The Gospel: Lucy and Linus style.

A cartoon was emailed to me recently showing Lucy and Linus having an argument. Lucy was characterized as a “liberal” and Linus as a “conservative.” The cartoonist humorously put words in their mouths to reflect contemporary issues. Employing irony to make the point, Lucy stands exposed in the final frame as highhandedly inconsistent in her liberal stance. The forwarded email is entitled, “Will Liberals get the Irony.”

Actually, the essence of irony--what makes it juicy--is the hidden assumptions behind it. I saw the humor, but there was more behind the scene than the surface irony. I noticed several layers of irony. When I pointed out to my emailer some of the assumptions, unspoken but lurking behind both Lucy’s and Linus’ humorous proclamations, he responded that only I could dissect a simple cartoon in such a manner.

On reflecting over this interchange, and as I find myself reading a 750 page tome by a theologian (E. Schillebeeckx) dissecting the New Testament, the starkness of my religious “liberalism” (akin to Lucy’s political liberalism) compared to “fundamentalism” (Linus by analogy) mirrors my reaction to Charlie Brown's cohorts.

Just as I saw more in the cartoon than jumps out in the ironic last frame, Schillerbeeckx takes the Bible, verse by verse, to show how the Christian Church’s creedal positions are a composite of a variety of developing Christologies seeded but usually unnoticed in the New Testament. Dogma, as handed to us, is the filtered form of what had not “set up” yet in the minds of those who knew and experienced Jesus.

Modern Christian Fundamentalism similarly is a surface reflection of lush ingredients, useful for sincere, straight-ahead Christians who find inspiration in tightly woven handouts. My own inspiration is not excited this way. I can’t get past the “hidden assumptions” that stand un-presented for inspection. I find “dissecting” provides the flavor and spice of the real scriptural food.

I understand “Fundamentalism”; I was raised in it. It is a shortcut to truth. For some it is good passage to God, but for me it does not bridge the gap. To me Fundamentalism is a flat version that hides a lot. In reality, the Bible is a rich pasture of hillocks, streams and vantage points. A vegetarian diet does not sufficiently nourish my particular metabolism. Surface irony is good for light moments. When more is demanded, the message crinkles.

The humor of the Lucy/Linus conversation would be spoiled if they had seriously questioned each other’s assumptions. Likewise,the creedal one-liners of Fundamentalism seem sadly flippant when the depth of biblical understanding is unfolded. Surface treatment of the Bible is fine for those who shop at Kmart or Ross — I, too, find useful items there (when it comes to spending money, I am cheap). But when I want quality products that hold up under pressure, and do the job better, I patronize the specialty stores (and read 750 page books). Theology-lite can dissolve tension, but theology-3D is more heartening. Do you get the irony, Lucy?