Bono's Remarks to the 2006 National Prayer Breakfast

. . . I remember how my mother would bring us to chapel on Sundays… and my father used to wait outside. One of the things that I picked up from my father and my mother was the sense that religion often gets in the way of God.

For me, at least, it got in the way. Seeing what religious people, in the name of God, did to my native land… and in this country, seeing God’s second-hand car salesmen on the cable TV channels, offering indulgences for cash… in fact, all over the world, seeing the self-righteousness roll down like a mighty stream from certain corners of the religious establishment…

I must confess, I changed the channel. I wanted my MTV.

Even though I was a believer.

Perhaps because I was a believer.

I was cynical… not about God, but about God’s politics.

Then, in 1997, a couple of eccentric, septuagenarian British Christians went and ruined my shtick—my reproachfulness. They did it by describing the Millennium, the year 2000, as a Jubilee year, as an opportunity to cancel the chronic debts of the world’s poorest people. They had the audacity to renew the Lord’s call—and were joined by Pope John Paul II, who, from an Irish half-Catholic’s point of view, may have had a more direct line to the Almighty.

‘Jubilee’—why ‘Jubilee’?

What was this year of Jubilee, this year of our Lords favor?

I’d always read the Scriptures, even the obscure stuff. There it was in Leviticus (25:35)…
‘If your brother becomes poor,’ the Scriptures say, ‘and cannot maintain himself… you shall maintain him… You shall not lend him your money at interest, not give him your food for profit.’

It is such an important idea, Jubilee, that Jesus begins his ministry with this. Jesus is a young man, he’s met with the rabbis, impressed everyone, people are talking. The elders say, he’s a clever guy, this Jesus, but he hasn’t done much… yet. He hasn’t spoken in public before…
When he does, is first words are from Isaiah: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,’ he says, ‘because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.’ And Jesus proclaims the year of the Lord’s favour, the year of Jubilee. (Luke 4:18)

What he was really talking about was an era of grace—and we’re still in it.

So fast-forward 2,000 years. That same thought, grace, was made incarnate—in a movement of all kinds of people. It wasn’t a bless-me club… it wasn’t a holy huddle. These religious guys were willing to get out in the streets, get their boots dirty, wave the placards, follow their convictions with actions… making it really hard for people like me to keep their distance. It was amazing. I almost started to like these church people.

But then my cynicism got another helping hand.

It was what Colin Powell, a five-star general, called the greatest W.M.D. of them all: a tiny little virus called A.I.D.S. And the religious community, in large part, missed it. The one’s that didn’t miss it could only see it as divine retribution for bad behaviour. Even on children… Even fastest growing group of HIV infections were married, faithful women.

Aha, there they go again! I thought to myself Judgmentalism is back!

But in truth, I was wrong again. The church was slow but the church got busy on this the leprosy of our age.

Love was on the move. Mercy was on the move. God was on the move.

Moving people of all kinds to work with others they had never met, never would have cared to meet… Conservative church groups hanging out with spokesmen for the gay community, all singing off the same hymn sheet on AIDS… Soccer moms and quarterbacks… hip-hop stars and country stars… This is what happens when God gets on the move: crazy stuff happens!
Popes were seen wearing sunglasses! Jesse Helms was seen with a ghetto blaster! Crazy stuff. Evidence of the spirit. It was breathtaking. Literally. It stopped the world in its tracks.

. . . Look, whatever thoughts you have about God, who He is or if He exists, most will agree that if there is a God, He has a special place for the poor. In fact, the poor are where God lives.

. . . God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house… God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives… God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war… God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them . . . It’s not a coincidence that in the Scriptures, poverty is mentioned more than 2,100 times. It’s not an accident. That’s a lot of air time, 2,100 mentions. [You know, the only time Christ is judgmental is on the subject of the poor.] ‘As you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.’ (Matthew 25:40). As I say, good news to the poor.

. . . From charity to justice, the good news is yet to come. There’s is much more to do. There’s a gigantic chasm between the scale of the emergency and the scale of the response.
And finally, it’s not about charity after all, is it? It’s about justice. Let me repeat that: It’s not about charity, it’s about justice. And that’s too bad.

Because you’re good at charity. Americans, like the Irish, are good at it. We like to give, and we give a lot, even those who can’t afford it.

But justice is a higher standard. Africa makes a fool of our idea of justice; it makes a farce of our idea of equality. It mocks our pieties, it doubts our concern, it questions our commitment.
6,500 Africans are still dying every day of a preventable, treatable disease, for lack of drugs we can buy at any drug store. This is not about charity, this is about Justice and Equality. You know, think of those Jewish sheep-herders going to meet the Pharaoh, mud on their shoes, and the Pharaoh says, “Equal?” A preposterous idea: rich and poor are equal? And they say, “Yeah, ‘equal,’ that’s what it says here in this book. We’re all made in the image of God.”

