educators work so hard to challenge. By questioning these assumptions in the seemingly innocuous genre of satire, it may be possible to challenge them without making students feel defensive.
References
Breshears, Gerry, and Mark Driscoll. Vintage Jesus: Timeless Answers to Timely Questions. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2007
Hodgart, Matthew J. C. Satire: Origins and Principles. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 2010.
Lewis, James R. Legitimating New Religions. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2003.
Marshall, Nathaniel, Edward A. Bloom, Lillian D. Bloom, and Anthony Collins. A Discourse Concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing (1729). Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, 1970
Moore, Christopher. “Christianity Today Interview” Christianity Today Magazine, 2002. Available online at < http://www.chrismoore.com/christianity_today.html> (Retrieved 10 July 10, 2010).
Moore, Christopher. Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. New York: Perennial, 2003.
Prothero, Stephen. “Hinduphobia and Hinduphilia in U.S. Culture.” In Anna Lannstrom (editor) The Stranger's Religion. Notre Dame, In: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004: 13-37.
Wisse, Ruth R. The Schlemiel As Modern Hero. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Ziv, Avner, and Anat Zajdman. Semites and Stereotypes: Characteristics of Jewish Humor. Contributions in ethnic studies, no. 31 . Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1993.
Joseph Laycock taught high school for three years and is now teaching undergraduates as a doctoral candidate at Boston University. He was written on a wide variety of topics including religion in schools, Christian evangelicalism, and vampires.
Christopher Moore’s Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, is a satirical novel about the life of Christ. The narrator is Jesus’s sarcastic childhood friend Levi, also known as Biff. The two grow up together in Galilee and Biff typically refers to his friend as Joshua or just “Josh.” Lamb parallels to stories about Jesus told in Gospels with an added twist: In order to learn more about his mission as savior, Josh and Biff travel to Asia to seek out the three magi, who are in fact a Taoist master, a Tibetan rinpoche, and a Hindu sadhu. After these adventures, Josh and Biff return to Jerusalem and the more familiar story of Jesus resumes. The most notable difference from the Jesus of the Gospels is the total lack of prophesy. Moore’s messiah is interested in loving one’s neighbor and not in the eschaton.
Although Moore is not a scholar, Lamb represents a significant amount of research on both the Biblical world and Asian religions. In addition to being a best seller, Lamb has been assigned in several college courses on the New Testament and at least one Bible study group. While the academy is engaged in the production of knowledge, artifacts of pop culture are increasingly becoming the medium by which this knowledge is disseminated. Many Americans now know about the Church of Latter Day Saints and Scientology only by their portrayals on South Park. With a low rate of religious literacy, even Christianity is known to many Americans only through the filter of pop culture. Innovative religious leaders have already begun to adapt to this situation. Controversial “Indie Rock” minister Mark Driscoll begins his book Vintage Jesus by describes Jesus as portrayed by South Park and Mind of Mencia before citing any scripture: Driscoll knows his audience has more familiarity with Comedy Central than with the Gospels. I propose that non-sectarian educators can effectively utilize popular satire too.
Learning from satire is not necessarily a bad thing. As a genre, satire actually offers several advantages to a discussion of religion. A weakness is that it presents rhetorical obstacles to understanding religious claims that are different from the views of the satirist. One of the marks of a great educator is the ability to turn weaknesses into strengths. Lamb presents a good case study in how this might be done. I argue that Moore offers a useful introduction to religious ideas in a format that is pleasurable and lowers the reader’s intellectual defenses. Meanwhile, the weaknesses of the text are reflective of the entire Western enterprise of comparative religion. By discussing these underlying assumptions, Lamb can also lead to a fruitful discussion of the theoretical dimensions of the study of religion––an area that students are sometimes reluctant to engage in.
