No Sacred Place: Bad Faith, Lies, and Illusions

By ivan hugh walters

No Sacred Place offers a critical study of social injustice done at the behest of law and religion in the context of cultural politics in Christianized societies. Author Ivan Walters theorizes the causes of social injustice and oppression of marginalized peoples as found in the law and Christian theology in both modern and post-modern cultural politics. He advances a theory of redemption through a transgressive discourse that challenges most of the traditional assumptions of Eurocentric Christianity and jurisprudence.

Walters sees law and religion as two powerful, politico-cultural institutions that must be kept in check in order to protect the rights of those who are marginalized by the society. History reveals a litany of horrors that have been perpetrated on marginalized peoples by both religious bigotry and the law.

Through theological and jurisprudential theoretical inquiries, Walters advocates a thesis of at-one-ment through the historical Christus instead of the Christianitys bastardized version of the Christus. His thesis then is grounded in a theory of challenge and resistance to oppression and the advocacy of the possibilities for redemption from oppression.

No Sacred Place challenges the church in particular and society in general to create a new social order and right the wrongs of the current system.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Sep 12, 2011
• ISBN: 9781462048847

ivan hugh walters

Ivan Hugh Walters graduated from the seminary and is now an Episcopalian priest, an educator, and an attorney-at-law. He is a private legal practitioner and a lecturer in law at the Open Campus of the University of the West Indies, Barbados. He resides in Barbados with his three children.

Book preview

PART ONE

A WORK OF HEART

SHOWS HOW MY LIFE HAS BEEN SHAPED AND RE-SHAPED BY MY LITERARY AND LIVED EXPERIENCES BOTH BITTER AND SWEET

CHAPTER ONE

An Introduction: Sanctum Chrisma

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

Took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost (1874–1963)

NO SACRED PLACE: BAD FAITH, LIES AND ILLUSIONS is a critical study of social injustice at the behest of law and religion in the context of cultural politics in Christianized societies. I theorized the causes of social injustice and oppression of marginalized peoples as affected by the law and Christian moral theology in both modern and postmodern cultural politics. On the basis of my perception of the issues, I advance a theory of redemption by way of at-one-ment with the Christos through a transgressive discourse. This discourse challenges several of the traditional assumptions of Eurocentric Christianity and malecentric jurisprudence. I see law and religion as two of the most powerful politico-cultural institutions which must be kept in check in order to protect the rights of those who are marginalized by the society. History reveals a litany of horrors which have been perpetrated on marginalized peoples by religious bigotry and its handmaid, the law. I believe that it is imperative that we guard against the recurrence of these social injustices in the name of religion or for that matter in any other name or cause. Social injustice as a way of life is not an option that should be exercised by anyone in a pluralist democratic society.

When I use the nomenclature ‘Church’ in this book I am referring to that amorphous, motley collection of institutions: denominations, sects, and cults which profess to follow the teachings of the Christos.

When I use the term ‘jurisprudence’ I am referring to the principles of legal theory that examine the application and the close relation of law to the social structure and the ideology that underpins the law. Jurisprudence then is the exploration or speculation as to what the law is about; what was or should be the role of the law and the lawyer in society; whether it was capable of responding to contemporary needs (Freeman, 2001, p.2).

I have identified the sources of the social injustice in the society as legalism and religionism. I have identified the solutions to these problems to be meaningful social structural changes which must be engineered by both the legislature and the Church. In other words, the legislature and the Church as the two sources of the problem also possess the solutions to the problem. They have constructed the social injustices which I have indentified in this book and they are responsible for the deconstruction of those social injustices for the purpose of reconstructing the society on more egalitarian principles of justice.

In the essays which I have included in this book I have explained as clearly as I am able to, the grounds of the opinions which I have had on social, political, and religious matters since my days in the Seminary. As I grow older, I am amazed to find that instead of relenting or attenuating, these opinions have increased in strength and vivacity by the progress of reflection on my literary and lived experiences. It is as though they have reached the stage of maturation and I feel compelled to release them from their juvenile custody.

My main concern or contention is with the legal and moral principles which regulate the social relations of privileged and subordinate groups in the society. I believe arbitrary social inequalities are morally wrong and should be so legally as well. I believe they should be dismantled and replaced by egalitarian, equitable principles which jettison the imbalances in power and privilege in social relations. In this way the marginal status of some social groups can be abolished.

The task which I have undertaken is arduous indeed. The very language which I must use in this book, the several voices, moods, and tones that are deployed to effectively explicate the concepts clearly demonstrate the high intensity of my burden in stating a case for the human rights of the marginalized within the context of the Church in particular and the society in general. My deficit in language is combined with my emotional and spiritual difficulties. This is inevitable in my interrogating the Church to which I am so deeply attached. My burden is made even more onerous to discharge because I am contending with a mass of established sentimentalities which are deeply rooted in privileged malecentric societies. These societies have at their disposal a preponderate weight of legal and theological arguments which can be mounted against my case for the marginalized in the society.

