There is no question that the Godhead we inherited from Christian tradition is way overdue for an overhaul. The old group just doesn’t play well in our tech-savvy, glamor-drenched culture anymore. So instead of trying to put new clothes on a doddering emperor, I thought it was time to make nominations for an updated deity, one we believers don’t have to apologize for. So here are my votes for a new and improved Trinity:
To replace our archaic Father Who Art in Heaven, I select Jon Stewart. He comes across as smarter than the incumbent and doesn’t need a beard to photograph well. But where Stewart has it hands-down over the Ancient of Days is his sense of humor. Steward employs passionate insincerity, sarcasm, and flippant remarks to make his points and crush his enemies. Yahweh is just too heavy-handed and pedantic to score many points today. Steward would fill his slot with impressive style and would keep the Godhead’s ratings up. The Daily Show would be the new Our Daily Bread.
To take over the role of the Logos, I nominate Bono. Jesus still gets kudos for a job well done (nobody could do the cross thing better—Jesus nailed it), but his vibe’s gotten too sentimental for modern tastes. Bono has some of the the same agenda as Jesus does but is much hipper going about it. Bono knows the value of a rock band and four-letter words. And unlike Jesus, Bono knows how to hob-knob with political big shots and get great press. (The Queen recently appointed Bono to be an honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.) Granted, Jesus does dominate the book market, but let’s face it, nobody reads anymore. The future is definitely iPod. The new Gospel? U2 can be saved.
Without a doubt the conservative love-goddess Ann Coulter is the choice to replace the Holy Spirit. She’s sexier by far, which should be good enough for nearly everybody. (And talk about a tongue of fire!) Even women believers should have no trouble submitting to her leading. Beyond that, Coulter’s positions on issues, though often crass, are refreshingly categorical and clear—more than we can say for our invisible and notoriously elusive Counselor. Besides, it’d be great to have a Helper who was really nice to look at for a change. Being invisible is so yesterday.
So there you have it, my nominations for a new Godhead. I think they’d work much better than the current crop. We’d finally have a Deity we wouldn’t have to be ashamed of and whose bloody history and global mismanagement we wouldn’t have to try to explain. Not only that, with Coulter on the team, I know my prayer life would improve almost immediately. I surrender all, baby.
8 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
you know fred, i have been reading your blog with more interest lately. as you know i think highly of your insight, gift for words, and no holds barred honesty. that goes a long way with me. but something has slipped. i can’t quite help but feel you that you have regressed from slinker back to stinker. the word that screams to mind is bitter. and with the bitterness and anger comes an ossified creativity; re-posts, the lame cliched half-hearted offerings like “fragility”… and even lamer shots at bono or john stewart. your art is starting to get SMALL. what if God WAS in a rod stewart song? what if john stewart really was a tool in the hand of the Almighty? what if Bono was doing his level best with the talents entrusted to him?
i know for me, when the eyes of my heart are closed, it is best to put down the pen.
WOW, there i was writing that comment thinking about another comment some woman had made a long long time ago about a lack of joy in your writing. i was going to reference it, but thought i’d never find it… and then i posted my comment and noticed an “automatically generated” related post–”Mulled Whine”. i clicked on it and lo and behold was the very post i had been thinking about…
i was also aware as i wrote that comment that part of the reason i have been reading your posts with greater interest is they have been a mirror onto my own heart. i certainly have recognized an echo of my own anger and absence of joy.
last fall i opened a fortune cookie and it read: “when the daffodils bloom, so will great joy in your life.” i’m not into horoscopes or fortunes, but that one felt like God.
so here’s to us fred, may this spring we find ourselves surprised by joy.
Normally I don’t discuss the rationale behind the writing becuase I want the piece to stand or fall on its own merits. But since you’re both a faithful and sensitive reader, eutychus, I will briefly reply to your comments.
I grant that my material can push the boundaries of typical religious writing. I often violate the “no-talk” rule and tend to challenge the “sacred” spaces of Western Christendom. However, I would ask you to look at the actual objects of my attention. They are not the truly, Bibilcally sacred, but our attitudes and assumptions about them. This is true even of the “God is Dead” piece which, far from attacking God, is addressing the Western demotion of God into a well-meaning but doddering old fool.
My “rants” are carefully considered and precisely callibrated for maximum effect. Whether or not I accomplish that is another matter, and I welcome all criticism to that end. I am not quite willing to accept that my stuff is indicative of a lack of joy or confidence in the Deity of Scripture. But that is another topic I’m sure I’ve addressed somewhere in the Totally Baked files.
I don’t ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt, but I do request that you keep reading and commenting.
i should think about this some more before i respond, but instead i will probably just respond.
i think, maybe, you misunderstood my criticism. i am quite aware that you weren’t attacking God… my criticism was that, in a backhanded way, you were attacking John Stewart, Bono, and Ann Coulter. (two of whom i have a great deal of respect for. i am sure you can figure out which two.) and for the record, i am the most irreverent person i know. if i had a criticism for you, is that you don’t challenge what is considered “sacred” enough. i believe most modern Christianity will be judged (historically speaking) the same way modern Christianity judges the Pharisees and Sadducees. and i believe much of what Christians see as evil will have turned out to be the work of the Holy Spirit. i think, as Christians, our “modern” understanding of God is about to be challenged to as significant a degree as the Jews were challenged by Jesus being the fulfillment of Messianic expectations. in fact i think it is already happening, and i think many Christians are demonstrating their inability to recognize Jesus. (i would go so far as to say i think the Christian Right has been deceived by satan.)
so if i have a criticism is that you haven’t stepped far enough out of the box in challenging our attitudes and assumptions about what is Biblically sacred. your challenges ultimately feel pinched, puritanical and dogmatic. you feel like a bitter holdover from some past generation, unwilling to let go of your own self-hatred. as i write this i am reminded of Lawrence Durrell’s criticism of T.S. Eliot (via the character Pursewarden) in the final novel of the Alexandria Quartet, Clea… “His honesty of measure and his resolute bravery to return to the headsman’s axe is a challenge to us all; but where is the smile? He induces awkward sprains at a moment when we are trying to dance!”
David Suzuki, Chuck Palahniuk, The Warchowski Brothers, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and yes, George Carlin… these are the prophets of our times. It is a sad inditement of Christianity that so many of them are atheists.
…or perhaps this is just another thinly veiled self-flagellation of my inability to escape the desiccating imprisonment of my own faith.
“Am I wrong to turn to the fearful prohibitions listed in Leviticus for an explanation of the manic depressive fury of Plymouth Brethren and a host of other dismal sectarians?”
-Lawrence Durrell, Clea.
I would assert that the post is most definitely not an attack on the three candidates for Godhead but rather aimed at our deification of such personalities, to which my defense still applies. Why bite the hand that feeds me?
I would assert that you often “bite the hand that feeds you.” and i would suggest it is rather disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
Uh, yeah. Disingenuous is sort of the working principle of satire. Nothing’s worse than sincerity misplaced. Hmmm. Maybe I’M visiting the wrong blog. . . .