. . . Preventing the poorest of the poor from selling their products while we sing the virtues of the free market… that’s a justice issue. Holding children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents… That’s a justice issue. Withholding life-saving medicines out of deference to the Office of Patents… that’s a justice issue. And while the law is what we say it is, God is not silent on the subject.

http://www.ausprayernet.org.au/feature/feature_articles_02.php

Take the Power Back - Rage Against the Machine

In the right light, study becomes insight
But the system that dissed us
Teaches us to read and write
So called facts are fraud. They want us to allege and pledge
And bow down to their God. Lost the culture, the culture lost
Spun our minds and through time. Ignorance has taken over
Yo, we gotta take the power back!

Bam! Here's the plan************* Uncle Sam.
Step back, I know who I am
Raise up your ear, I'll drop the style and clear. It's the beats and the lyrics they fear
The rage is relentless. We need a movement with a quickness
You are the witness of change. And to counteract
We gotta take the power back

The present curriculum. I put my fist in 'em
Eurocentric every last one of 'em. See right through the red, white and blue disguise
With lecture I puncture the structure of lies. Installed in our minds and attempting
To hold us back. We've got to take it back

Holes in our spirit causin' tears and fears. One-sided stories for years and years and years
I'm inferior? Who's inferior? Yeah, we need to check the interior
Of the system that cares about only one culture. And that is why
We gotta take the power back

The teacher stands in front of the class. But the lesson plan he can't recall
The student's eyes don't perceive the lies. Bouncing off every ************** wall
His composure is well kept. I guess he fears playing the fool
The complacent students sit and listen to some of that**************** that he learned in school
Europe ain't my rope to swing on. Can't learn a thing from it
Yet we hang from it. Gotta get it, gotta get it together then
Like the ***************** weathermen. To expose and close the doors on those who try
To strangle and mangle the truth. 'Cause the circle of hatred continues unless we react
We gotta take the power back

Martin Luther King Jr.

Excerpts from Martin Luther King’s Our God is Marching On
March 25, 1965

. . . Yes, we are on the move and no wave of racism can stop us. (Yes, sir) We are on the move now. The burning of our churches will not deter us. (Yes, sir) The bombing of our homes will not dissuade us. (Yes, sir) We are on the move now. (Yes, sir) The beating and killing of our clergymen and young people will not divert us. We are on the move now. (Yes, sir) The wanton release of their known murderers would not discourage us. We are on the move now. (Yes, sir) Like an idea whose time has come, (Yes, sir) not even the marching of mighty armies can halt us. (Yes, sir) We are moving to the land of freedom. (Yes, sir)Let us therefore continue our triumphant march (Uh huh) to the realization of the American dream. (Yes, sir) Let us march on segregated housing (Yes, sir) until every ghetto or social and economic depression dissolves, and Negroes and whites live side by side in decent, safe, and sanitary housing. (Yes, sir) Let us march on segregated schools (Let us march, Tell it) until every vestige of segregated and inferior education becomes a thing of the past, and Negroes and whites study side-by-side in the socially-healing context of the classroom.Let us march on poverty (Let us march) until no American parent has to skip a meal so that their children may eat. (Yes, sir) March on poverty (Let us march) until no starved man walks the streets of our cities and towns (Yes, sir) in search of jobs that do not exist. (Yes, sir) Let us march on poverty (Let us march) until wrinkled stomachs in Mississippi are filled, (That's right) and the idle industries of Appalachia are realized and revitalized, and broken lives in sweltering ghettos are mended and remolded.Let us march on ballot boxes, (Let's march) march on ballot boxes until race-baiters disappear from the political arena.Let us march on ballot boxes until the salient misdeeds of bloodthirsty mobs (Yes, sir) will be transformed into the calculated good deeds of orderly citizens. (Speak, Doctor)Let us march on ballot boxes (Let us march) until the Wallaces of our nation tremble away in silence.Let us march on ballot boxes (Let us march) until we send to our city councils (Yes, sir), state legislatures, (Yes, sir) and the United States Congress, (Yes, sir) men who will not fear to do justly, love mercy, andwalk humbly with thy God.Let us march on ballot boxes (Let us march. March) until brotherhood becomes more than a meaningless word in an opening prayer, but the order of the day on every legislative agenda.Let us march on ballot boxes (Yes) until all over Alabama God's children will be able to walk the earth in decency and honor.There is nothing wrong with marching in this sense. (Yes, sir) The Bible tells us that the mighty men of Joshua merely walked about the walled city of Jericho (Yes) and the barriers to freedom came tumbling down. (Yes, sir) I like that old Negro spiritual, (Yes, sir) "Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho." In its simple, yet colorful, depiction (Yes, sir) of that great moment in biblical history, it tells us that:Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, (Tell it)Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, (Yes, sir)And the walls come tumbling down. (Yes, sir. Tell it)Up to the walls of Jericho they marched, spear in hand. (Yes, sir)"Go blow them ramhorns," Joshua cried,"'Cause the battle am in my hand." (Yes, sir)These words I have given you just as they were given us by the unknown, long-dead, dark-skinned originator. (Yes, sir) Some now long-gone black bard bequeathed to posterity these words in ungrammatical form, (Yes, sir) yet with emphatic pertinence for all of us today. (Uh huh)