The nemeses which I must confront and dispatch are the patterns of behavior that are rooted in feelings of sentimentality, which according to Mill (1869), even though their foundations are shaken by logical and cogent argumentations, when they are bested they tend to borrow deeper into the feelings of their adherents. I believe the protagonist of freedom should not be put on the defensive but in this situation the antagonist of freedom has the better of the protagonist because he asserts a challenge to feelings that are almost universally accepted. This is the challenge with which I must contend. I am not daunted by the difficulties of my task. I am just cognizant of them.

In pursuit of the main objectives of my contentions in this book with the use of the definitions of church and jurisprudence as stated above as the guide in my discourse, I have critically examined the following:

1.   the unlawful oppression of sexism and heterosexism in Christian theology;

2.   the historical and cultural limitations of Scripture;

3.   priest craft as a systemic masquerade of lies and illusions;

4.   the malecentric underpinning of moral theology by male and heterosexual privileges;

5.   the dynamic construction of the social order;

6.   the irrational basis of the argument for invidious stigmatization of those who are perceived to be the Other on so-called biblical principles supported by social and legal punitive sanctions;

The book will also meet the following objectives:

1.   to challenge the traditional Christian moral theological discourse and myopic malestream jurisprudence;

2.   to advance a theory of redemption from oppression through at-one-ment in the Christos which has implications for the social structure in terms of:

a)   strong legal protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms under the constitution for those who are cast as the Other;

b)   the application of Human Rights Conventions to personal protection;

c)   the right to determine oneself in a pluralist democracy;

d)   the protection of free moral choice in a pluralist democracy;

e)   greater participatory democracy;

f)   public discourse for building of just communities; and

g)   faith that is grounded in the historical Christos.

3.   the resistance to oppression by advancing the thesis that the protection of the dignity and freedom of the individual requires sustain, constant, and vigilant surveillance against the tyranny of the majority through the enactment of appropriate laws.

Through these moral and jurisprudential theoretical inquiries I advocate the thesis of at-one-ment through communion with the historical Christos instead of the Church’s bastardized version of him. The objective of the above pursuits is based on the principle that one must acknowledge and confess one’s sins before one can be reconciled with the Holy Other. My critical approach is not intended to tear down and destroy the Church but to expose its moral wrong doing for the purpose of urging and goading it to the point of metanoia (repentance) for self-transformation and by extension the transformation of the social order.

Theoretical Perspective

The theory of essentialism from a philosophical perspective advocates that epistemology has a set of core values that are permanent, unalterable, and eternal. These so-called core values are found in every society and are relevant ad infinitum for the advancement of humankind. This notion has been applied by theologians, for example, to the biblical record which supposedly proclaims the unalterable and eternal human nature. These conceptions have their origins in the philosophy of Plato’s Timaeus and Philebus which present the demiurge (God) who through his divine feat brought order out of chaos and so created a paradigm that is unalterable and eternal (Genesis 1:1, 15-18). I do not subscribe to the notion of unalterable nature of the cosmos, humankind as portrayed in the Platonic cosmogony because epistemology is socially constructed, and therefore flexible being conceptualizations that are informed by theory and theory is susceptible to change; if theory loses its dynamism then there is a great potential for humankind’s stagnation. This perspective is contrary to theistic beliefs which move from the existence of the world to the postulation of an intelligent creator. As the atheists contend out this is a fallacious argumentation out of blissful ignorance. The line of reasoning that is presented in the argument does not prove the existence of a deity but creates its own set of theoretical difficulties. The several philosophical argumentations that are adumbrated in this area evidence the epistemological limitations of cosmogony. I am rather persuaded that cultural politics is a social construct of a particular social order in particular given historical epoch. The social values of that particular cultural politics change from time to time and are not binding on future generations. My line of reasoning here is patterned on the theory of Social Reconstructionism (Gutek 1997).

The theory of perennialism is not unlike that of essentialism. The former asserts that the important characteristics of human nature are changeless and recurrent. The assertion is based on the Aristotelian premise that human beings are rational creatures. Gutek (1997) explains that metaphysically, the perennialists proclaim the intellectual and spiritual character of the universe and the human place within it. The changeless nature of humankind can be discovered through observation and reason. Social life can be centered round the perennial human characteristics. Perennialism is based on Thomism which is the dominant philosophy that has been associated with the Roman Catholic Church since the Middle Ages. Thomism focuses on religionism with a theistic basis which proclaims a Creator God that is revealed in Holy Scripture. Thomists embrace supernaturalism and find revelation, recorded in the Bible, to be an authoritative source of divinely inspired truth (Gutek, 1997, pp. 51-52). For Thomists humankinds’ ultimate happiness is re-unification with the Creator God from their estrangement which has been accomplished through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Humankinds are free moral agent who can choose or reject the path of salvation. Like Aristotle, Thomists believe humankinds are highly rational creatures and their rationality albeit incomplete is their greatest happiness. Perfect happiness comes after the death of the body when, through the gift of divine elevation, the human experiences an immediate cognitive and affective union with God (Gutek, 1997, p.53).

