(Note: This longform article is a more detailed discussion of points I made in my Vertias Vox interview which will publish this week. You can listen to it on YouTube here, Spotify here, and Apple here.)
One can support Martin Luther and still condemn his antisemitism.
One can support John Calvin and still condemn his treatment of Servetus.
One can support one’s country and still condemn big government.
And one can support Doug Wilson and still… be less supportive of his book A Serrated Edge.
Doug has his fair share of critics, fair because anyone who aspires to accomplish something significant and transformative in a society will get criticism. Doug has aimed to lead his little corner of the world to recover a Christian culture lived out in the details. He has done this following the principle that a little leaven leavens the whole. That’s how Doug’s project appears to me.
Some may think I’m not seeing things clearly, since Doug Wilson is a complex, controversial figure, and I’m writing positively about his project without reservations. But I see his efforts from a unique vantage point. I attended New Saint Andrews College and graduated from its second graduating class. Back then, we all could spend weekly quality time with our professors. I interacted with Doug almost every day. While at NSA, I lived with his brother, Evan, and his wonderful family for a year. Evan also pastors a church in Moscow. Nate Wilson was my apartment roommate for my last year at NSA. We also shared an apartment when we went back East to grad school together. As a young single man, Nancy Wilson gave me excellent counsel about courting my wife-to-be. The late Jim Wilson, Doug’s father, discipled me for three years before our Lord “promoted” him, as Jim expectantly referred to his passing. Jim and I were working on a book series on Christian Leadership when he passed, and the last time I spoke to Jim, I promised him I’d finish it consistent with our many conversations about the project. Also, for this year I just happen to be president of the board of Community Christian Ministries, the evangelistic ministry Jim founded.
I have seen that behind the scenes, the Wilsons are authentically trying to be what they teach publicly. Do they sin? Sure. But there is a difference between perfection and righteousness. A righteous man confesses his lack of perfection and reforms. He puts in the time and effort to try to become what he aspires to be. In my experience, that is what the Wilsons labor to be behind closed doors.
For example, while Nate and I were rooming together at grad school, Doug sent a box of his recent books on the Christian walk and masculinity. Over the next few days, Nate sat quietly in our living room and read them all. Now, there are times when college guys can do less than wise things, things that aren’t sin but rather are rocks around which wiser pilots steer ships. Doug counseled Nate over the phone in our apartment. Nate would listen and internalize his dad’s counsel. I could provide more examples. But I hope these two give a sense of how the Wilsons are trying to be authentic in private first and minister out of the fruit of that faithfulness.
The Wilson family’s aim for authenticity is why I’m much less supportive of A Serrated Edge. A couple of bad ideas in that book work their way out in practice, on occasion, in Doug’s ministry and some ministries of his followers. Satire itself is not one of these bad ideas. My textbook on rhetoric, A Rhetoric of Love: Volume Two, closes with a chapter teaching satire, highlighting the glories of The Babylon Bee. Satire, as a genre of rhetoric, is fantastic. Christians should learn how to use it. I’m pro-satire.
Also, Wilson’s definition of satire and the initial structure of his argument is sound mainly, legally cribbed with citations from Ryken et.al.’s Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (DBI). DBI defines satire as “the exposure of human vice or folly through rebuke or ridicule. It can appear in any form or genre, including expository prose, narrative, poetry or visionary writing.” Depending on how one takes it, the discerning reader may have noticed a potential problem with DBI’s definition. In a way, all preaching by this definition is satire because it offers a rebuke. That it “exposes “folly or vice” is a crucial mark of satire.
Bad Idea 1: Satire makes camps. And if you’re not complicit with the satirist you are subverting the camp.
Doug frames his discussion of satire by arguing that satire is logically necessary because there are norms in this world, and hence there are times when those who violate the norms must be ridiculed.