Martin Luther King Jr.

Excerpts from Martin Luther King’s I’ve Been to the Mountaintop
Memphis, TN, April 3, 1968

. . . Now that's a strange statement to make because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick, trouble is in the land, confusion all around. That's a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. (All right, Yes) And I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a way that men in some strange way are responding. Something is happening in our world. (Yeah) The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled today, whether they are in Johannesburg, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya; Accra, Ghana; New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; or Memphis, Tennessee, the cry is always the same: "We want to be free." [applause]. . . You know, what's beautiful to me is to see all of these ministers of the Gospel. (Amen) It's a marvelous picture. (Yes) Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher? Somehow the preacher must have a kind of fire shut up in his bones (Yes), and whenever injustice is around he must tell it. (Yes) Somehow the preacher must be an Amos, who said, "When God speaks, who can but prophesy?" (Yes) Again with Amos, "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." (Yes) Somehow the preacher must say with Jesus, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me (Yes), because he hath anointed me (Yes), and he's anointed me to deal with the problems of the poor." (Go ahead)And I want to commend the preachers, under the leadership of these noble men: James Lawson, one who has been in this struggle for many years. He's been to jail for struggling; he's been kicked out of Vanderbilt University for this struggling; but he's still going on, fighting for the rights of his people. [applause] Reverend Ralph Jackson, Billy Kiles; I could just go right on down the list, but time will not permit. But I want to thank all of them, and I want you to thank them because so often preachers aren't concerned about anything but themselves. [applause] And I'm always happy to see a relevant ministry. It's all right to talk about long white robes over yonder, in all of its symbolism, but ultimately people want some suits and dresses and shoes to wear down here. [applause] It's all right to talk about streets flowing with milk and honey, but God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here and His children who can't eat three square meals a day. [applause] It's all right to talk about the new Jerusalem, but one day God's preacher must talk about the new New York, the new Atlanta, the new Philadelphia, the new Los Angeles, the new Memphis, Tennessee. [applause] This is what we have to do.

. . . Well, I don't know what will happen now; we've got some difficult days ahead. (Amen) But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop. (Yeah) [applause] And I don't mind. [applause continues] Like anybody, I would like to live a long life-longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. (Yeah) And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. (Go ahead) And I've looked over (Yes sir), and I've seen the Promised Land. (Go ahead) I may not get there with you. (Go ahead) But I want you to know tonight, (Yes) that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. [applause] (Go ahead. Go ahead) And so I'm happy tonight; I'm not worried about anything; I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. [applause]

Feminist Hermeneutics

If the Bible may be understood as deeply energized by the spirit of God then it can also be understood as limited by human perception and tainted by human sin (not necessarily but in accordance with the evidence therein)…With this understanding of the Bible, I can dismiss as tragic Paul’s apparent embrace of slavery and the subjugation of women.

Barbara S. Blaisdell

Feminist Hermeneutics

We must be prepared to accept the reality of aspect of the Bible with which we disagree. An example is the masculo-centric language and general male chauvinist attitudes we find in the Bible. The Bible must not be forgiven at this point; it must be defeated…for the present we must be firm in our argument against such evils or limitations as they are found in the Bible, for example, refusing to use any such offending passages in liturgical expressions without rewording them into language that shows full appreciation for women as well as men.