Postmodernism challenges the optimistic views of perennialism, essentialism, and Thomism. Postmodernism advocates the view that everything we think, all of our experiences, and our aspirations have been handed down to us through the cultural politics that is prevalent in the society in which we were nurtured. In other words, we are environmental products. For example, it is interesting to note that one’s religious practices and beliefs are derived from one’s geographical location in the planet. For this reason the Hindus in India and the Moslems in the Middle East do not look to the Christos as their savior. In the United States there is a multiplicity of religious beliefs and practices due to demographic factors for the most part. However, the Commonwealth Caribbean being former colonial enclaves of Western Europe, the majority of us look to the Christos for salvation because the Western Christian culture was imposed upon our minds as descendants of former African slaves. This Western Eurocentric hegemony is found in all of the agents of our socialization: the home, the school, the religion, and public opinion.

The imposition of Western Christianity was readily acceptable by minds which lack criticality hence its preponderance in the Commonwealth Caribbean. All of our deepest religious beliefs and practices have been inculcated into our minds through our religious upbringing and conditioning in the social context of this particular kind of cultural politics. Therefore, all of our knowledge is culturally bound to a particular historical epoch.

Postmodernism cultivates a healthy skepticism towards easy value judgment on things cultural. In these circumstances, it would be wise to heed postmodernists’ objection when trying to formulate universal or quasi-universal theories of human nature and the development of cultural politics.

The salience of postmodernism that can be gleaned from the foregoing line of reasoning follows inexorably that future generations of humankind can deconstruct any of its social creations so as to make it relevant to current social circumstances. Therefore, the prevailing cultural politics is subject to deconstruction and reconstruction by future generations of humankind ad infinitum. Cultural politics has an inherent dynamism that cannot be contained by social restraints.

The objective of the foregoing theoretical perspective is to explicate the philosophical principles that underpin the transgressive discourse in this book. I have used an eclectic theoretical approach of moral theology and legal philosophy in the crucible of postmodernism and Reconstructionism in order to effectively explicate my thesis. The principles are used separately, interchangeably, and at times they are intermingled. I use this eclectic philosophical approach to do justice to the various subject matters that are discussed in this book: social justice, gender, slavery, hermeneutics, sexuality, homosexuality, gay marriage. Consequently the tone and mood of the narratives will vary according to the subject matter that is being discussed in the particular section. The reader will observe that the tone and mood are sometimes personal and conversational and at other times academic and legalistic. This is almost inevitable because in my discourse I have deployed a critical interdisciplinary approach to the understanding of social justice through the lenses of theology and jurisprudence in a historical, sociological, and political context. As a result, the probity of this critical transgressive discourse treats church cultural politics as inseparable from its social, historical, political, economic, and technological dimensions. So in order to accommodate this colorful flow of the language that is deployed to execute the multiple narratives, the book is subdivided into five sections for easier readability.

I present a narration of my humble beginning, my relationship with the Church, some aspects of my legal professional experiences, and my religio eruditi to make the connection between theory and practice to support and articulate the case which I advocate in this book. These narratives are an integral part of the book because it is through my literary and lived experiences that I am able to theorize my opinion on the meaning of social justice from a theological and a jurisprudential perspective.

Therefore, No Sacred Place: Bad Faith, Lies and Illusions critically examines and analyzes the meaning of social oppression by raising honest questions about religious and legal misdeeds throughout history and their continued negative sociological impact today upon the lives of those who are perceived to be ‘different’ or Other and to celebrate the courage of those who were prepared to take a stance against oppressive religious, social practices, and beliefs; whether their stance was based on legal and/or moral grounds.

My thesis will probe the affinity or the lack thereof between Christianity and Human Rights; and socio-legal oppression through the lens of a critical transgressive theoretical discourse that is sui generis (peculiar to me). This theoretical discourse is adversative to traditional priest craft, moral theological discourse, and malestream jurisprudence. In this discourse I advocate a theory of at-one-ment with the Christos in favor of the oppressed Other. From my personal lived and literary experiences I am clothed with the spirit of the Amicus in the universal conversation against social oppression pro bono publico (for the public good). This perspective is therefore grounded in transgressive oppositional cultural politics.

I have used the Socratic methodology to challenge some of the commonly held religious beliefs, legal practices, and social expectations of society in general for the purposes of exposing the evils which they have and continue to perpetrate against the ‘sinners’ and the ‘outcasts’. My discourse is not a dissimulation of self-righteous indignation. I do not pretend to be a paragon of virtue because my sins are many, but I strive to achieve eudaimonia through metanoia and ethike arête (redemption/happiness through repentance and virtuous living). I strive to imitate the historical Christos.

The book critiques and interrogates the present moral standing of the Church on a number of social and moral issues: ecclesiastical betrayal and derogation of the faith, African slavery, gender, social construction of marriage, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and hermeneutics through theological and jurisprudential theoretical inquiries. From this critique and interrogation I advocate my aforesaid thesis of at-one-ment through the historical Christos instead of the Church’s bastardized version of him. The theology of at-one-ment is to bridge the gap which was brought about by humankind’s estrangement from the Creator. At-one-ment seeks to reconcile the Other with the Holy Other in holy communion. It is the cultivation of positive spiritual and moral values for every person regardless of his/her social standing in relation to other persons. In the Christos the many become one family united in the Holy Other.