To say that ridicule is necessary is not to say that every person in the world has to stand on street corners yelling at the passing motorists. It is not to say that everyone has to talk. In Paul’s wonderful image, the body has different organs, there are different ent gifts. But everyone within the body is complicit in such activity, all the time. Sonic kind of antithesis is always manifest, everyone in the world lines up in terms of it, and in that act of lining up, one either ridicules the other side or accepts the ridicule cule delivered to the other side in their name and on their behalf. A man does not have to be a soldier to be protected by an army. And if he is not protected by an array, the time will quickly come when he will cease to be a nonsoldier, because lie will be dead. In the same way, everyone in the world receives the protections of a certain society or group. That group defends itself, necessarily, sarily, by means of ridicule, satire, and so forth, defining itself over against the other groups by these means. Of course, it is not required that every member of that society be a “combatant.” ant.” But if he accepts his identification with that group, and is not seeking to subvert it, then he is complicit.[i]
(The typos in this quotation are from the original text and are included for sake of accuracy, but are probably due to the text’s conversion to Kindle format.)
Since the satirist must defend a norm, there is no neutrality. The antithesis requires it. So if you’re not a combatant, you’re either subverting the body or complicit. So only some people need to practice satire, but the existence of satire, according to Doug, requires that you pick a side. If you want to be a member of the satirist’s society, you must be complicit with his satire. The satirist is protecting you through his satire. Why? Because “Some kind of antithesis is always manifest….” (I think “Sonic” is supposed to be “Some[.]” Therefore all use of satire necessarily requires everyone to pick a side. This means, in Doug’s view, satire logically necessitates camp-building. This frame shapes the way that A Serrated Edge exegetes the Bible. This frame allows Doug to read the satire in Scripture in terms of justifying personal attacks on those he thinks knaves and fools rather than a method for insight, “the exposure of human vice or folly[.]”
An argument from metaphor can work, but this argument conflates antithesis, a logical distinction, with membership in a group, a sociological distinction. I could be on the board of an organization and use satire to show how a particular practice is unwise, but I could do so without implying anything about what makes for membership on the board or the organization or the fundamental values of the board or organization. By equivocating between logical antithesis and group membership, this argument creates a moral obligation for the body to support the satirist.
In Doug’s view, a body must have a ridiculing tongue. If you’re in that body, you may not be that ridiculing tongue, but someone is. And if you are part of that body, you had better support him. If that body is your church, and you think your pastor is using satire unbiblically, your opposition to the satire is you subverting the body, since you are subverting the body’s tongue, and you are not a tongue. You must be complicit or subversive. Antithesis. Have I misread Doug?
The possibilities for pastoral abuse through this argument are staggering.
Do we find camp-building satire in Scripture? In a few places, yes. For example, Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal because their god can’t hear them (1 Kings 18:27). So, they go all in and cut themselves, screaming. It must have been quite a sight. But camp-building was the point. Elijah was competing with the prophets of Baal for the worship of Israel (1 Kings 18:22-24).
However, not all satire aims to build camps. For example, in Isaiah 44, Isaiah points out the folly of the practice of idol-making. The idol maker exercises power over an inanimate object to create a god. Then he prays to that god he made to save him. The aim of this satire is not to build up an anti-idol-maker-camp by making fun of the idol worshiper. In the story, he’s a tragic figure. The Hebrew text says, “he shepherds ashes” (Isaiah 44:20). The idol maker’s foolish insanity makes him pitiable. Isaiah explains, “All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame” (44:9). But what shames them is not the clever words of the satirist. Rather it is that their idol will fail to save them in history. The audience of Isaiah 44 is generational, which is why the chapter ends with the prophecy of Cyrus (44:28).
