I have penned a number of pieces over the years on biblical rhetoric, literary devices, and how so many contemporary Christians find some biblical language and means of expression to be just too harsh and unloving, and well, just too un-Christlike – even though Jesus often used such language!
One article on these matters that I wrote back in 2011 had the curious title, ‘Perhaps He is Out Relieving Himself’. Of course, those in the know – those who recall the story about Elijah and the false prophets in 1 Kings 18 – should know what THAT was all about. It was a hardcore case of satire and sarcasm.
In that article I discussed a volume by Douglas Wilson: A Serrated Edge (CanonPress, 2003). The book’s subtitle is this: “A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking”. Those who know Wilson know that he is a humorous and at times feisty polemicist, pastor and author. As I wrote back then:
He reminds us that the “prophets, the apostles and our Lord Jesus all exhibit a vast array of verbal behavior, including tenderness, love, insults, jokes, anger, and more.” He notes how preachers tell us to imitate Christ and his love. “But when Jesus looked on the rich, old rulers and insulted them, why do we tend to assume that this is never, ever to be imitated?”
Jesus – perhaps surprisingly to some – actually made use of humour and jokes fairly often, especially wild exaggeration. Wilson reminds us of how we have lost the impact of this, as we try to soften what Jesus said, and make it more conformed to acceptable religious ears. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2011/05/11/4389/
I have just now revisited that slim volume by Wilson. (I should first say that it took me nearly a half hour to find my copy!) In part I again share what he had to say because just today a friend (thanks Tom) pointed me to a review of it by another member of the Reformed Camp, Tom Frame. His review, and Wilson’s reply, both appeared back in May of 2012.
Before getting to that, let me share a few more quotes from the book. Wilson quotes from the excellent 1998 reference tool, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery – a book I often refer to as well. He writes:
[T]he Bible can actually be described as relying heavily on satire. “Satire is prominent in the biblical narrative, where wholly idealized characters are a rarity and deficient or immoral human behavior is the staple.”
Satire treats the foibles of sinners with a less than perfect tenderness. “Satire is the exposure of human vice or folly through rebuke or ridicule…. It might consist of an entire book (e.g. Amos), or it can be as small as an individual ‘proverb’.” But nevertheless, if a Christian employs satire today, he is almost immediately called to account for his “unbiblical” behavior. There are many explanations for this, and it is hoped that this small book will address the more important of them. But we should begin by noting the true oddness of our position. Suppose a man were to refer to certain respected theologians dismissively as having graduated from Bag of Snakes Seminary. He would instantly be upbraided for his un-Christlike behavior. Unfortunately for the one delivering the rebuke, it was discovered shortly thereafter that the speaker was Christ (Mt. 23:33). (p. 12)
In his discussion on the language of the Apostle Paul, who could be just a sharp and cutting as Elijah or Jesus, Wilson says this:
[W]hen certain key issues are at stake, and the verbal equivalent of a tactical nuclear strike is needed from the preacher, the Scriptures show us in a number of places that the prophetic preacher comes through. Ezekiel uses calculated moral obscenities, designed to shake up the complacent (Ezek. 23:19-21). Isaiah, attacking the same attitude of religiousity that Paul hated so much, compares all our attempts at self-justification to nothing more than a used menstrual cloth (Is. 64:6). And Paul speaks as noted above….
All of our language needs to be shaped by Scripture, and this includes vocabulary, motives, demeanor, content, balance, and so on. And one of the basic points of this small book is that the Bible is not the kind of book that many Christians have glibly assumed it to be. (pp. 65-66)
Near the end of his book he explains where the edgy tone of his writing comes from: “Love that refuses to defend that which is loved is not biblical love at all. Such a sentiment is actually self-absorption. Love that shuns a fight is an oxymoron, and so I turn the charge around. The modern evangelical world says peace, peace, but there is no peace. Neither is there love.” (p. 119)
A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarkingby Wilson, Douglas (Author)
It is a somewhat lengthy review. He begins by saying that he quite likes both satire and Wilson. He says he agrees with what Wilson says on various topics “maybe 80% of the time”. He then says this about the book:
I respond enthusiastically to this conclusion:
“Simply presenting the truth of God in a computer printout fashion, without the passion, life, satire, love, and emotion found in Scripture, is a way of being unfaithful to that content. Style is more than the simple decoration of propositions. Style (with satire an important part of this) should be woven throughout every discourse and considered an essential part of it. Because we have pursued an ‘objective’ style of communication (having believed that this was possible), we have created a deracinated and boring form of speech.” (98)
But…. “What is inadequate in the book, however, is Doug’s account of the principles governing this sharp language. The obvious question is, how does all this fit in with the Bible’s teachings about gentleness, graciousness, and love? Doug tries to answer that, but it is clear that the task is not easy for him….”