The book is inexorably and inextricably grounded in a theory of challenge and resistance to oppression and the advocacy of the possibilities for redemption from oppression. I believe that through this transgressive discourse those who find themselves in the invidious position of being marginalized by both the legal and religious powers of the majority, who have set up their way of life as the standard bearer for all and sundry, can have hope and find freedom. Therefore, I hope to participate in the dismantling of malecentricism’s arbitrary, discriminatory, stigmatization of the way of life of unpopular, marginalized groups. I believe this is imperative in a pluralist democratic social order, the right of self-determination encompasses free, autonomous moral agency.

To demonstrate and underpin the significance of the sociological implications of my thesis, I have written in detail about my experiences, contemplations, and ruminations on some of the troubling issues which have preoccupied, watched and beset my philosophical and moral theological reflections for many years since my days in the Seminary. My reflections and theoretical perspectives evolved out of my experiences as a child growing up in the ghetto of Grays Farm in the City of St. John in Antigua; my later experiences as a seminarian searching after truth and spiritual revelation during my four-year sojourn at the Seminary; and the path my life followed subsequent to my graduation from the Seminary in 1983.

I wish to point out here to my readers that although this book presents some autobiographical details, I do not write herein about myself because I wish to make me the subject of my writing but because my experiences are the gateways to my writing. These are gates which I have to unlock before I can even think of writing about anything else. I can unlock these gates by sharing aspects of my experiences with my readers so that they may see where I am coming from and why I have taken the road less traveled by. I wish my readers to understand that I must first deal with me, by coming to terms with me in the light of both my lived experiences and my literary experiences. I can actualize this dream by sharing a part of me with my readers, albeit that it makes me vulnerable.

It follows then that throughout this book I will be theorizing through the lenses of my experiences using a critical praxis and I invite my readers to theorize with me along the road that is less traveled by and this I believe can make all the difference in our lives. This of course would mean living dangerously on the philosophical and theological edge. This is the keen life of the mind that is sharper than a two edge sword. So I am inviting my readers to travel with me on an unusual spiritual journey through my life as a ghetto child, my life as a seminarian, and my life as a moral theoretician in pursuit of spiritual and intellectual freedom.

In Pursuit of Spiritual and

Intellectual Freedom

In pursuance of my thesis as enunciated above, I wish to consider and explore the concept of Sapere aude, incipe which is Emmanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) great call; meaning dare to know, to be wise, and have courage to use your own understanding. I believe this is the attitude, the posture, and approach that is appropriate to my transgressive theoretical discourse for the road less traveled by. Sapere Aude was used by Kant in his essay: An answer to the question: What is Enlightenment? In his essay Kant describes the Enlightenment as man’s release from his self-induced tutelage. Kant uses Sapere Aude as his charge and challenge to his readers to encourage and instruct them to follow a program of intellectual self-liberation; the tool for which is the reader’s Reason. The essay is a shrewd political challenge, suggesting that the mass of domestic cattle have been bred by unfaithful stewards not to question or challenge what they have been told by their overlords. They were expected to demonstrate a keen sense of servility. Kant’s pronouncements were made in the context of the practices of Christianity in the nineteenth century. According to Kant, it is only through the courage of individuals who make the determination to follow Sapere Aude incipe that the shackles of despotism will be broken, and revealed through public discourse for the benefit of both the population and the state; the better methods of governance and/or the discovery of legitimate complaints.

Foucault (1984) in a reply to Kant’s argument presents a philosophical demurer in an essay which he too entitled, What is Enlightenment? In his challenge to the Kantian views, he rejects much of Kant’s hopeful political content of a people ruled by Sapere Aude. Foucault instead suggests that the people should make use of the critical tools of their own Reason. Foucault uses the term critical ontology to explicate his concept of Sapere Aude. But Foucault’s views are not that far removed from Kant’s: a difference without a distinction.

Foucault (1984) too, however, establishes his vision of Sapere Aude in a definitive practice. Instead of a mere theoretical doctrine, it becomes the attitude and ethos of the individual. By this he means a philosophical life in which the individual critiques what he is. This attitude, the ethos, uses reason as a tool to start a historical criticism of the limits of the rules that are imposed on the individual. This is seen as an experimental exercise in the possibility of going beyond those limits. The limit-experience is both an individual act and one that breaks apart the concept of the individual all together.

The original use of Sapere Aude seems to have come from Horace’s first book of Epistles. The principle which he espoused is: Dimidium facti qui coepit habet: sapere aude, incipe (He who has begun is half done: dare to be wise, begin at once!). It can also be translated in this context to mean Dare to be wise. The phrase also forms the moral to a story where a fool (naive person) waits for the stream to stop before crossing it. He who has begun is half done. Dare to be wise. This is a loose translation of the phrase. The meaning of the phrase makes the salient point that the longest journey begins with the first step forward. The same line of reasoning is applicable to self-liberation, that is, it commences with the first acknowledgement that the individual is in need of redemption. Horace’s words emphasize the value of human endeavor, of persistence in reaching a goal and of the need for effort in overcoming obstacles. But the salient point is that it must commence with your taking the first step.

