Appropriate to laugh? and The Topic of Appropriateness

Today on Facebook my older brother posted a picture, one I had seen before, but one that is worth looking at again. I believe the sign was made for the occasion of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s rally in Washington: “The Rally To Restore Sanity” and “The March To Keep Fear Alive”. The question my brother wanted me to blog about was “whether it or not it’s appropriate to think that this is hilarious”.

My simple answer is yes. I think it is a great spot of wit. First off, because it makes fun of Republicans, which is just as funny as making fun of any other group one can make vast generalizations about. Second, because free healthcare is awesome. Third, it calls out the underlying racism driving much of the Obama-hate. (This is not to say that I am for Obama and Democrats. To be honest, I think there is little difference between the parties; either option is too limited). From a Biblical perspective, this sign finds its correspondence in making fun of Pharisees, who were disturbed by Jesus shaking up the social order, or any other proponent of the status quo.

I like the question my brother poses…What is appropriate? Beyond this entertaining picture, appropriateness has been on my mind of late. My simple answer is” freedom in Christ”, implying that one is free to find such humour hilarious. I know that this “freedom in Christ” thing has swung this way and that way throughout history. I, however, refuse to take a stream of logic that states “when in a grey area always hedge toward the conservative side”. I refuse such logic because history has not proven this to be the correct approach. Karen Armstrong, in A History of God, considers such swings, one of such she critiques this way, “In our own day, we have witnessed the permissive society of the 1960s giving way to the more puritan ethic of the 1980s, which has also coincided with the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the west.” All that to say, always defaulting to a more conservative ethic is not necessarily the best route. That is because following such logic leads to some undesirable outcomes, fundamentalism being the case and point.

I bring up freedom in Christ and the permissive nature of Christianity to speak to other whisperings surrounding this blog. What is appropriate to blog about? I thought we had dealt with this topic in a series of posts that all engaged the topic of censorship. Specifically, what is and is not appropriate to post on this blog. There have been some whisperings (yes it is amazing what all comes back to the sources even beyond cyberspace) that some of our posts have been “too far”, or “you are asking questions that should not be asked”. I am frustrated by this.

I am frustrated because there are people who have disagreed with posts and are too timid to comment their disagreements. We have a comment section for a reason. We by no means want to state that we are somehow authoritative on any of the topics we ponder. I believe I speak for Duncan and Danielle when I say that we would welcome a different opinions being posted in the comment section, we would probably be rather excited by such engagement. I am frustrated because this does not happen, but people continue to read, continue to be offended, and they gather their “evidence”, making their “case”. It finally comes to a head when they come out guns blazing, telling us to reconsider what we are doing, stating we are harming others. This I find frustrating because I also have people tell me how much they love the blog, it makes their day, or they wish we went further on some topics. Too be honest, I did not think we were pushing the limits as of late…some posts were downright hopeful! So what then am I to censor?

Rather than reiterate what has already been discussed in other posts about censorship, I want to state a little bit of my personal philosophy on why I do not always censor. I believe freedom in Christ ought to be embodied by those who claim to follow this rebel and social disturber. I believe this is relevant to one’s personal and social ethics, but beyond that I think freedom in Christ MUST relate to one’s academic and intellectual endeavours. It has been said before, but obviously it need to be repeated, “At the root of all fear is a lack of trust”. The limiting of academic and intellectual freedom, by “questions you should not ask”, I believe is rooted in a fear of where they might lead. I see the lack of trust directly relating to one’s perception of God. If your God is stagnant and dormant, then you will spend all you time defending that God. Whereas, if you believe in a living God, a God of personhood, who ought to be able to defend himself or herself, there is no fear to honestly question. Thus, to fear a question is to lack trust in the deity’s ability to deal with such questions. In my opinion, any deity who cannot handle a question is not a deity worth believing in or following.

I find appropriateness frustrating because the line of appropriateness is so hard to gage over the internet. There are many conversations I refuse to have when I am face-to-face with someone, because the other individual is not yet at a place to journey with me into a certain topic or way of thinking. On the other hand, if I do have the discussion I can precede slowly and appropriately, given the other person’s receptivity to an idea. On the internet, however, I have far less ability to perceive such things. There is some interaction in the comment sections, which is great. I also know many people who read the blog, but there are friends and acquaintances of Danielle and Duncan I do not know. Alternatively, even farther afield, other wonderful people who stumble upon the blog while upon their noble quests to read the entirety of the intertubes. How then am I to judge what might or might not be appropriate?

It is here I come to Paul’s concept of not doing everything that is permissible, but only doing what is beneficial. To this concept, I have no answer or rebuttal. My response is that you please engage us and the blog, rather than being hurt by it. If you disagree, comment. If you think something is too far and heretical, click the heretical button. If you are continually offended and are too timid to engage and be stretched in your perspective, please stop reading the blog. Please do what is beneficial for you. Govern your use of this public space and avoid the harm it is causing you. I am not about to be intellectually timid, because I see that as the most horrendous blasphemy and heresy. And with that, the ball is now in your court, your move.