Judges 17-18 contains satire reminiscent of The Simpsons. An Israelite named Micah, who apparently has grown up without a father, is trying to honor God. His mother commissions him to make two idols to Yahweh. He runs into a wandering Levite and hires him as his household priest. The author of Judges tells us that there was no king in Israel, so everyone did what was right in his own eyes (17:6; 18:1). Is this satire mocking Micah? Not really. He’s trying to honor God, but no one has shown him how. That’s the job of the Levites. Is Judges then mocking the Levites? No. It shows what happens when Israel doesn’t have a wise king. Satire can target folly or vice without targeting individual people. A simple-minded person may say, “But the Bible is still showing that Micah was a fool.” That read is simple-minded because Judges 17-18 isn’t reviling Micah. Instead, satire here shows why a guy like Micah, who wants to serve the Lord, would be in this terrible situation. The story also shows how God saves him providentially from his own folly, since the Danites come and take his idols and his fake priest. Judges 17-18 is pro-monarchy propaganda, but it’s not camp-building. It’s not pro-Saul or pro-David.
According to DBI, the target of satire is “folly or vice[,]” not a person necessarily. This difference is important for the Christian. If my satire targets folly or vice, the fool or knave can wisen up or repent. For example, we could help people see we need a king in Israel. If the target is a person, he can’t repent of being himself. A staple of late-night television is making fun of the President, except when Biden became President, which is hilarious in itself, but that’s another story. The point of making fun of the President is to depreciate his respectability as a person.
I could work through every example in Doug’s book to show that this personal attack frame is substantially the lens through which A Serrated Edge approaches satire. I’m open to it if Canon Press wants to give me a book deal to do that. For now, instead, this longer-that-I-wish-it-was-article will borrow from Descartes’ recommendation in his Geometry: “it is not my purpose to write a large book. I am rather trying to include much in a few words… so I will leave to others the pleasure of discovery.” If you read A Serrated Edge, and look at his examples through the frame I’ve described in my analysis of Doug’s body metaphor argument you’ll see, Doug frames his approach to satire in terms of attacks on people, rather than substantially “the exposure of human vice or folly[.]” It’s not called A Serrated Edge for nothing. Who is he cutting?
DBI includes mocking particular human people among the uses of satire. However, biblical satire is remarkable for how seldomly it does this. This is why we can still understand biblical satire, while much of Shakespeare and Swift’s satire is lost to us, because the personal targets of their satire are no longer known. In my own satirical critique of A Serrated Edge, a commercial for “The Serrated Edge Study Bible” that I made for St. Anne’s Public House, I only critiqued ideas in A Serrated Edge. I didn’t make fun of Doug. He’s my friend and mentor, and I respect him.
Bad Idea 2: “[T]he Scriptures are thoroughly satiric.” (Page 16)
As a result of Doug’s frame, he ends up making passages that aren’t satirical into satire. He reframes passages that use no satire, or a different form of satire, to justify personal attack satire. Again, I’d be happy to elaborate if Canon gives me that book deal, but following my Descartes homage, let’s consider a couple of representative examples.
Doug makes the argument that Jesus used a racial slur.
Jesus was not above using ethnic humor to make His point either.
[“]And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples ciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she cricth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help rne. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ ters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, 0 woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. (Mt. 15: 22-28; Mk. 7:27)
My understanding of this encounter is that Jesus was pulling his disciples’ chain.This woman was not a Jew, and the Jews had problems dealing with such people, considering them beneath contempt-in a word, dogs. Put in terms that we might be more familiar with, Jesus was white, and the disciples were white, and this black woman comes up seeking healing for her daughter. She gets ignored.The disciples ask Jesus to send her off. She comes up and beseeches Christ for healing. It’s not right, He says, to give perfectly good white folk food to “niggers.” Disciples mentally tally cheer. But she sees the look in His eye, and the inverted commas around the epithet, and answers in kind. He relents, which was His intent all along, and heals the woman’s daughter. If this understanding is right, then Jesus was using a racial insult to make a point. If it is not correct, then He was simply using a racial insult. In either case, His language is more than a little rough.[“][i]
(On typos, see comment above.)