In this book I am using Sapere Aude to mean dare to be your own master. The citizen who is the master of his/her mind can engage in critical thinking and reflection on the unfair social practices of his/her society. When critical thinkers combine their social and political powers they have the capability to dismantle social injustice and the imagination to construct a new social order. This process must begin with the conversion of the individual to his own self-liberation. I believe that if we truly know ourselves we will become the architect of our own destiny through the use of own reason; we will be the captain of our souls. We will become our own liberator. This is my living thesis. It is my charter for sailing life’s turbulent ocean. This must be the attitude, the ethos of each of us. We must choose this day who we will serve. We must as renewed persons in the Christos bring challenges to the corrupt social order in our public discourse to all of the practitioners of social injustice and demand from them an account of their stewardship. Sapere Aude, incipe for me is an integral part of the transgressive discourse in critical moral theology and critical jurisprudence that are focused on the liberation of the mind.

I therefore, concur with Kant’s (1784) discourse on the subject that the unfaithful stewards have planted in the minds of men and women the seeds of servility in a manner that is not too dissimilar from the breeding of domestic cattle. Those whose thoughts are contrary to that of the stewards will be whipped back into their respective places: Don’t think, just follow orders. This is the way in which military discipline, political power, and religious authority are executed. But our immaturity is due to our self-induced indolence. We are debilitated by our intellectual lassitude. We are more comfortable having other persons think for us because critical thinking is such a Herculean burden. We prefer to be domesticated rather than to be liberated. Kant (1784) gives three examples of this immaturity as being when we allow a book (the Bible) to take the place of our understanding; when a spiritual director (priest, bishop) takes the place of our conscience; and when we let a doctor decides for us what our diet should be. In these situations we are not required to do anything for ourselves because everything is being done for us. Immaturity is purged (the coming of enlightenment) when the individual is empowered by taking control of his will and his authority through the exercise of his own reason. The illegitimate use of reason results in dogmatism and heteronomy; but the legitimate use of reason results in autonomy.

Kant (1784) makes an important distinction on which I concur between the private affairs (unum) and the public affairs (pluribus) of humankind’s endeavors. While people may be educated for domesticity in the private sphere, i.e. the payment of taxes, the same modus operandi cannot be used for education in the public sphere because the emphasis here is on liberation. I believe the unum, the idiotic education must be replaced by the pluribus of the public discourse. The line of reasoning that can be gleaned from Kant’s distinction is, for example, a priest who is in charge of a congregation does so under the direction of a bishop and is obliged to follow the strict teachings of the Church because this is what he has agreed to do when he is acting in that capacity. In his private communication with the congregation his teachings may perpetuate the domestication of the congregation. But a priest who acts in his scholastic capacity is under no such obligation in his public communication. He is not obliged to follow the direction of the bishop in his public communication and he is free to pursue his own thoughts on any religious subject for the purpose of bringing enlightenment to the public for their liberation. By his liberatory conversation in the public sphere the priest is fulfilling his civic duty.

According to Kant this is the nature of the constraint that is placed upon a priest who is in charge of a congregation and when he acts in that capacity. The priest’s conformity to the religious symbolism of his faith is consistent with his moral duty to his bishop and his congregation. Kant (1784) states further:

He will say, Our church teaches this or that and these are the demonstrations it uses. He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical uses from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with complete conviction, but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake, since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them, and, in any case, nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them. If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them, he could not in good conscience serve in his position; he would have to resign (p.3).

Kant (1784) contrasts this position of the priest in his private domestic responsibility to his congregation with the responsibility of the priest/scholar in the public sphere:

Thus an appointed teacher’s use of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private, because, however large the congregation is, this use is always only domestic; in this regard, as a priest, he is not free and cannot be such because he is acting under instructions from someone else. By contrast, the cleric—as a scholar who speaks through his writings to the public as such, i.e., the world—enjoys in this public use of reason an unrestricted freedom to use his own rational capacities and to speak his own mind. For that the (spiritual) guardians of a people should themselves be immature is an absurdity that would insure the perpetuation of absurdities (p.3).

The salient point which Kant (1784) argues for here is the freedom of the priest/scholar to bring enlightenment to the world; this is what he means by enlightenment through sapere aude. Through the constructive use of their freedom of thought and expression, venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world’s scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol (p.4).

I believe a priest who does not hold any official position in the Church has even greater freedom to criticize and dissent from the official religious position. Through his scholarly conversations and writings he can bring enlightenment to the human predicament and gradually raise humankind from their intellectual barbarism.

I believe that this is the proper posture of the priest/scholar, however, such a priest would have to choose the road less traveled by because I envision that he will be misunderstood by many, including his peers and his overseer. But this is a difficulty with which the priest/scholar must abide. It is his sapere aude incipe. It follows then that the focus of the priest/scholar is on liberatory education as opposed to domesticatory education and as such I am obliged to use a heuristic methodology to optimize my learning objectives for the empowerment of my educands.

