CLOTHES MAKE THE (WO)MAN
In the Pauline letters a new rhetorical aspect of body is presented with the imagery of
being clothed with a person, with Christ or a new a[nqrwpo" (Gal 3:27; Rom 13:14; Col
3:10; Eph 4:24). While body and clothing imagery was well-known in the ancient
Mediterranean world, the picture of putting on a person is new with these passages.
Clothing has implications for movement and identification, but there is also interweaving
between body, mind and clothing related to how humans present themselves,
how they interact socially, how they are empowered morally and politically, and how
they produce rhetorical and political discourse. This essay offers a socio-rhetorical
interpretation of the texts that speak of being clothed with a person, considering the
implications for those who become so clothed. This clothing refashions bodies with new
religious, social and political roles. Refashioned bodies become agents of social
change. The new clothing makes new persons and a new social reality.
Dress code for heaven? Exploring the textures of the parable of the Royal Wedding Feast (Matt 22:1–14)
The Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast (Matt 22:1–14) concludes with the troubling scene of an individual being cast out into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth—because this person is not wearing wedding clothes! This is powerful “rhetography” using graphic imagery for rhetorical purposes. To explore what this Parable might imply regarding a “dress code for heaven,” Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (SRI) as formulated by Vernon Robbins is employed to consider the inner, inter-, socio-cultural, ideological and sacred textures of the Parable. Analysis of each of these textures contributes to my thesis that the expulsion of an individual from the wedding feast may be for the well-being of the community, especially “little ones.” This is the focus of concern in the Community Discourse (Matt 18) where the only other “king” parable in Matthew’s Gospel occurs and the king is associated with the heavenly Father (18:35). In my interpretation of Matthew 22:1–14 the king is also understood to represent God. Inner texture analysis draws attention to Matthew 22:11–13 as an act of expulsion of an individual (cf. Matt 18:15–17) rather than of separation of the good and the bad at the end of the age (cf. Matt 13; Matt 25). In intertexture explorations parallels are drawn between Matthew 22:13 and the angel of healing, Raphael, being commanded to bind the fallen angel Asael by the feet and hands and to cast him into the outer darkness (1 Enoch 10). In analysis of the social and cultural texture of the Parable I recognise the importance of honour in the first-century world but note that the Gospel of Matthew exhibits a counter-cultural attitude to honour. Therefore, I argue that expulsion of an individual concerns more than dishonouring the king by failing to dress in clean clothes. Ideological texture analysis of this Parable and its interpretations is undertaken from my social location as an Anglican priest in a church where “little ones” have been sexually abused and religious leaders have not taken sufficient responsibility for their well-being. Consideration of sacred texture categorises this Parable as primarily prophetic rhetoric (rhetorolect) directed at the religious leaders and insiders of first-century Judaism. I argue that the Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast continues to address religious leaders and insiders rather than little ones or those on the margins. This provokes the question of how the criticism Jesus levels at the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23) and the teaching on community discipline Jesus provides to the disciples (Matt 18) applies to the church today, especially with respect to allegations of child
Shoeless Joe: Fantasy and the Humor of Fellow-Feeling
In his essay on Jean Paul Friedrich Richter, Thomas Carlyle writes of a humor that manifests itself in smile rather than laughter. "Richter is a man of mirth," says Carlyle, whose humor is "capricious . . . quaint . . . [and] heartfelt" (15). The three adjectives represent for Carlyle the essence of what he terms "true humor" because they suggest Richter's enormous respect for humanity. "True humor," he goes on to say, "springs not more from the head than from the heart; it is not contempt, its essence is love; it issues not in laughter, but in still smiles, which lie far deeper" (17). These smiles are not Hobbesian smirks of superiority1 but genuine signs of compassion for, sympathy toward, and empathy with the object of the humor. Carlyle further provides a direct link between humor and both pathos and nobility; the link is the smile of the caring man. For Carlyle, this smile is one of "fellow-feeling":