When Is It Satire?

The last few days social media have been flooded with mockery and debate prompted by President Trump’s comments about injecting disinfectants as a cure for coronavirus. This comes at the same time that the FDA cautioned against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 treatment. I have nothing to contribute to that noise, nor do I think anything I might say or write will change the opinions of anyone in my relationship circle and certainly not any one in a position to influence public policy.

However, this cacophony has stimulated further thought on something that I have been pondering for quite some time. At this point, I have no intention of posting to social media, but as I have done a couple of other time, posted in my blog as a way of getting something in words so I can get it out of my mind.

“Fake news” has become a mechanism and slogan in our recent political environment. Of course, spreading mis-information is hardly new and not limited to journalism, but in our time of such intense political polarization it seems to have reached a fever pitch. On one side are the knowing and unintentional disseminators of “fake news.” I know my opinion is not shared by everyone, but FOX News seems to have raised fake news to almost an art form. Yes, they have been compelled to make corrections to blatant untruth, but their approach goes beyond being shaped by their editorial positions. I get a grim chuckle when I see them referred to as Faux News. While not as blatant, or perhaps just more subtle, CNN is a sort of counterpoint from the political left to FOX’s political right.

While responsible journalists aspire to objectivity, human reality is that we understand and present everything through our own perspective and presuppositions. That is not inherently wrong as long as it is acknowledged. In theory, a free press becomes a sort of check and balance system. When one outlet detects intentional or unintentional error in another outlet, they call each other on it, with the expectation that truth can emerge from the back and forth. The free press (envisioned not only in the US Constitution) did not anticipate the concentration of so much power and influence in such a small group of very wealthy people who would dominate television and other modern media outlets. As much as conservatives rail against the “liberal media,” the controlling money and power insures pretty conservative messages.

On the other side of the promulgation of “fake news” is the use of the label “fake news” as a way of dismissing, discrediting, or evading unwelcome reality. This has been a very common political strategy in recent years, not only as practiced by politicians but by many public figures when they or the organizations they lead come under scrutiny. Even in unstructured public and private discourse such as on social media, the “fake news” label is a frequent way of just not acknowledging much less addressing things that do not fit opinions and presuppositions.

My observation is that this “fake news” phenomena in its variety of forms has brought us to the place where knowing what to believe is nigh unto impossible. In the debates over the handling of the coronavirus pandemic, scientific credibility of claimed for clearly contradictory opinions and even data. Those who we have traditionally trusted as objectively looking out for all of our interests (such as CDC) have had their credibility undermined by an onslaught of counterclaims of “scientific evidence” that they have nefarious motives for distorting the information and recommendations they are making. This feed on or into the spread of a host of fear mongering conspiracy theories that seems to be growing in appeal lately.

All of this is a long way around to get to the question that prompted my writing. How do we recognize when something is satire or being presented as real? For whatever reason, perhaps because of my relationships with a broad range of church people, I seem to see things from The Babylon Bee fairly often. They clearly present themselves as satire. Yet, not infrequently someone will take them at face value and either argue the point or spread it as though it is true. I enjoy incisive, humorous satire as much as anyone. Yet, it seems that we have come to a place in this culture of “fake news” that the boundaries between satire, “fake news,” and reality have become so fuzzy that even those who try to be discerning have a hard time telling the difference.

The buzz around President Trump’s comments about injecting disinfectants is just the prime example of the moment. Listening or reading the exchange between the reporter and the President is strange at best. They both seem to be serious but that either of them could be serious about it is incredulous. So when the criticism comes, the walk back is to claim that it was “sarcastic” (not really a synonym for what I think would be a better word choice “satire”). Even before he got into politics, Donald Trump had a reputation for a biting humor that could be insulting (“You’re Fired!”) and some have suggested that he needs to be understood that way and not always taken seriously. But as the current brouhaha reveals, discerning when something is serious and something is satire is not always easy (not just with President Trump). Some have suggested this may be an intentional strategy to put out something outrageous and then walk it back as satire to come to a place that would not have been an acceptable serious proposal but now seems more reasonable. I have no way of knowing about that, but it is interesting to consider if this is a purposeful strategy or just personality quirk.