In Search of Salvific Theory

After my years of sojourn in the academic wilderness and spiritual upheavals at the Seminary, I have come to theorea to knock at its door to state a case and to plead for answers to what I perceived to be a troubled, confused world of inherent contradictions. I have frequently soliloquized whether this is this the best possible world that divine feat could have created. I have come to theorea because I have been hemorrhaging from the pain within me. I was hurting from intense pain because my religious experience has caused me such unsettling discomfort. I had thought the Church was a good and wholesome organization that practices love, peace, fellowship, genuine forgiveness, and reconciliation; but alas! My faith was shattered when I came to the realization that many of the men and women in these institutions are just indolent brigands who practice a false piety to woo the unsuspecting penitent. I wanted to defy my discovery because it disharmonized my intellectual and spiritual balance and threw me into disarray. So I came to theorea seeking answers; to seek felicity (eudaimonia) through the cultivation of ethike arête (virtuous character). But my naiveté was exploded during my theological pursuits. My spirituality was strewn like a collection of marbles on the marbled altar of authoritative power.

This was the state of mind in which I left the Seminary and it was this that goaded me into seeking alternative ways of thinking and being. I have been seeking to make sense of the world in which I live through theorea to satiate my quest for a better life through enlightenment; to assuage my intellectual and spiritual wonderings, to rescue me from the spiritual wilderness. I believe theory can help and has helped me to resolve some of my intellectual and spiritual difficulties. But my spiritual quest has not been satiated. I know that a religious person would say, Christ, not theory is the answer, but that is an over simplification of the many hard questions which daily bombard my mind. If there were magical answers, a silver bullet if you like, all the problems of the world would have been fixed already. I found Aristotle and he told me that perfect happiness is a life dedicated to theorea (a life of the mind).

Consequently, I found myself in the invidious predicament of subscribing to an unorthodox philosophy which most persons in my station would frown upon.

Theorizing From the Fulcrum

of My Experiences

Theory plays a crucial role in helping me (us) to make sense of my (our) confused world with all of its contradictions. I am not alone in this belief. hooks (1994) eloquently describes how theory saved her life. I came to theory because I was hurting–the pain within me was so intense I could not go on living. I came to theory desperate, wanting to comprehend–to grasp what was happening around me and within me. Most importantly, I wanted to make the hurt go away. I saw in theory a location for healing (p.59). Poster (1989) also expresses the view that: . . . critical theory springs from an assumption that we live amidst a world of pain, that much can be done to alleviate that pain, and that theory has a crucial role to play in that process (p.3).

The salient point which is made here by these two writers and which I wish to emphasize from my own experiences is that theory can be used to alleviate pain and suffering in the world. Theory provides a rationalization of our experiences in the world so that we can put them in a context that allows us to cope with life’s contradictions. Brookfield (2005) believes: Theorizing–generating provisional explanation that help us understand and act in the world–helps us breathe clearly when we feel stifled by the smog of confusion. We theorize so that we can understand what’s happening to us and so that we can take informed actions (p.4).

The point is if I can understand the world through theorization then I will be able to change it. Theorizing alleviates the pains of life which is bloated with contradictions which are brought about by human misconduct. We must also bear in mind that theorizing is not the sole province of academics. Ordinary folks do theorize about their experiences in life. This simply means that theorizing is done at various levels of human existence as a methodology for problem solving.

Therefore, I can only write out of my own literary and lived experiences (whether they be sweet or bitter) which have shaped my perception of the world and the way in which I relate to the world: my fears, my desires, my sorrows, my ambitions, my hope for a better day. There must always be a hope for a brighter tomorrow in order to live through today. I can generate hope by taking control of the chaotic waters of my life. I believe Baldwin (1998) expresses the idea much better than I can:

One writes out of one thing only–one’s own experience. Everything depends on how relentlessly one forces from this experience the last drop, sweet or bitter, it can possibly give. This is the only real concern of the artist, to create out of the disorder of life that order which is art (p.8).

The difficulty which I will face in writing from the fulcrum of my experiences is that it has the potential to create personal disaffection due to salacious identity politics. However, I must not allow this concern to prevent me from theorizing from my experiences. This is the salience of my writing, therefore I must articulate my narrative from this perspective despite the many challenges. Through my reflection and writing I believe that I can become a co-creator with the divine logos; creating order out of disordered pieces of life; my life; your life. I believe that in reflecting on my literary and conundrum life experiences, I must be able to discern some order or divine perspective for my journey of life through theorizing from these experiences for the liberation of me and the Other through the historical Christos. My spiritual challenge is bringing the Other into communion with the Holy Other.

Even though theorizing offers a way of understanding, I concur with Baldwin’s (1998) view that all theories are suspect in so far as they do not provide final and absolute answers. Life is dynamic and the only thing that is constant is change and being changed. Consequently, while theorizing may provide solutions to the current problems, it is always in need of constant revision:

I think all theories are suspect, that the finest principles may have to be modified, or may even have to be pulverized by the demands of life, and that one must find, therefore, one’s own moral center and move through the world hoping that this center will guide one aright (p.9).