J.L. Hardegree

Emerging Church Hermeneutics

The coordinators of Emergent have often been asked (usually by their critics) to proffer a doctrinal statement that lays out clearly what they believe. I am merely a participant in the conversation who delights in the ongoing reformation that occurs as we bring the Gospel into engagement with culture in ever new ways. But I have been asked to respond to this ongoing demand for clarity and closure. I believe there are several reasons why Emergent should not have a "statement of faith" to which its members are asked (or required) to subscribe. Such a move would be unnecessary, inappropriate and disastrous. Why is such a move unnecessary? Jesus did not have a "statement of faith." He called others into faithful relation to God through life in the Spirit. As with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, he was not concerned primarily with whether individuals gave cognitive assent to abstract propositions but with calling persons into trustworthy community through embodied and concrete acts of faithfulness. The writers of the New Testament were not obsessed with finding a final set of propositions the assent to which marks off true believers. Paul, Luke and John all talked much more about the mission to which we should commit ourselves than they did about the propositions to which we should assent. The very idea of a "statement of faith" is mired in modernist assumptions and driven by modernist anxieties.

Continue reading LeRon Shults at http://emergent-us.typepad.com/emergentus/2006/05/doctrinal_state.html

Catholic Hermeneutics

“But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, ‘handing over’ to them ‘the authority to teach in their own place.’ This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face.”

“Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the Word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this Word of God faithfully explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently, it is not from Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church.”

“The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

Selected quotes from George Montague, Understanding the Bible (Paulist Press, 2007), 187-193.

Feminist Hermeneutics

Excerpts from Anne Carter Shelley: "What are we to think of Jezebel?"
A Paper Submitted for Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies
At the 1997 meeting of the Academy of Homiletics

Hermeneutical Method:

“. . . Although it may seem that texts like I Kings 21:1-16 should stand still, should mean one thing only, they don’t. Multitudinous factors influence and keep in motion the reader, the author, and the text. The result is that none of the elements—text, author, reader—remain stationary. None is fixed in meaning. Consequently, we can never uncover completely a text’s original meaning, because the text is on the move and its meaning is a combination of action, imagination and dialogism.”

“. . . My method is feminist and self-critical. As a feminist I do not pretend nor aim to offer the only possible viable reading of I Kings 21:1-16. I engage in conversation with the text, other readers, critical tools, and feminist ideology. I also acknowledge up front that my interpretation is subjective, self-interested, and only one of many which the text may disclose . . . I see part of my function as a feminist hermeneut to direct my reading towards those readers and church members who are often overlooked by other readings. My goal is to be inclusive and attentive to the marginalized and the oppressed . . . Finally, I do not take an absolutist stance towards the text. The way I read remains open-ended and open to future insight, revelation, and correction.”

In Practice:

“. . . But does Jezebel ever really have a chance to speak for herself? Her marriage is a political act not a romantic one. The religion of her childhood is continually criticized and challenged. Her concept of government and kingship has been formed at her father’s palace, not taught to her by the prophet Elijah. Most importantly, her story is told not by herself or her immediate family and friends, but by her enemies: To the authors of the Deuteronomic history, which includes this portion of I Kings, Jezebel is a harlot, a whore, an independent aggressive, domineering woman. She’s a warning to young girls everywhere not to grow up to be emasculating shrews, she-devils, or worst of all, autonomous women . . . We have here a biblical text in which there are three key players: Ahab, Naboth, and Jezebel. It is, as most biblical hermeneuts agree, a story about human injustice and sinfulness and God’s outrage at both. But ironically this text which is about God’s concern for the little guy, the common man Naboth instead has been used as a rationale for the injustice, abuse, subjugation, and denigration of women by men. That’s why feminist biblical scholars find I and II Kings’ treatment of Jezebel so offensive.”

“. . . Ironic, don’t you think? After all, according to her own cultural, political, social and matrimonial custom, wasn’t Jezebel doing what she has been taught that a good wife, and a good Queen should do? She is the first woman we know of to experience a backlash for being the good wife rather than a good feminist . . . Jezebel accepts her husband, admires him, adapts to him, and appreciates him. A woman can technically fit this traditional image of the good wife who accepts her divinely-assigned role as submissive, helpmate to her husband, yet fail to live and be the ideal human being when her life extends no farther than the walls of her husband’s castle because she always puts the welfare of her husband before all other individuals welfare, including her own.”

“. . . All women are not Jezebel’s anymore than all men are King Ahab’s. All women are not Jezebel’s. In fact, Jezebel herself may have not even been the Jezebel she’s portrayed to be. So the good news for us and the good news for Jezebel is that God cares about justice and righteousness for all people, all the time, and in all of our relationships no matter who we are.”