This forms the bulk of his critique. He finishes his article with these words: “To conclude, A Serrated Edge is a lot of fun, and it will tell you some important things about biblical humor and rebuke. But it will leave you confused, both about the biblical limits on harsh rebuke, and about its proper objects. Given the confusion this book is likely to create, I think the best advice Doug gives us is ‘don’t try this at home’.”
I saw that the review was written by John Frame. “Oh, great,” I thought to myself. “How am I supposed to debate with John Frame?” My dismay was short-lived, however, for on reading his criticisms of the book, I found that I agreed with the most important of them. And although some might think that such a capitulating agreement on my part will make for a tedious riposte, I will labor manfully to keep this interesting. I want to spend the bulk of my response in correcting a deficiency that John rightly identified in my book, but let me first begin by answering a few points where we probably do disagree….
He goes on to say this:
One of the central reasons I write in the earthy way I do is to counterbalance the innate tendency toward pomposity in much of what we are doing. Our satire and sense of humor (which are different things, incidentally), far from presenting a problem for John in this circumstance, should actually be seen as an important firewall that we have built to resist what he correctly identifies as a very real temptation….
I want to return to high cultural standards without encouraging supercilious blowhards, and the best way I know for doing this is to write and act like an Elizabethan Puritan, only without the collar. I don’t want classical Christian schools to graduate a generation of prigs and show-poodles, even though some are trying to. I have joked that our worship services are “seeker-hostile”—even though John will be pleased to find out the services are readily accessible to all the ordinary four-year-olds in our congregation. So on almost all these things, I would say, “point taken, and anticipated.”
As to Frame’s main complaint:
And now to John’s central objection (as I read it), and with which I heartily agree. John objects to the fact that when it comes to supplying principles for identifying what is appropriate for a Christian in satire, and what is not, the book is thin soup. Throughout the book, I repeatedly state that there is a difference between good satire and bad satire. . . . Some of what I am going to set out here is found in scattered places within the book, but John is exactly right that it was not showcased the way it ought to have been.
And with that he offers not one, not two, but a full 21 principles of what “good satire” is all about. Here are just three of them:
A godly satirist should be well-educated, well-read in the kind of literature that he is seeking to contribute to. A good ear comes not only from practice, but also from listening long and thoughtfully to those who are gifted and have practiced the same art. The list would include individuals who are not worthy of imitation in every respect (e.g.Swift, Mencken) and it should include those who are genuine exemplars (e.g.Spurgeon, Chesterton).
A godly satirist should study to learn the quantitative boundary between satire and scurrility, knowing from the outset that there is such a boundary. It is easy to pretend that there is no “logical” difference whatever between 37 lashes (sorry! xxxvii lashes) and 42 lashes, but the Scriptures say that the former is not necessarily degrading and the latter necessarily is (Dt. 25:1-3).
A godly satirist should study the qualitative difference between satire and scurrility. This is a matter of timbre and tone. No mechanical rules can be set down for it, but it is a very important distinction to make (Heb. 5:14). It is the shrillness or “screech” test. The ability to tell the difference between right and wrong in this kind of thing is a matter of long practice and godly maturity.
I encourage you to have a read of both articles, as well as the book in question. Given that neither man is presenting us with inerrant, inspired truth, I can say that I agree with much of what both have to say. Yes, as per Wilson, much of evangelicalism is far too squeamish and timid about the strong language found in Scripture. Too often they tend to be mere evangellyfish (A title of a 2012 Wilson book).
And yes, as per Frame, learning when and where and how to appropriate such strong language – including things like satire, mockery and the like – is something we all need to work on. Such forceful language is certainly found throughout Scripture, but we believers need to prayerfully and carefully discern when it is best to use it, or best to avoid it.
One Reply to “Satire and the Tough Words of Scripture”
Here’s a thought that has occurred to me. After the resurrection, the impression I get when reading Luke 24:13-33 and the disciples on the Emmaus Road encountering Jesus, is that that Jesus was in fact trolling them, pretending NOT to know what went down in Jerusalem, in the previous week (despite being at the epicentre of events).
One day we’ll get all the details, but I’ve sometimes wondered if after breaking the bread at the table with the disciples, Jesus didn’t give them a wink and say something along the lines “See soon guys”, just before disappearing…
Here’s a thought that has occurred to me. After the resurrection, the impression I get when reading Luke 24:13-33 and the disciples on the Emmaus Road encountering Jesus, is that that Jesus was in fact trolling them, pretending NOT to know what went down in Jerusalem, in the previous week (despite being at the epicentre of events).
One day we’ll get all the details, but I’ve sometimes wondered if after breaking the bread at the table with the disciples, Jesus didn’t give them a wink and say something along the lines “See soon guys”, just before disappearing…