Doug uses the story of Jesus’ conversation with the Syrophoenician woman to support the use of ethnic humor. If we place an ethnic frame on this passage, Jesus appears to be making an ethnic distinction. But this is not Jesus’ frame here. Jesus is making a distinction based on covenant identity, not ethnicity.
This encounter occurred not in Judea or Galilee but in the Hellenized region north of what had been Israel. The cultural context of “dog” in the Hellenistic world is better found in Greek literature, like Homer’s Odyssey, where dogs are presented as loyal companions who live with one’s family (See 16.4-6 and 17.290-327). In the Greek of Matthew and Mark, “dogs” here is diminutive, the term for household pets. Plutarch even uses the same word form Jesus uses to refer to loyal pet dogs one lives with (See Aratus 7.3 and following). Jesus’ aim here is not a racial slur. “It is… doubtful that Jesus intended a reference to the Gentiles or that the woman understood his statement in this sense. On the contrary, he alludes to a current domestic scene, particularly in a Hellenistic household. The table is set and the family has gathered. It is inappropriate to interrupt the meal and allow the household dogs to carry off the children’s bread”[ii]
This was pointed out to me by Pastor James E. Coleman Jr., of Court Street Baptist Church, the Black Baptist Church I attended for a time while in grad school. (When Nate came, he and I started attending a church plant started by his uncle, Gordon.)
Doug is not a racist. He had used this passage to justify ethnic humor, though, even when I studied at NSA. When I ran Doug’s argument by Pastor Coleman, Coleman pointed out that Jesus is distinguishing between the covenant family (i.e. the children) of God and those outside the immediate family but who will receive blessings. The pet dogs live in the house with the family. The gentile woman picks up on the frame of house membership and reverses Jesus’ use of the diminutive to claim the food from the Master’s table. Jesus was not calling the Syrophoenician woman a racial insult.
To go beyond Pastor Coleman’s point, Jesus held a strong view of Gentile faith. He claimed that the men of Nineveh, who “believed” and repented at the preaching of Jonah, and the Queen of Sheba would rise at the end to condemn the people of his generation who did not believe Jesus (Jonah 3:5; Matthew 12:39-42; Luke 11:29-32). Jesus knew Isaiah well and quoted from it often. He would undoubtedly have known that Isaiah specifically says people of each nation would come under the Messiah’s blessings (Isaiah 16:5; 17:7-8;19:24; 24:14-15; etc.). Jesus would have known that all of this would come about because they would receive the benefits of the New Covenant made with Israel for all nations. This theme is also repeated over and over again at the end of Isaiah, and taught by Jeremiah (31:31-34). Jesus’ use of the house frame points to his awareness of all of this. The Syrophoenician woman seems to have picked up on it, in faith.
While there are many other examples we could look at from A Serrated Edge, let’s turn to Doug’s use of Matthew 23. In this famous passage, Jesus pronounces seven woes against the “Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites.” In this passage, Jesus points to several absurdities in the way that the Scribes and Pharisees make distinctions about what is holy and what is not. Doug uses Matthew 23 to justify making caricatures of people.
In much of Christ’s teaching, we have this consistent element of righteous caricature. The best example of this is found in Matthew 23, the most extended polemic in the New Testament. Not only is the caricature righteous in this chapter, it can also fairly be described as slashing. In this passage, we have the verbal equivalent of the cleansing of the Temple. When He cleansed the Temple, Jesus had made a whip of cords and driven the livestock out of the court of the Gentiles. In this place He makes a whip of words and drives the stubborn bovine theologians before Him.[iii]
Doug then uses Jesus’ distinctions as a justification for his own pillorying of what he calls “Modern Evangelicals.” Anyone who has known Doug for more than five minutes knows the poor Modern Evangelical is the hapless target of much of Doug’s wit. When you’re in the steady orbit of the CREC, the Modern Evangelical seems like the silliest fool ever to walk the earth. Then I went to other churches. Some even had some of the trappings of Modern Evangelicals: guitars, keyboards, big screens, less formal clothing, playing pad during prayer, human empathy. I’ve preached in these contexts.
