Satire

Here is part of a letter (with minor edits) that I wrote recently.

1. Background

A few weeks ago I read an online article in Christianity Today which said the late Pope John-Paul II used to practice self-flagellation to draw him closer to Christ.

I blogged on that. I pointed out that this is characteristic of a masochistic strain in Catholic piety. And I did a little satire.

Not surprisingly, some Catholic bloggers got riled up. Mind you, they weren’t offended by self-flagellation. They were only offended by the fact that I satirized this masochistic practice.

One of them tried to justify the Catholic practice of self-flagellation by appealing to the ancient Near Eastern convention of donning sackcloth. For example, he quoted Isa 32:11, and used that example to justify Catholic self-flagellation.

So I did a little post on that as well. I quoted from Oswalt’s standard commentary on Isaiah (1:585). As Oswalt notes, this mourning ritual involves an element of nudity.

I then raised the question of whether, if a Catholic is going to use this verse as a prooftext for self-flagellation, that would also justify nudity.

Once again, the Catholic bloggers got riled up. Yet all I did was to apply their own prooftext in a Catholic context. They are the ones, not me, who think this is relevant to Christian piety.

2. “WRISTWATCHER80”

At this point, “WRISTWATCHER80” entered the fray. He accused me of lacking “basic Christian charity,” and “mockery to the oneness of the Body of Christ,” as well as “referr[ing] to other Christians as the ‘enemy’ because they understand the minutia of the mechanics of salvation differently than” I do.

But these accusations raise a number of questions regarding his own moral consistency and theological priorities.

i) I don’t think that theological differences between Calvinism and Catholicism are reducible to “the minutia of the mechanics of salvation.”

I don’t think issues involving sola fide, the sufficiency of the atonement, condign merit, congruent merit, the cult of the saints, the intercession of Mary, the treasury of merit, the veneration of relics, &c., represent theological minutiae.

To the contrary, Catholic theology comes close to representing a completely different religious system. Although Roman Catholicism has some residual traces of Christian theology, it has introduced so many fundamental errors that we’re dealing with core articles of the faith.

If “WRISTWATCHER80” is, indeed, a communicant member of a Reformed denomination, then his elders need to counsel him on the fundamentals of the faith.

ii) Apropos (i), one of his problems is his evident sympathy for Roman Catholic theology. For instance, he said “I was recently exposed to JP2’s theology of the body and it is very tough on how our sexuality should be geared towards marriage and away from sin/carnal lust. Or what about Humane Vitae? It stresses that the acceptance of birth control is related to the sexual objectification of women.”

I think he tipped his hand at that point.

iii) There is also the glaring problem of double standards. He faults me for lacking Christian charity, yet he tells me that I’m “obviously a bitter, angry and hateful man.” He also compared me to the infamous Fred Phelps.

So he doesn’t live by his own standards. He accuses me of lacking charity, yet he’s blithely uncharitable in what he says about me. This is rank hypocrisy.

iv) He also has a very latitudinarian view of who a Christian is. Speaking for myself, I operate with the Presbyterian criterion: I regard someone as a fellow Christian if he can offer a credible profession of faith.

I don’t view someone as a Christian simply because he calls himself a Christian.

For example, I’ve encountered Arminians who tell me that, as a Calvinist, I worship the devil. They say the God of Calvinism is worse than the devil. And that’s what I worship.

Well, how am I supposed to view an Arminian who says that? What level of spiritual affinity is left at that point?

I’m not saying that all Arminians speak this way. But some do. And I don’t feel any spiritual kinship for those who do.

3. Military metaphors

“WRISTWATCHER80” also accuses me of calling other Christians the “enemy.” That, however, is a distortion of what I actually said. Here is what I actually said:

“Every apologist for every theological tradition acts as though the distinctives of his particular tradition all-important. He treats the debate as a battle to the death. Take no prisoners. Give no quarter to the enemy.”

a) Notice, first of all, that I was using metaphors: “battle to the death…take no prisoners.”

Needless to say, Christian apologists don’t literally engage in mortal combat or execute POWs.

b) I’d also add that Scripture itself is studded with military metaphors (e.g. Rom 13:12; Eph 6:10-24; Phil 2:25; 1 Thes 5:8; 2 Tim 2:3-4). So there’s nothing inherently wrong with using military metaphors.

c) In addition, I was discussing the approach of Christian apologists in general, which I can easily document. Just spend sometime on the internet reading Catholic apologists, Arminian apologists, Eastern Orthodox apologists, &c.

4. Satire

Sometimes I use satire. Is that wrong? Well, the Bible uses satire. The parable of Pharisee & the tax-collector (Lk 18:9-14) is satirical. Christ’s malediction in Mt 23 is rife with satirical jabs against the Pharisees. Leland Ryken has a whole chapter (14) devoted to Biblical satire in his Words of Delight: A Literary introduction to the Bible.

5. Sexual metaphors

“WRISTWATCHER80” is offended that I used a masochistic metaphor to lampoon the masochistic practice of Catholic self-flagellation.

However, the Bible itself is loaded with sexual metaphors to depict truth and falsehood, piety or impiety.