Well, I’ve rambled on long enough with myself. I do hope this gets it out of my system so my mind can be more at rest. I do come back to this exchange between Jesus and Pilate in John 18:37-38. Jesus said, “Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate asked him, “What is truth?” This echoes Jesus’ words from John 8:32, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” And Jesus claim in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” I don’t intend to set this in some sort of defensive or strident religions posture, but as one who aspires to follow Jesus, I find the present difficulty in discerning truth about quite ordinary things to be daunting. I am not at all suggesting that it threatens my relationship with Jesus, only that as one who follows the one who so strongly identified himself with truth, I am struggling with how to live faithfully in this culture of “fake news” and (perhaps intentional) fuzzing the boundary between satire and reality.

More Divided than Ever?

Markell - Stations of the Cross

Few would disagree that the US is in a time of unprecedented divisiveness, but few agree on what makes this time so unique. I will try to explore my personal hypothesis for my own peace of mind so I can give attention to priorities from which I must not be distracted. Vigorously debating differences of opinion is intrinsic to democracy and not a sign of dysfunctional division. Every presidential election since George Washington has been contested, sometimes quite sharply. I came of age in the deep divisions of the peace and civil rights movements of the 60s and 70s. If you think those wounds have healed, just talk to some Vietnam War veterans or African Americans. (I am making no assumption about who is reading this.)

Perhaps the deepest historic division came with the Civil War/War Between the States. To be sure institutional slavery was the driving force, but seeking freedom from perceived economic tyranny also motivated the formation of the Confederate States of America. Despite all the moral arguments that continue to swirl around that conflict, the outcome was determined by military and economic power. Imagining what would have happened if the states from Texas to Virginia had succeeded in becoming a separate nation is only speculation. Nevertheless, that thousands died in the dispute over that possibility is a clear sign of how deep that division was. Having lived in Texas for 17 years, I can tell you that even a century and a half later, those wounds are not completely healed.

Even against that historic backdrop, our time is clearly one of unprecedented virulent division and engulfs much more than politics. My personal sense is that this dramatically ramped up with the 2008 presidential campaign with highly hostile attacks on Obama and Trump way beyond policy disagreements. I certainly do not have any particular credentials for a definitive analysis. I have only my own observations. I would welcome the insights of any who take the trouble to read all of this (acknowledging that I tend to write on past the point other folk are willing to read).

I often hear and read that we are living in a time of sharp polarization. That implies what has come to be referred to (in a broad range of concerns) as binary thinking. We used to call this black-and-white mentality (without any implicit racial overtones), but meaning it’s all this way or that way with no gradations in between (sometime referred to as gray or even colors).  Polarized thinking lumps things together into two categories: that with which I agree and that with which I disagree. By extension, that becomes the people who are on my side and the people who are against me (or I am against them). Such friends are embraced, even overlooking their flaws; an enemies are shunned, even rejecting any contribution they might make.

In this environment, coalitions are branded with labels to indicate whether they are rejected or accepted at all. These labels get hurled around like curse words, as though they explain something. Liberal, conservative, denier, evangelical, fundamentalist, religious right, leftist, progressive, gun nut, anti-gun, anti-abortion, baby killer, socialist, communist, fascist, Nazi. The list could go on and one. What it suggests to me is that the “us vs. them” binary thinking of our present divisiveness is much more complex than that. It pushes different clusters together in coalitions of strange bedfellows indeed. I think of these clusters as tribes that are each after their own agenda and willing to draw power from other tribes if it serves their specific interest. In the process the tribes get associated with causes that may even be at odds with their own principles, but they are willing to do that as a way of disempowering the tribes who they identify as their enemy. The very concept of polarization feeds on this “us vs. them” thinking.