The salience of this view is that one must find one’s own moral compass to guide one through life.

An approach that is contrary to Baldwin’s (1998) would mean surrender one’s will to another person which can only result in a life of futility. Find your own moral compass and work out your own salvation from that point with fear and trembling because you are the captain of your soul, the master of your destiny (sapere aude, incipe) in your quest for the Holy Other.

What I write in this book is my perception of the world through my lived and literary experiences; the materials herein have been filtered through my understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures, history, politics, social expectations, and the law. Some aspects of what I have written have a touch of creative fiction for the purpose of making a certain point which will be made clear as the discourse unfolds. This makes my discourse as indicated above sui generis, meaning that it is peculiar to my perception and experience of the world which I dare to share with the world.

I see my life as a journey towards something that I do not understand but in my approaching it, I am being made a better person. I am, as if I were, being processed. I can see the road on which I am traveling; I can feel it beneath my feet but where it will take me I do not know. However, I struggle daily against meaninglessness, against diseases, oppression, against disempowerment, against madness, against my sins. My journey throws up both bitter and sweet experiences. It seems as though I cannot have the yang without the yin; it is from the balancing of the bitter and the sweet of my experiences that I derive my chi, my life’s energy which flows from God to me. I conceive of God as a means of liberation and not as a means to control the minds of others. As the Christos said he came to set at liberty those who are oppressed and that they might have life more abundantly. This I claim. I do not conceive love the way some people do as love is a battle or a war for me. Love is growing up into maturation with my fellow humans with all of its usual attendant conflicts and with God through the Christos.

I subscribe to the view that the society was constructed from social blocks which have become infected with corruption for various reasons; and that it can be deconstructed through theoretical demolition, and reconstructed with new social blocks that are made of equitable principles of fairness and justice. I believe that it is the Church through fidelity to the historical Christos that can make this a reality.

Devaluation and Degradation

The religio-legal rationale for unjustified suffering across the board whether caused by malecentricism, economic inequality, heterosexism, or religious bigotry has been weighed in the balance and found lacking. These social and political axes of oppression find succor in the religious and legal systems that were fashioned in a system of slavocracy that continues to inform and direct our lives even in postmodern societies. These are the axes of social oppression that are challenged in this book on behalf of the Other.

Therefore, some of the traditional assumptions of the Church are stoutly and rigorously challenged through the lens of my transgressive theoretical discourse. I advance a critical theoretical analysis which examines the tendency of religion and law to treat persons who are different or unpopular with devaluation and degradation of their human worth. It is this tendency, this designation of the Other with subordination that is brought to the fore in this discourse.

My thesis then is grounded in a theory of challenge and resistance to oppression and the advocacy of the possibilities for redemption from oppression, so that those who find themselves in the invidious position of being marginalized by both the legal and religious powers of the majority which have set up their way of life as the standard for all and sundry will not die of despair. In this way, I hope to participate in the dismantling of the arbitrary, discriminatory, stigmatization of unpopular, marginalized groups. In a pluralist democratic society, tolerance, the right of self-determination and free moral choice are fundamental corner stones of such a system.

A Voice of Challenge and Dissent

My thesis is the presentation of an advocacy of challenge to the beneficiaries of the present social order and some of their taken for granted assumptions in relation to the interconnections that are shared by law, morality, and religion. The challenge is executed through the medium of a critical, analytical examination of the inter-spaces at the intersections of cultural politics, law, education, and moral theology where they insidiously combine their forces in the perpetration and perpetuation of social injustice. The cut and thrust of my thesis converge at these perennial intersections where malecentric ideologies are interrogated and pressed out in the interest of social justice and a greater participatory inclusive democracy.

In this book I am fully cognizant that I am speaking in a voice that cuts against the traditional grain; a voice that is generally unacceptable, heretical; but one which I none-the-less believe should be explored both in the academy and in everyday living. Mine is a voice that does not pander, promote, or advocate any religious brand; I do not seek to proselytize anyone but I believe that this voice has a narrative that should be shared with and explored by people in general. The voice in this narrative is frequently personal because I believe in order to expose that which is injurious in religious practices as well as that which is wholesome in the same, I must be candid about my own religious experiences. This makes me extremely vulnerable because I am constrained to disclose some of my own painful religious experiences so as to make the voice in this narrative comprehensible, authentic, and pragmatic. The voice of the narrative raises questions about good and evil, social justice, the progress of humankind. It is a voice of dissent. It is a wrestling with the ultimate purpose, the vocation of finite human beings to the propagation of equal social value, to reconciliation, and love: eros, philos, and agape.

I believe that if I am to do justice to the voice of my narrative I must extricate myself from that which is ‘normal’ and that makes my discourse transgressive. Transgressive cultural politics theory is a critical analysis of malecentric social and political practices as manifested in traditional jurisprudence and moral theology in search of a deeper understanding of human beings, the nature of law, social institutions, and the construction of a better morality. This voice is essentially a remonstration against malecentric ideology and cultural politics.

