Lampooning Christian Political Figures?

[Josh]

So, on another thread this has become a subject all on it's own.

Let me recast the question a bit to generate some fresh response:


Should Christian Political figures ever be lampooned?

And to start us off let's take a look at a Reformation-era political cartoon lampooning the Pope.

(click on the picture to see what the characters on the left are doing to the Pope ;D)



BTW, this is a historical peice and doesn't represent my views on current Roman Catholicism or the current Pontiff.

Attachments:

[Josh]

The key word here is lampoon. I don't think any of us would disagree with simply stating our differences with an opponent (political or religious, etc.)

But lampooning involves exaggeration, hyperbole, humor, and some mockery.

I personally think in some situations, especially where the error of the opponent is egregious*, sarcastic satire is justifiable.


*which, of course, certainly doesn't include Palin.

[Kirby]

I posted this in the other thread, but since Josh was kind enough to start a new thread: What do y'all think about The Wittenburg Door?

[Josh]

Great example, Kirby.

Reform tradition is alive and well, for good or ill.

Let me give you a few examples of what I consider to be appropriate lampooning.

Exhibit #1:

In mockery of Bob Jones (racist christian brother):

Down in Carolina way lived a man name o' Big B.J.
B.J, went and got a school founded on caucasian rule
bumper sticker on his Ford says 'Honkies If You Love The Lord"

from Steve Taylor's "We Don't Need No Colour Code"

I'll be back...

[ben]

Lampoon: one that is harsh and directed against an individual.
Satire: biting wit, irony used to expose vice or folly
I don't see that these words mean it's okay to tell a lie about an individual. Of course, I'm just a simple guy so I look to you for some insight.

[Kirby]

Famous Christians, whether they be political leaders, or other forms of celebrity, are usually not accessible to practice face to face exhortations. I would love to confront Bob Jones (who not only is a racist but also a plagarist) but I don't have anyway of contacting him directly, and he probably wouldn't have time to talk to me anyway.

Josh, if it's OK to lampoon Bob Jones, is it OK to lampoon George W. Bush for doing a speech at BJU when he was campaigning in 2000?

[Josh]

Well, I'm not advocating lying/ false witness.

However, in the above example Bob Jones is said to have a bumper sticker on his car which says "honkies if you love the Lord".

Obviously he didn't, but the point being made is fair, imo.

[Kirby]

Ben: Where is the lie? Who lied? I don't think anyone is talking about lying or spreading false rumors. The debate is about satire and lampooning, not lying. I could tell a funny story that isn't true with a wink and a grin...is that a lie?

[ben]

All I was getting at is is it okay to lie about someone and call it satire or lampooning? I'm not being specific here.

[Kirby]

IMO, it's the wink and a grin, or an LOL, or a , or being in a known public satirical forum like SNL, or any other socially acceptable way to say "I'm kidding".

Another way is to be completely outrageous-- using Josh's example. Bob Jones never really drove a car that had a bumper sticker that said "Honkies if you love the Lord", and I doubt anyone listening to Steve Taylor's song believed that to be a truth. The wink and a grin is implied.

Maybe it would be safe to say that this kind of satire is an "untruth with a point".

[Josh]

I would love to confront Bob Jones (who not only is a racist but also a plagarist) but I don't have anyway of contacting him directly, and he probably wouldn't have time to talk to me anyway.

That's a very important point, imo.

If I have a problem with you, Kirby, I'm not going to post it all over the internet- I'm going to talk to you about it.

But when Christian idiots take over the airwaves and power channels of the world, the only recourse is public.

This fits loosely with Paul's admonition that "elders are to be rebuked publicly"(1 Tim. 5:20)- which presumes that the more public the offense, the more public the chastisement.

That doesn't mean we should be cruel or slanderous.

But, I think it does mean that hyperbole and sometimes even name calling can be used.

Paul at least in one instance resorted to name calling:

Phil. 3:2

Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.

even stating of his opponents:

Gal. 5:12

As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Even Jesus referred to Herod as "that fox" Luke 13:32.

[Margot]

The Door rocks.

[ben]

I can see that there is a fine line here. People who are zealot ideologues can use it as a tool and say it was satire.

[Margot]

Nov 2, 2009 22:29:08 GMT -8 ben said:

zealot ideologues

?

[Josh]

Nov 2, 2009 22:29:08 GMT -8 ben said:

I can see that there is a fine line here. People who are zealot ideologues can use it as a tool and say it was satire.

Are you including the apostle Paul as a "zealot ideologue" or are you saying that satire is a tool that can be used by people with both righteous (justified) and evil intentions?

[Kirby]

I see what Ben is saying...but it is another thing when people claim satire after the fact. I can call a fork a spoon but it's still a fork. Satire is satire, and lying is lying.

[Josh]

I just also want to say that I appreciate Ben's heart on this issue. Even Paul who was prone to sarcasm and even mockery knew that the best advice is when in doubt you can never go wrong with just being truly loving.