Lamb and the Genre of Satire
Matthew Hodgart in his theory of satire notes that it is not a well-defined category, but rather a convenient expression that covers a variety of literary works. The essence of satire is that it combines “aggressive denunciation” with “aesthetic features, pleasing to the spectator.” Lamb can be called a satire because it does contain an aggressive element. However, the book’s denunciation is not directed at a specific person or group, but rather at the state of humanity and the world it occupies. According to Hodgart, “The perennial topic of satire is the human condition itself.” Specifically, Lamb falls within Hodgart’s framework as a “fantastic narrative,” a sub-species of satire exemplified by Candide and Gulliver’s Travels. (Moore describes an encounter between Jesus and a Yeti in Tibet. If this is not a fantastic narrative, I do not know what is).The fantastic narrative is one of the least polemical forms of satire because the aggressive element is diffused into a denunciation of almost everything.
It should also be noted that satire is not necessarily irreligious and has been used to convey religious truths. Jewish culture, in particular, has made effective use of satire. In fact, there are very interesting parallels between Lamb’s two Jewish protagonists and the comedic tropes of the shtetl tradition: the schlemiel and the schlemazl. The first character, the schlemiel, is described by Ruth R. Wisse as a fool, a loser, someone, “out of step with the march of events.” But by being a fool, the schlemiel challenges the status-quo. Wisse gives a typical example of this character:
“The Battle of Trannenberg was at its height when a Czarist officer drew up his company and addressed them, “The moment has come! We’re going to charge the enemy. It’ll be man against man in hand to hand combat.” In the company was a Jewish soldier who was not fond of the czar or his war. “Please sir, show me my man.” he cried, “Perhaps I can come to an understanding with him.”
At first glance, readers of Lamb will note that this is precisely the sort of comment that Levi might make. However, the schlemiel’s is not actually sarcastic; rather it is indicative of a genuine inability to understand war. Joshua, not Levi, is the schlemiel. When Joshua is escorting a caravan that is attacked by bandits, he shows his inability to understand combat by resurrecting a slain opponent. Joshua also does not understand sarcasm––Levi must explain it to him. And when Joshua sets out for Asia, Mary insists that he take a more street-wise companion with him.
Wisse explains that Jews in the early 20th century, “used the schlemiel as the model of endurance, his innocence a shield against corruption, his absolute defenselessness the only guaranteed defense against the brutalizing potential of might.” Moore reminds us of this role when Levi is helping Joshua write the Sermon on the Mount. Levi asks, “Come on, Josh, why can’t we have any powerful guys on our team? Why do we have to have the meek, the poor, the oppressed, and the pissed on? Why can’t we, for once, have blessed are the big powerful rich guys with swords?” Wisse argues that the schlemiel is the Jewish loser as winner. Moore’s adaptation of this trope reminds us that in the Christian tradition, Jesus is the ultimate loser as winner.
The schlemazl is also a loser, but in a different way. Jay Boyer writes that, “The schlemazl tries to integrate more information than he should. Try as he might to hold one set of beliefs fixed in his mind, try as he might to maintain one logical superstructure, new information bombards him. He cannot revise quickly enough to keep up with events.” Levi, who discovers theories of both gravity and evolution in the course of his travels, is the consummate schlemazl. The fate of the schlemazl is to fail despite doing everything that his culture says he must do to succeed. Despite Levi’s ingenuity, political savvy, training in explosives, poisons, and kung-fu skills, he is unable to prevent Joshua’s death on the cross. Moore’s alignment with the shtetl tropes may be deliberate, or it may it may be an unintended side-effect of writing comedy with Jewish characters. I include it here, because it reminds us that satire has traditionally been used to explore religious themes––especially theodicy.
Pedagogical Strengths and Weaknesses of Satire
Satire has two features that are relevant to the pedagogy of religion: first, it works to lower the tension experienced discussing unpleasant concepts. Second, it places logic above other types of claims. Used correctly, both of these features can lead to a richer discussion of religion. Hodgart writes that,
True satire demands a high degree both of commitment to and involvement with the painful problems of the world, and simultaneously a high degree of abstraction from the world. . . . The tension and bitterness evoked by unpleasant personal relationships are transmuted into delight at the creation of a beautifully absurd figure, which is both like and unlike the subject.