It’s easy to take symbols and put them in a different narrative context to make them seem silly or evil. Just think of what Nathaniel Hawthorn did to American Puritanism. A man who can use “puppies” to make Jesus a tactless southerner can do amazing things with stage lights and smoke machines if he wants to turn the less reformed into his brand of “Modern Evangelicals.”
The same could be and has been done by some Catholics to Protestants. By some Evangelistic Baptists to “the Reformed.” And by some Wesleyans to Calvinists. When inaccurately done, as it often is, this style of satire makes a fictional realm of forms, that a satirist’s audience then applies to the target of the satire, thinking that they are accurately describing the people targeted. This is why this kind of satire, when not done wisely, tempts an audience to receive entertainment at the cost of becoming stupid.
Caricatures are useful for camp-building satire. However, in Matthew 23, Jesus is not exaggerating for effect to make a verbal whip. Nor is he generalizing. We know this because we have The Mishnah. If one reads it cover to cover, it will be obvious that Jesus’ critique of the Scribes and Pharisees misunderstanding of holiness was spot-on and precise. Jesus is not exaggerating or overgeneralizing. He is being clear.
The Problem Is Not Satire Itself
The problem here is not in satire, but in a style of communication that sacrifices truth and integrity in order to build a camp. Satire hides this style of communication well, since satire often employs exaggeration to make a point. But what if the point is not true? I have had a number of conversations with pastors who operate in the CREC, influenced by Doug, who justified being careless with the truth, or creating a false impression, with the need to be “pastoral,” and stand for the “truth.”
In the second episode of Veritas Vox, Marlin Detweiler, President of Veritas Press, confronted Doug over his blog post which claimed Veritas Press had compromised on a biblical view of Genesis. Doug made this claim because Veritas Press was selling the Novare science curriculum, which teaches an old Earth perspective. Doug claimed in his article that the classical Christian movement faced “one of our great challenges” in potentially compromising on Genesis. And the solution? Doug concludes, “The issue is whether you should hire that guy to teach your children how to think like a Christian. And on that subject, he is manifestly unqualified.” This blog post is an ad that says, “leave my competitor because he’s compromising on Genesis. Doug is saying, See I’m more right than my competitor. Leave him and… find someone else. Hint. Hint.
But Veritas Vox episode 2 shows Doug failed to mention that there is a warning on the VP’s page selling Novare that VP disagrees with Novare’s position on Theistic Evolution. Furthermore, when Doug wrote this, Marlin had already approached Doug and the ACCS board about his concerns regarding Theistic Evolution creeping into classical Christian education. Marlin publicly called out Doug for this in the interview.
Marlin: Let me say something to the audience that you already know. I initiated a conversation while on the board of ACCS, first with you and then with the board of my concern of the creeping element of Theistic Evolution which I saw coming because I had a little advanced notice on it circulating and I saw some of the players at Biologos and that sort of thing.
Doug: Right
Marlin: What was particularly disturbing was you chose to call us out with all of that knowledge. That struck me as quite disingenuous, now I don’t want this to become personal, because I wasn’t personally hurt by it, and I don’t want the audience to think that’s what I’m doing. What I’m saying is that part of the process of using an attack, maybe mockery, maybe that kind of mentality, sometimes requires us having more information than we do if its easily attained, and in this case it was.
Here Marlin was referring to a comment earlier about Doug having access to all of Marlin’s contact numbers so that he could have checked his facts.
Doug then went on to agree with Marlin, that it’s OK to use books that don’t agree with the Christian faith for teaching purposes, to provoke thought, pointing out that NSA has students read Darwin’s Origin of Species. And Doug promised to go back to his blog and correct his comments.