The language and imagery (sometimes quite graphic) of spiritual adultery or spiritual prostitution is a stock convention of the OT prophets, viz. Isa 57:3-9; Ezk 16; 23; 43:7-9; Jer 2:20,23-24; 3:1-23; 13:26-27.

Indeed, there’s a complete book of the OT devoted to this metaphor: Hosea

Jesus uses the same metaphor: Mt 12:39; 16:4.

And John, in the Apocalypse, makes extensive use of this metaphor, (e.g. Rev 14; 17-19; 19:1-2).

Conversely, the Bible also uses positive sexual metaphors –although that’s far less common (e.g. 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 14:4).

So there’s nothing inherently wrong with using sexual metaphors to depict truth and error, piety and impiety.

6. Reformed theology

In addition to Biblical precedent, Reformed theologians traditionally apply Biblical metaphors involving spiritual adultery or prostitution to the church of Rome and her representatives. Let’s take just three examples:

i) The Geneva Bible (1560/99)

Here are some footnotes from the historical Geneva Bible, concerning the “whore of Babylon”:

Rev 14:8: By the which fornication; God is provoked to wrath, so that he suffereth many to walk in the way of the Romish doctrine to their destruction.

17:3: The beast signifieth the ancient Rome; the woman that sitteth thereon, the new Rome which is the Papistry, whose cruelty and blood shedding is declared by scarlet.

17:12: That is, arising with their kingdoms out of that Roman beast; at such time as that political Empire began by the craft of the Popes greatly to fall.

18:23 The Romish prelates and merchants of souls are as Kings and princes; so that their covetousness and pride must be punished; secondly their crafts and deceits; and thirdly their cruelty.

http://www.genevabible.org/files/Geneva_Bible/New_Testament/Revelation_F.pdf

ii) John Gill

Here are some comments from Gill’s exposition of Revelation, regarding the “whore of Babylon”:

Rev 14:8 Rome Papal, called Babylon the great, Re 16:5 and so the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac and Arabic versions, read here; and the Romish antichrist is so called, because that city was famous for its pride and haughtiness, for its tyranny and cruelty, and for its idolatry; and indeed its name, which signifies “confusion”, well agrees with the Papacy, which is a confused mixture of Judaism, Paganism, and Christianity: so Rome is called Babel in some ancient writings of the Jews {o}, where some copies read “Babel”, others read “Rome” ; and Tertullian, who wrote long before the appearance of the Romish antichrist.

Rev 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication,.... These are the ten kings, who being of the same mind, and of one religion, the Popish religion, gave their power, strength, and kingdom to the beast, Re 17:12 and have been enticed by the whore of Rome to commit spiritual fornication with her; that is, idolatry, to worship, as that church enjoins, idols of gold, silver, brass, and wood, the images of the virgin Mary, and other saints; hence this whore appears to be no mean strumpet, but one of great note, and in much vogue, being sought after and made use of by the great men of the earth; “and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication”; that is, the inhabitants of the Roman empire, or earthly minded men, mere carnal persons, have been drawn into idolatrous practices by the allurements of the church of Rome; such as riches, honours, pleasures, lying miracles, and great pretensions to devotion and religion; whereby they have been intoxicated as men with wine, and have been filled with a blind zeal for that church, and the false doctrines and worship of it, and with madness and fury against the true professors of religion.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

iii) Turretin

And here is Turretin on the same subject:

…Papal Rome; as that she would intoxicate and fascinate the nations and kinds of the earth with the golden cup of her fornications (Rev 17:2; 18:3); that they would commit fornication with her, that she would make merchandise and gain souls (Rev 18:13)…that she would glory in her infallibility and majesty as “a queen, who would see no sorrow” (Rev 18:7)…the seat which they call apostolic should not only become apostate, but would degenerate so greatly from her pristine piety as to stand forth the mother and mistress of all supervisions and harlotries in the Christian world and the cause of persecutions against the holy martyrs of God, and would be the seat of Antichrist himself. Institutes of Elenctic Theology (P&R 1997), 3:134

Now, even if we disagree with the traditional Reformed interpretation of Revelation at this juncture, we don’t have to view this description as prophetic of the Roman Church to think the description is applicable to analogous institutions or representatives thereof in church history. Something can be analogous without its being prophetic.

If, for example, we prefer the “modified idealism” of Reformed scholars like Beale and Poythress, this language would still be applicable whenever we’re dealing with an analogous situation in church history–be it the medieval church or the modern church. Or the state. Or Islam. Or Christian cults. And so on and so forth.

If “WRISTWATCHER80” is, indeed, a member of a Reformed church, then the onus lies with him, not with me, to justify his repudiation of traditional Reformed discourse.

As a general proposition, when pastors preach through books of the Bible that address spiritual immorality, don’t they also treat these passages as cautionary statements which apply to the modern church? That Christians should consider these passages to be warnings, not merely to ancient Jews, who are dead and buried, but to our own circumstances?

So I can’t see anything intrinsically wrong with the use of satire or sexual metaphors to depict modern truth and error, or piety and impiety, in comparable situations.

I’d also add that when Catholics treat clergy, or religious orders, as sacrosanct figures, their attitude creates the sort of sort of cover that generates the widespread scandals involving predatory priests, abusive nuns, complicit bishops, &c.