Others have observed in different ways that not only do these different tribes and their coalitions hold differing presuppositions, they live in often dramatically contrasting realities. While an obvious oversimplification, people in the Northeast and on the West (left) Coast are like one country and people in the South and center of the country are a different nation. This has been noted by observers from both arenas. Citizens of each think of themselves as being authentically “American” and find some patterns in the other so different they say, “That’s not who we are!” I am not going to analyze this model but only observe that people’s sense of national identity and their presuppositions coincide with the reality in which they live (at least as they perceive it).

As the debates between the opposing views erupt in the news, on the internet, in social media, and personal interaction with acquaintances, co-workers, neighbors, friends, and family, my observation is that these conflicts are not about data and information, logic and reason. They are about mutually exclusive, contradictory presuppositions. Data and information, logic and reason are viewed through the lens of those presuppositions and marshalled in constellations around them. While not necessarily overtly defined or even easily recognized, the presuppositions are regarded as sacrosanct and any challenge to them is perceived as an attack on the sacred. Such attacks are perceived as so threatening they justify unmitigated rejection and virulent responses.

Let me be very quick to acknowledge that I am very aware that I have as many presuppositions as anyone else, and my responses to many things in the world around me flow from those presuppositions. Let me also acknowledge that try as I might, I know I am not always aware of my presuppositions and how they come out in what I think, say, write, and do. The things I am about to write are clearly extensions of my presuppositions and in no way am I suggesting that my awareness of and attempts to live them either exempt me from the hazards of my presuppositions nor am I suggesting I’ve figured this out well enough to be an model for others, only that I am learning and growing myself.

Perhaps with a simplistic smile, a Peanuts cartoon I’ve seen several times sums this up (I don’t know if this actually came from Charles Schultz or someone just used his characters). Snoopy is at a typewriter, and Charlie Brown asks what he’s writing Snoopy says he’s writing a book on theology. Charlie Brown ask what it’s about. Snoopy replies, “The title is ‘Have you Ever Considered that You Might Be Wrong?’”

I find two Psalms sobering challenges to how deeply I am affected by my presuppositions. Psalm 19:12 asks, “Who can detect their errors? Clear me from hidden faults.” Psalm 139:23-24 prays, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts. See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” I need give enough silent space for God to conduct such an inventory so I can pray with integrity Psalm 19:14 May “the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.”

This is closely akin to Step Four of AA. “Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.” Christian contemplative traditions speak of the discipline of examen. The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola call for a “Daily Particular Examination of Conscience.” Benedict of Nursia taught a continuous “conversion of life.” We are always in process and need to have our thoughts, words, and actions increasingly converted toward Christlikeness every day. I find this wholly consistent with the calls of John the Baptist and Jesus to repent. (Matthew 3:2; 4:7; Mark 1:15; 6:12) That was not just at the beginning but throughout Jesus’ ministry and at the heart of the message of the Apostles (Acts 2:38) I dare not think I am finished with repenting but continuously seek to live out the prayer of Richard of Chichester (1197–1253). “O Dear Lord, three things I pray: to see you more clearly, to love you more dearly and follow you more nearly, day by day.” (Yes, far more ancient that Godspell)

I have no illusions about becoming presupposition-free. But I do intend my own contemplative practices to open me to having them exposed and corrected. As these rhythms have grown over the last half-century, I have become increasingly and acutely aware that I do not fit in with any of the tribes or coalitions that compose this country. Though I am present and participating, I have known for a very long time that I don’t belong here. I am an outsider. Or as Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon wrote in their 1989 book, I am a resident alien.