However, afterward, he didn’t. He doubled down. On his blog he admitted that he didn’t look at VP’s Novare page, but then he doubled by claiming that Marlin is wrong about the text being one of the best science texts. What was his proof? Well, if you click the link he offers, at the time I am writing this article, the link will take you to a blog post Doug wrote about how Novare is a bad curriculum because, in some places, it teaches Theistic Evolution. That’s not begging the question. No, sir.
So if you just read Doug’s blog, it looks like Veritas Press is still compromising on Theistic Evolution or is just foolish. How many will fact-check this one of Doug’s many blog posts? Veritas does not sin or practice folly by selling this science curriculum with caveats while it develops its own.
I’m not saying Doug is trying to be particularly deceptive. Rather, the way Doug handled this relationship reflects this philosophy of communication that I’ve been referring to. To gather followers, he can be fast and loose with the truth to create an impression that will be beneficial to camp-building. Satire is a great vehicle for this, but not the only vehicle.
Jim Wilson’s Critique of “The Worst Kind”
The first time I met Jim Wilson, he cornered me at the Red Hawk Crossing, then an evangelistic coffee house in Moscow, ID. He confronted me on how sometimes theology can lead to what he thought was the worst version of the sin of pride, the sin of being “most right.” Below Jim describes this sin in our book Sickbay for the Saints.
The Worst Kind
But the worst kind of pride is being the “most right.” Among evangelical denominations wherein people have been saved by grace no one can be most right. That which saves is absolutely the same. But Christians want to be “most right” and latch on to something that doesn’t even save. Even if it’s true.
It may be the Seventh Day, different forms and times of baptisms, Reformed, Wesleyan or Pentecostal. Christians hold on to these characteristics because they are “most right.” Even if what you hold turns out to be “most right,” holding onto it is a prideful position that intentionally divides the saints. This division is not allowed. This pride in being Reformed or Wesleyan is sin. The Christians that do not think it is sin, do not admit themselves to the hospital. They continue in their sin and are very pleased with it.
If you are a pastor or an elder and you forced a minister out of his church, not for heresy or sin, but because he wasn’t your version of Reformed, your pride is the worst kind.
Whatever doctrinal distinctive is held has to be taught. Every seminary teaches Hebrew, Greek, hermeneutics and homiletics. As a general rule, seminaries could trade professors in each of these subjects with no difference. There is another department in each seminary that is called Systematic Theology. This department teaches the distinctive theology that make future pastors in training into adherents of that theology, who in turn teach it to their congregations. They say, “We are right,” but they are deliberately teaching division in the body of Christ. Jesus warned,
“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering” (Luke 11:52).
This “rightness” is held on a higher plane than righteousness and holiness, joy and peace. In fact it is a hindrance to these other requirements! It often is also a hindrance to evangelism because it often touches the definition of grace. It modifies the definition. But “grace” has its own definition in the Bible. The modifiers in the New Testament are not qualitative modifies. “Sovereign grace” for the Presbyterians. “Free grace” for the Wesleyans. They are quantitative. Here they are: “abundant grace” (Romans 5:17), “overflowing grace” (1 Timothy 1:14), “more grace” (James 4:6), “grace upon grace” (John 1:16).
Is it right to have denominations? If we go by history, the answer is, “Yes.” If we go by the Bible, the answer is, “NO.” When the Bible speaks of churches in the plural, it is in reference to a larger area. (For example, the churches in Galatia.) If it is a single city it is in the singular, the church in Jerusalem, to the church of God, which is at Corinth. We have a free book table at the Farmers Market. We are often asked, “Which church do you represent?” We do not represent any.
We are in a Christian culture that is unbiblical. As individual Christians we ought to grow in godliness and speak as Paul spoke to the Corinthians. “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”
Back to the proud Christian who needs the Intensive Care Unit of Sickbay. The solution is in 1 Peter 5:6, “Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time.” See what happens to being “Most right.” Immerse yourself in Romans 14. Read it carefully without the mental gymnastics of your denomination. Hear how Paul is warning you regarding the distinctives that your denomination uses to market itself….
