The Dangerous Edge of Satire

I don't read all of the Babylon Bee's political and cultural satire. I have friends who follow it closely; they post an informal version of the "Best of the Bee." I enjoy reading those.

The B, Bee is edgy in, what I regard as, the best sense of the word. If I start reading a B. Bee article and find it too obvious, I typically don't finish. In order to be really effective, satire needs to function close to the edge of believability. The question, "Is this writer really serious?" needs to stay in the air for a while.

So like most edgy things, that which makes it effective, also makes it dangerous. That danger is multiplied by the internet. Good satire will use subtle cues to indicate that the author isn't really serious about what he is saying, but is quite serious about what his satire implies. The "wink" has to be subtle or the whole thing ends up being a parody. There is nothing wrong with parody, I often enjoy it. It tends, though, to involve more laughter and less need for thought than satire. At the end of a good piece of satire, the reader/listener/watcher says, "I need to think about that. That challenged my preconceptions." The after-effects of parody are more likely to be recovery from a good laugh, and perhaps the need to repent for making light of someone or something. Satire can fool even an intelligent, well-read person. Parody will fool only the most simple.

The problem is all communication in the 21st Century, especially communication like this, is available to all people. The "www" does stand for something.

I'll digress and go down a detour to make the point. Twenty years ago, "David Howard, an aide to Anthony A. Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C., used "niggardly" in reference to a budget." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly) Some people were highly offended, thinking or claiming that the bureaucrat was using a racial slur. Others, dictionaries in hand, pointed out that the word has nothing to do with race, its derivation has nothing to do with ethnicity, and to accuse the man of using insulting language based on a phonetic (no insult to the people of Phonecian ancestry intended)  was just plain wrong, and perhaps stupid. I remember discussing the matter with a friend. He maintained that he would never use the word. I maintained that it is a perfectly good adjective. We were both right.

When I'm with "my people" I can use code language, and satire is often based on code words and expressions. When I'm speaking with, or for, everybody, I have to stay farther away from the edge. I'll confess, I don't particularly like that. I absolutely need to remember, however, that while the Bible nowhere forbids cleverness, it does put the standard of speech as that which builds up, not that which causes rot (Ephesians 4:29). I remember a time I was preaching. I talked about some people setting fire to the church building. I thought my signals were clear that I was making this up, it was hypothetical. I was alarmed to find out at the exit, hand-shaking time, that one family thought I was totally serious. To say the least, that illustration didn't edify.

Am I encouraging folk to only use the most flat-footed prose? I quote the Apostle Paul in response. "Mei genoito, God forbid, may it never be." I am encouraging myself, and others who use the spoken and written word to seek to influence others for God and good, to be careful. Christianity Today published an article including a survey of Babylon Bee satires which people thought were serious. The article brought to light an area in which special caution, both for writers and readers, is called for. 

I am most likely to believe something 

outrageous about someone I already don't like. 

No satire intended, at all. Think about that.

And remember, even when we speak to our

own group there are often open-mics about.