That tradition, even if not the exact term, is deeply rooted in biblical and Christian experience. The Hebrew Prophets were outside of both temple and palace. They spoke God’s Word of truth to those in power, both religious and political, and often paid a high price. Claiming identity with the Hebrew Prophets is not to be taken lightly. I certainly would not do it for myself except to observe that the outside voice has a long and important history. After Jesus’ resurrection and Pentecost, the Church quickly outgrew its Jewish roots, but it was never part of the cultural or political establishment anywhere in the Roman Empire. As Philippians 3.20 says, “Our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” This outsider role prevailed until the Emperor Constantine adopted his own distorted view of Christianity as the religion of imperial conquest in the fourth century. The resultant spiritual collapse was the impetus for the Desert Fathers and Mothers.

With the unholy alliance of ecclesiastical and political power, the outsider witness was kept alive by various monastic movements starting with the Desert Fathers and Mothers. Some of the most notable are still contributing: Benedict, Francis, Ignatius, and others. What we think of as the Protestant Reformation largely took place in the realms of ecclesiastical and political power and accepted the insider identities of Christendom/Christian nations. The Anabaptists, however, were more akin to the monastics, though with different underpinnings. But they knew (and still know) that following Jesus will inevitably be countercultural. The presuppositions of these outsider movements are never be congruent with any of the tribes and coalitions of the established powers in any culture or society.  It is true that some monastics and some Anabaptist have withdrawn so much they limited their influence as salt and light in the world.

I have already disavowed any claim to the prophetic office of ancient Israel, and I certainly have no prophetic gift in terms of seeing what is coming at us with any more clarity than anyone else. I do know that zero-sum binary thinking (if I concede “they” are right about anything, then “we” lose) is destructive. I know that for me to become an advocate for or adversary of any of the tribes or their coalitions violates my aspiration to follow Jesus. I know that even others who bear the name of Christ will struggle with this way of living. Yet, as a resident-alien/citizen of the reign of God, I am called to justice and peace, love and righteousness. I am called to live in community with others who aspire to follow Jesus to live out his values the best we can, demonstrating and inviting others into the reality of life with Jesus.

Who Was that Woman?

This week, as I have been reflecting on the lectionary Gospel reading for Sunday (John 20:19-31) I found myself jumping to Luke 24 with the story of Jesus meeting the two on the road to Emmaus. When Jesus vanished after they recognized him, they hurried back to Jerusalem to tell the other disciples. (Luke 24:33-35). Just as they were reporting this, Jesus’ appeared (v. 36). This seems to be the same moment as John 20:19. Presumably the disciples opened the door to let in the two returning from Emmaus, though locked it before Jesus entered. I don’t know that this necessarily has any profound significance, but I enjoy exploring the interlink between these two narratives, neither of which are reported in Matthew or Mark.

For a long time I have also been fascinated by speculating about who it was Jesus met on the road to Emmaus. Many artistic representations show two men on the road or at the table with Jesus. I know I am not alone in finding that highly unlikely. The text only says “two” and only names on of them, “Cleopas.” For two men in Judea at that time to have had a shared household would have been very rare. I am also not alone in speculating that the unnamed one was Cleopas’ wife. The convention of referring to a couple by the marital surname (e.g. The Stolpes meaning Norm and Candy) had not been established. Thus, referring to the husband by name would have identified the couple.

I have another highly speculative idea that the only scholars I have read who comment on it at all reject. I suppose that if some scholars felt they needed to reject it, someone else must have asked about it. But I wonder if the woman was Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25). To me, the variation in spelling – Clopas/Cleopas – seems small and incidental, but I am speculating in an area I know nothing about. Again, I am not suggesting any profound significance, but I do find imaginative explorations seem to invite me deeper into the story.

Uncertain Trumpet

Written April 8, 2020

1 Corinthians 14:8 seems to me to speak to our journey with COVID-19. "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (KJV)

From the very beginning of this ordeal I have contended that no politician of any party or any office should be saying anything about COVID-19 except "Pay attention to Dr. Fauci and follow the CDC recommendations."

Yes, they are human and not perfect. In a novel situation much is still to be learned. But they have laid out a reliable, stable path. That is in frightening contrast to the uncertainty and contradictions coming from politicians pretending they know what they don't know and arguing with each other out of arrogant ignorance.