Preunderstandings

If God has revealed truth in the Bible, then it seems reasonable also that He has made us capable of apprehending that truth, or at least some measure of it. Thus, though we inevitably bring preunderstandings to the texts we seek to interpret, this does not mean that we cannot apprehend the meaning they impart…Since we accept the Bible’s authority, we remain open to correction by its message. There are ways to verify interpretations or, at least, to validate some interpretive options as more likely than others. It is not a matter of simply throwing the dice. There is a wide variety of methods available to help us find what the original texts most likely meant to their initial readers. Every time we alter our preunderstanding as the result of our interaction with the text we demonstrate that the process has objective constraints, otherwise, no change would occur; we would remain forever entombed in our prior commitments.

Klein et al in Zuck, Rightly Divided (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 80-81.

Holy Spirit and Hermeneutics

The task of the Spirit in biblical interpretation is thus to enable us to recognize the true character and purpose of the Bible and then to interpret the text in the light of this fact. The Author Himself comes to our side and helps us to understand what He has written. He gives us the eyes of faith and the mind of Christ so that we receive the message that God intends for us…As we open our minds to the Lord in prayer, so He will illumine them by the Spirit to understand the Word. Obviously this does not take away the need for our wrestling with the text, using all the tools of scholarship at our disposal. Nor does it mean that the Spirit-filled student will necessarily get higher marks in a biblical examination than one who scorns the Spirit’s help. But it does mean that God will speak to us the message that He wants us to receive, and that He will use us to convey this message to other people.

Marshall in Roy Zuck, Rightly Divided (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 73.

Common Sense Hermeneutics

If God has implanted in our rational nature the fundamental principles of the hermeneutical art, then we may reasonably suppose that when He addresses a revelation to us, He intends and expects that we shall interpret it in accordance with the laws of that nature which He has given us.

Stuart in Roy Zuck, Rightly Divided (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 57.

Common Sense Hermeneutics

The principles of interpretation, as to their substantial and essential elements, are no invention of man, no product of his effort and learned skill. No, they can scarcely be said with truth to have been discovered by him. They are coeval with our nature. They were known to the antediluvians. They were practiced upon in the garden of Eden by the progenitors of our race. Ever since man was created and endowed with the powers of speech, and made a communicative, social being, he has had occasion to practice upon the principles of interpretation and has actually done so…Interpretation, then, in its basic or fundamental principles, is a native art, if I may so speak. It is coeval with the power of uttering words. It is of course a universal art; it is common to all nations, barbarous as well as civilized.

Stuart in Roy Zuck, Rightly Divided (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 54.

Author's Intention

Thus we still contend that the principles of interpretation are as natural and universal as is speech itself. To argue the reverse (in human speech which assumes someone is listening with understanding) is either to involve oneself in downright duplicity or ultimately to be reduced to a solipsism where only I speak, and only I know what I am saying. All men and women in all cultures are made in the image of God. And when this fact is joined with a biblical concept of truth as having an objective grounding and reference point in the nature of God and in the doctrine of creation, the possibility for adequate (even if no one known comprehensively except for God) transcultural communication has been fairly provided and secured.

Kaiser in Roy Zuck, Rightly Divided (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 49.

New Hermeneutic

At the heart of Gadamer’s concern was the premise that the meaning of a text was not the same as the author’s meaning. The author’s meaning was, in any case, inaccessible to us. Instead, the meaning of a text was in its subject matter, which was at once independent of both the author and reader, and somehow also shared by both of them. Moreover, no one could ever say this is the meaning of a text, since the number of possible meanings was practically endless and constantly changing. And, argued Gadamer, what a text meant to an author could not be reproduced in the present. The past was alien to the present, for differences in time necessarily involved difference in being.

Kaiser in Roy Zuck, Rightly Divided (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 47.

Subversive Reading

Let’s do a subversive reading on a popular children’s film. The movie Beauty and the Beast seems harmless to us – charming, vintage Disney, a story about the transforming power of love. But under postmodern analysis, the underlying oppositions create an entirely different picture. The heroine in defined by her physical appearance, “Belle.” Therefore, women are important primarily in terms of their looks, and, consequently, how they can please men. The film explains that Belle is responsible for her fumbling father. In other words, like all patriarchy, the father has the authority, but his wards are responsible to make things come out right. In love, the movie pictures a woman as giving herself wholly for the reform of the “Beast,” or man whom she loves. Indeed, his good is accomplished only through her love and sacrifice. Deep inside a man, as beastly as he might appear on the outside, is a gentle, loving prince. The responsibility to manifest this good side falls, not to the man, but to his servile lover. The story is made to appear to be a law of nature; as the theme song proclaims, “tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme . . .” In reality, according to the subversive reading of the script, a postmodern critic might see this film as a prescription for neurosis, abuse, and patriarchy.

Dennis McCallum, The Death of Truth (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996), 92.