This element of simultaneous commitment and abstraction may help students to have earnest discussions about anxiety-producing topics. Traditionally, Americans have been taught that religion is not a polite topic of conversation. Tension may cause students to suspend judgment or to fall back on relativism when discussing other religions. This tension has been especially difficult in New Testament studies, where Christian students are frequently uncomfortable and defensive when asked to consider alternate interpretations of their sacred texts. The pleasurable elements of Lamb may serve as a sort of mental lubricant allowing for a less painful entry into historical criticism. Moore’s narrative allows us to imagine an alternative perspective of the scriptures, but because Lamb is patently ridiculous, the ideas presented are less threatening. Of course, satire remains an inherently aggressive genre, which always has the potential to offend when combined with religion. This was starkly demonstrated in 2006 when a Danish newspaper published cartoons featuring Mohammed. However, I was not able to find a Christian group that has expressed offense at Lamb.
Hodgart also writes that, “The general drift of satire is to reduce everything to simple terms: the appeal is always to common sense, plain reason, and simple logic.” This feature of satire is evident in Lamb where common sense is the measure by which Joshua passes judgment on various religions: the reader is not compelled to agree with Joshua out of respect for revelatory charisma, but rather out of sympathy for his common-sense assessment of the situation.
The drawback is that by prioritizing logic, satire presents an obstacle to understanding another religion on its own terms. The claims of religion, which are often transcendent, are not given a fighting chance within satire. This is probably why, as Edward and Lilian Bloom have noted, satire was the weapon of choice in polemical battles between Protestant sects for much of European history. At the same time, religion scholars also privilege logic over religious claims. A frank discussion with students of these rules of engagement can lead to a better understanding of the difference between the study of religion and the practice of religion.
For example, Joshua and Levi’s journey is delayed by an enormous wall, which they dub “the ostentatious and unpleasant wall of China.” This critique of the Great Wall ultimately extends into a critique of Taoism and even Chinese culture as being too passive. Most students reading this story can easily see why the Great Wall of China was a valid project within a cultural value system of China. At the can see Joshua and Levi as outsiders making a “common sense” criticism of this project. The ability to understand two different worldviews simultaneously is not only foundational to the study of religion but, ideally, something that all educated people should be able to do.
Finally, I argue that it is precisely because of its insistence on logic that satire has come to be a medium of religious literacy in modern society. Many young people may be more inclined to trust the claims of a satirist than a missionary for an accurate assessment of a religious tradition. As an educator, I believe that young people are more sensitive to insincerity than adults. The satirist is trusted to expose every weakness, while the missionary is assumed to present the rosiest picture possible.
Practical Uses of Lamb
Moore provides a thorough description of the research that went into Lamb: In addition to the canonical gospels, he also draws on The Gospel of Thomas and other apocrypha. He read relevant historical and archaeological research on Jewish tradition under Roman rule and even visited Israel in order to create more accurate descriptions of the novel’s landscape.
Moore does an excellent job of depicting the various factions and cultures that would have influenced Jesus’ world. In the first section of the novel, Levi and Joshua encounter Greeks, Romans, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, a Sicarii, and a Cynic philosopher. These historical elements are imbued with a quality of apprehension because they have been given a face and incorporated into a narrative. For this reason, Lamb would be an excellent choice for a secondary or undergraduate course on the New Testament.
Lamb’s second act, in which Joshua studies under the three magi could provide useful fodder for an introductory course on world religion or Asian philosophy. Lamb provides some basic vocabulary for the study of world religions andcites the major texts of Asian traditions such as The Tao te Ching, The Baghavad Gita, and The Upanishads. Joshua and Gaspar the rinpoche also engage in a detailed conversation comparing the Buddhist idea of the Boddhisattva with the Jewish concept ion of the messiah, providing a useful demonstration of interfaith dialogue.