Jim’s evangelistic work in Moscow, ID, led to the planting of several Moscow churches. Over time, though, some of these Christian workers fell out of fellowship. They became unwilling to work together over theological differences. They had to be “most right.” Even Doug and Evan could no longer minister together. Evan stayed more Arminian while Doug went Reformed. Their fierce conflict pushed them to theological extremes. Jim saw the need to be “most right” was at the core of how much of the Modern Evangelical church functions today (Yes, in this sense, Doug is a Modern Evangelical.) Jim insisted that in our book, we call out this sin because of how damaging it is to Gospel ministry.
So what’s the solution? I humbly suggest the solution to being “most right” is to follow the example of… the Wilson family. Before Jim went to his “promotion,” he carefully planned his funeral. At his funeral, he wanted his sons to preach the Gospel without doctrinal conflicts. Doug, Evan and Gordon did an excellent job. There was not even a hint of disagreement. We sang many hymns during that service, but we closed with “And Can It Be,” the super Wesleyan version. You can watch the service here.
If all of us, including Doug, treated our opponents with the faithfulness and integrity that Doug, Evan and Gordon treated their father’s wishes, we would powerfully overcome actual vice and folly. Even our satire would be better.
That’s what I’m trying to teach in A Rhetoric of Love: Volume Two. And that’s what Jim was trying to teach Doug and Evan. Because they are both faithful, wise sons, that was possible. A number of us at the funeral picked up on what Jim was doing.
Two Dead Flies
Someone who reads this will say, “How clever, Michael. You rhetoric teacher! You used Jim Wilson’s writing to prove you’re “most right.” Not at all. James Clear, in his Atomic Habits, talks about how every choice we make is a vote toward the kind of person we want to be. Doug is almost 70. I’m only 48. He has had more opportunities to cast votes toward good character. I started this article by providing evidence that he has done so. Between Doug and I, Doug is most right. Jim’s example lives in Doug as a moral compass, which I think helps protect Doug from the full potential for pastoral abuse in A Serrated Edge. Doug was an excellent pastor to me.
“Dead flies bring a stench to the perfumer’s oil, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor” Ecclesiastes 10:1. A Serrated Edge contains two dead flies, namely:
Bad Idea 1: Satire makes camps. And if you’re not complicit with the satirist you are subverting the camp.
Bad Idea 2: “[T]he Scriptures are thoroughly satiric.” Or rather that the supposed examples of satire in the Bible are the kinds of satire that justify Serrated Edge-ing people.
I want the fruit of Doug’s wisdom and honor to flourish, which is why I’m pointing to these two dead flies and waving. “Excuse me. See those flies?” Let’s get rid of these, in all of us. If we sacrifice truth and integrity, using any form of communication, but especially satire, to gain a camp-building advantage, to make ourselves “most right,” we will end up needlessly destroying the social capital between members of the body. We destroy our capacity for ministry as the Church. Satire empowered by these two bad ideas will lead to the sin of being “most right.” As Jim Wilson warned, we should flee this sin. If our satire causes us to sin in this way, let’s pluck it out. Even better, let’s pluck out these two flies and make our satire better. Jim Wilson was a wise man. We all should listen to him.
If you want to be notified by email when the next volume of my series with Jim Wilson publishes, subscribe below.
[i] Douglas Wilson. A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking (Kindle Locations 115-122). Kindle Edition.
[ii] Douglas Wilson. A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking (Kindle Locations 346-358). Kindle Edition.
[iii] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 262. Lane’s discussion of the Hellenistic cultural setting of and why Jesus is not using a racial slur here is excellent.
[iv] Douglas Wilson. A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking (Kindle Locations 251-254). Kindle Edition.