Separation of legal and moral rules

The book examines the principles of the traditional theory of natural law which propounds the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers as set by the divine law (lex divina). The natural law is based on the notion that the foundations of law are accessible through human reason and it is from laws of nature that positive law gains its legitimacy and legal force. This view is rejected by legal positivism and I concur with this position.

Consequently, I contrast the theory of legal positivism with the theory of natural law because it denies that there is any necessary inherent connection between law and morality. The force of law comes from some basic social facts, although positivists differ on what those facts are. The discourse is conducted in the context of general political theory which makes a differentiation between law and morality. The overarching objective is the advancement of a postmodern theory of transgressive cultural politics which is skewed to the propagation of justice and human rights. This theory views law and morality as largely institutions of contradictions because they are the expressions of the policies which are formulated and promulgated out of the divided interest of the dominant groups in the society to the detriment of those minority groups who are the Other in the society. The policy goals take effect in law, supported by morality, are essentially malecentric and divisive.

The book therefore focuses on some practical aspects of the social activities to which religious and legal rules are applied in modern living as a combined force to create, wrongly, a particular kind of rigid conformist social order to the detriment of those who are the Other. This is a kind of social apartheid which is detrimental to those who do not buy into the regular malecentric ideology of Western Eurocentric hegemony. As socio-political institutions, legal rules, and moral rules reflect and support certain values which are promulgated as right for the social order which they seek to protect in the interest of ‘all members’ of the society. These rules are not necessarily as consensual or disinterested as they pretend to be. They result from the views of those who have arrogated to themselves the right to impose their views on others. These are the so-called guardians of the social, political, and moral order of society. When both legal rules and moral rules are examined from this critical perspective the inescapable political nature of law and religion is denuded.

In many instances the moral teachings of the Church are underpinned by the law in spite of the supposed separation of Church and state in some jurisdictions. This is so because traditionally, the Church has had a profound influence on the making of laws due to the historical connection between Church and Monarch during the so-called period of Christendom theocracy when the world was ruled by the Church. While the law has diverged from religion, there still exists some religious sentimentality or convergence which is secreted in and underpins many of the laws and so obfuscates the real purpose of the law in society: to do justice for all and sundry. The law leans in favor of traditional Christian morality when it should be morally neutral to competently administer justice in a pluralist democracy. It follows inexorably that equal social justice will only become a reality when the law vacates and divorces itself from moral theology and malecentric ideology.

Caveat Emptor

The reader having read my musings so far must by now have come to the realization that this book is not intended for the faint-hearted, fundamentalists, and gullible Christians. Readers who fall in these categories are advised not to proceed any further with the reading of this book because it becomes more riotous in the pages ahead. If you choose to continue, you do so at your own religious peril. Since I owe no allegiance to any religious institution, I will write freely without any fear of being censored or expurgated for heresy, immorality, or otherwise. I will speak the unbridled truth as I perceive it to be. This is my disclaimer as I write my thoughts herein without any responsibility for the sensitivity of soft minded Christians and other persons with similar soft religious sensibilities–caveat emptor.

Of course, I will attempt to be as philosophically sophisticated as possible so as not to be too indelicate, but I will not cloak my truth, nor play the harlot with it. The reader may find my writing to be unbridled and brutal at times but I do not see how I can be otherwise without becoming perfidious or pusillanimous. What is written herein is a transgressive discourse on moral philosophical and theological issues with an overarching jurisprudential perspective as I perceive the issues. I am not teaching Sunday school.

Purple Stole

My ruminations and reflections in this book have their origin in the interplay between my theological-philosophical dissonance-resonance relative to some aspects of institutionalized Christianity and its deep seated contradictions, inconsistencies, and misrepresentations. Perhaps institutionalized religion has outlived its usefulness in a postmodern world because postmodernism has belied religious mystique, moral tenets, and absolute dogmatic authority of this otherwise decadent, passive institution.

I can already anticipate the torrent of inveigh which will flow from my detractors and antagonists for the position that I have taken herein. I know that I will lose many of the few friends I have. This I do not mind; but yet I do mind, but I am determined to stand by what I believe to be the truth as I perceive it to be. However, I will approach the subject matters herein with some degree of caution because I recall that not so long ago a good friend of mine who knows my story told me that I should be more circumspect because one, one, blow jus’ kill ol’ cow. He knows that I have gotten my share of blows and somebody else’s. Be that as it may, my conscience obliges me to tell the truth as I understand it despite the consequences. The wood cutter must pay attention to the main task of cutting logs and not worry about small chips. I am obliged to give jack his jacket because it is his and also to give jackass his harness because he has earned it.

And here I look for the thunder because it is sure to come as night follows day. Now then give me my bottle of wine for the libation of my wondering thoughts; my wondering soul so that I might numb their sensation and brace myself for the avalanche, the inundation of me; for woe is me because I am a man of unclean lips. Who shall deliver me from this body of sin?

I know that I am not a prophet, nor am I a prophet’s son but I am who I am. I am, and I have been, and I shall continue to be the servant (diakonos) of truth, justice, and righteousness without shrieking, without fear, and without favor. In this principle I believe there is true valor and s/he who would bear witness