Argue about who first politicized COVID-19 if you wish, but this never should have been part of political maneuvering. It should have been addressed as a public health challenge for the whole country (world) handled by those we have entrusted with the responsibility to protect us all.

We are being victimized by not just one uncertain trumpet but a whole chorus of them with neither score or conductor.

Further response April 10, 2020

 I have seen quite a bit of grumbling about panic buying and hoarding (even still). I must say I neither saw nor heard anything in any of the media I follow, nor from the CDC, nor even from the administration or any politician that could be interpreted as encouraging panic or hoarding. I have no empirical basis for defining what triggered panic buying and hoarding, but from my experience with human nature, I strongly suspect that uncertainty feeds such behaviors. In that regard, I suggest that the "uncertain trumpets," especially in the early stages of this journey contributed to any number of irrational behaviors. As "what if?" conjectures can never be verified, we'll never know what would have happened if all the political voices had in unison said, "Pay attention to Dr. Fauci and follow CDC recommendations." I have to believe much panic could have been averted, and perhaps even this all would be trailing off by now.

Truth and Allegiance

As I was reading the Passion narrative in the Gospel of John this morning two small quotes seemed to speak to realities of our time. Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth” (18:38) and the chief priests answered Pilate, “We have no king but the emperor.” [Caesar KJV, RSV] (19:15)

“Fake news” is increasingly hurled around as a political weapon. Several forms of “fake news” combine to undermine the whole idea of objective truth. I believe this is far deeper and more destructive than moral relativism. Bandying around “fake news” in all of its forms is an indicator that truth is being replaced by power. Whomever wins the power struggle gets to define truth from reporting of current events to scientific evidence. Pilate epitomized this practice of “fake news.” He knew Jesus was innocent of the charges against him, but sentenced him to execution anyway because he had the power to do so. (19:10-11) I observe that “fake news” takes at least these forms.

·         Inventing “fake news” that is untrue but presented as true to malign or manipulate.

·         Selectively reporting and arranging “fake news” that uses accurate information to mislead either intentionally or filtered by political or other presuppositions.

·         Unintentional “fake news” that reports inaccurate or selected information with or without bias. When this is discovered in healthy process of the free press, responsible sources make public corrections and apologies as appropriate.

·         Subjective “fake news” that reports accurate information with responsible intentions, presented to support political or other presuppositions.

·         Dismissing as “fake news” unwelcome information because of minor flaws in presentation.

·         Dismissing as “fake news” any unwelcome information, even if correct, as an evasion of responsibility or accuracy.

In my opinion, these last two are at least as damaging to truth as the first two in my list.

Back in July 2018 I wrote of my observation of schism in the Church in the US around conflicting understandings of how we who follow Jesus relate to our nation’s government. http://nstolpepilgrim.blogspot.com/2018/07/under-siege-unity-of-spirit-in-bond-of.html “We have no king but the emperor” strikes me as reflective of those who argue that Christian faith requires loyalty to the government. Of course, this becomes ambiguous when the party in power switches from the one you like to the one you don’t like or vice versa. We are facing a second election in a row in which many who follow Jesus, including me, have deep reservations about both candidates. I have to say that for me this is a symptom of or insight into the real values of our society. I want to be clear that I have no expectation that the President or any other office holder in the US be my personal brand of Christian or profess faith in Jesus or even belief in God. (Article 6 of the US Constitution forbids any religious test for holding public office.)Without getting too detailed, I am looking to support candidates of integrity and competence with a long track record of trust and who will work for justice and peace, prosperity and compassion for the least among us.

Before Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king (18:37) , Jesus said, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting … My kingdom is not from here.” (18:36) So the question I am pondering for myself and suggesting for other who follow Jesus to consider is this. In the realities of our present time, how do I participate in public life clearly proclaiming that Jesus is Lord and not getting sucked into saying, “We have no king but the emperor”?