James R. Lewis in his book Legitimating New Religions has written on the history of “Jesus-in-India” narratives, which he describes as a pseudo-tradition unto itself. He demonstrates how each individual who has perpetuated this story has done so to legitimate their own brand of spirituality. Moore is guilty of this too, and juxtaposing Lamb with Lewis’ chapter on Jesus in India could make for a very interesting discussion. More importantly, the role of the educator in using Lamb must be to point out the book’s assumptions about religion:
1) that there is an “essence” of religion
2) that the teachings of the Gospels are somehow superior to other religions
3) that religious traditions can be easily bifurcated into good and bad practices.
In an interview with Christianity Today, Moore stated that, “Faith and religion are different things.” This idea, which is shared by many students, corresponds to a view of pluralism in which all religions share “an essence” of truth couched within a cultural tradition that is more or less arbitrary. Lamb can be read as the story of Joshua extracting this essence from Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. This is a decidedly modern undertaking. In fact, many undergraduates take religion courses as part of their own process of extraction.
Because Jesus is the protagonist of the story, this model of pluralism leads to a teleological view of world religions as waiting to be perfected in Christian teachings. Taoism is flawed, but teaches Joshua the importance of action; the Buddhist concept of the bodhisattva is the inspiration for the command to love thy neighbor as thy self; the Hindu caste system exists to teach Jesus that gentiles must be welcome in the kingdom of heaven; and the cult of Kali convinces Jesus that God does not desire sacrifices. It should be remembered that this method of exploring other religions by emphasizing their similarities to Christianity was once the reigning paradigm of comparative religion, exemplified by the first World Parliament of Religions in 1893.
Finally, any use of Lamb must address Moore’s treatment of Hinduism, which is poor. Stephen Prothero has written on the American reception of Hinduism and noted that at least since Ralph Waldo Emerson, Americans have tended to celebrate ancient Hindu texts, while condemning lived Hindu practices. Moore fits this pattern perfectly. In India, Joshua learns yoga from Melchior the sadhu and the Hindu concept of Atman ultimately serves to inform his understanding of the Holy Spirit. However, Joshua and Levi must also lead a rebellion of untouchables to rescue children from being sacrificed to Kali. The rescue involves Levi interrupting the ritual disguised as the goddess and announcing, “I am Kali! Goddess of destruction and all this disgusting crap you have here!” When this fails, he stops the sacrifice using hand-grenades made using Chinese alchemy. After this adventure, Levi says of Hindus, “Whatever they might believe, in practice their religion is hideous.” Moore’s understanding of the cult of Kali was informed by Joseph Campbell, who in turn is drawing on “eye witness reports” from British soldiers. This is an excellent way to introduce students to source criticism.
Certainly, Lamb has some pedagogical pitfalls. However, educators can turn these weaknesses into strengths. The assumptions about other religions that Moore brings to Lamb are the same assumptions that American students bring to religion classes and that educators work so hard to challenge. By questioning these assumptions in the seemingly innocuous genre of satire, it may be possible to challenge them without making students feel defensive.
References
Breshears, Gerry, and Mark Driscoll. Vintage Jesus: Timeless Answers to Timely Questions. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2007
Hodgart, Matthew J. C. Satire: Origins and Principles. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 2010.
Lewis, James R. Legitimating New Religions. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2003.
Marshall, Nathaniel, Edward A. Bloom, Lillian D. Bloom, and Anthony Collins. A Discourse Concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing (1729). Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, 1970
Moore, Christopher. “Christianity Today Interview” Christianity Today Magazine, 2002. Available online at < http://www.chrismoore.com/christianity_today.html> (Retrieved 10 July 10, 2010).
Moore, Christopher. Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. New York: Perennial, 2003.
Prothero, Stephen. “Hinduphobia and Hinduphilia in U.S. Culture.” In Anna Lannstrom (editor) The Stranger's Religion. Notre Dame, In: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004: 13-37.
Wisse, Ruth R. The Schlemiel As Modern Hero. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Ziv, Avner, and Anat Zajdman. Semites and Stereotypes: Characteristics of Jewish Humor. Contributions in ethnic studies, no. 31 . Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1993.
Joseph Laycock taught high school for three years and is now teaching undergraduates as a doctoral candidate at Boston University. He was written on a wide variety of topics including religion in schools, Christian evangelicalism, and vampires.
