Wittiness has become something of a virtue in our day. It is a sign of a clever yet funny personality who offers amusing insights in an entertaining sort of way. I am not against wittiness, as I try to employ it in my own daily conversations. But sometimes wittiness enters the realm of the ridiculous which could also be amusing, yet essentially pointless.An example of such ridiculousness can be found in the April 10th edition of The Huffington Post in an article titled "Killing Jesus For Today's Market" by Spencer Green. The article is based upon the popular quote attributed to H.G. Wells that basically states: "If Jesus Christ had been hanged, the symbol of Christianity would be a noose." The author tries to make the point, albeit in a humorous way, that the cross of Christ has become too commercialized in our day and has become a symbol that may be powerful yet is unrelateable to the contemporary age. He then proceeds to give alternate means of suffering Christ could have gone through to make the story more attune to twenty-first century ears. In doing so, he proposes alternative symbols for Christians that would make the story more relateable, such as the hammer and nails instead of the crucifix itself. Green further elaborates the hypothesis of H.G. Wells with a bunch of "what if's". For example, what if Christ had been hanged by a noose? "Would Christians today wear little nooses around their necks?" Green asks. Or if he was killed by a firing squad, would we wear little guns. After being creative with a bunch of death scenarios that could have been for Christ such as tying him to a boulder and pushing him off a mountain, or being kicked in the balls by Roman guards in a cage fight and other such tortures involving the penis, or tearing him to pieces in the arena which would make for a "kick-ass resurrection", the author then asks what symbol would Christians use if Jesus never died at all. His answer: not much, which means Jesus would get depressed, drunk and probably hang himself.
After reading this article, I didn't think it was witty. If anything, I just thought it was ridiculous and pointless. I can't say I was offended because such sarcasm about Christianity has become common in todays media, and as Oscar Wilde said: "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit". In other words it's nothing new under the sun, it's just told a different way. And with the rise of atheism, such boring and dark sarcasm has become the staple of entertainment and comedy in our day.
Take for example two of the best and most influential comedians of the twentieth century, Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks, who also elaborated on the line of H.G. Wells. Lenny Bruce joked: "If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses". And Bill Hicks said: "Do you think wearing a cross is really a good way to make Jesus happy? Maybe that's why he hasn't returned yet. 'Once the fish comes back in I'm there'. Kinda insensitive really. Like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant and saying 'just thinking of John, Jackie,... we loved him'".
Now when I hear all these jokes which try to make the Christians devotion to the cross seem ridiculous, I wonder who really is ridiculous. Granted, if one doesn't understand the significance of the cross for Christians and is not a Christian himself I can see the ridiculousness of it, but it doesn't make the joke itself any less ridiculous because it is pointless and only shows the ignorance of the one trying to be funny instead of his cleverness. I will also grant the fact that many crosses, especially in the West, are repulsive and scary, but this only merits a joke about its repulsiveness or scaryness which in turn could also merit the title of being witty.
One could even examine the same type of joke in the Monty Python comedy, Life Of Brian, in the scene where Brian is running away from a bunch of self-deceived hysterics who believe him to be the Messiah, and as he runs away he loses a sandal which they begin treating like a relic or cross in an over-exagerated way.
In all these instances, we are not merely presented with irony to evoke petty laughter. Rather I believe it goes back to a proverbial truth known for centuries and first articulated by Chaucer in his Canterbury Tales (c. 1387): "A man may seye full sooth [truth] in game and pley"; then by William Shakespeare in King Lear (1605): "'Jesters do oft prove prophets"; and also by the more well-known version from Roxburghe Ballad (c.1665): "Many a true word hath been spoken in jest". Oscar Wilde gives the most modern rendering: "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you". In other words, some truths, too painful or too likely to provoke, can be spoken only when the listener has been disarmed by laughter. In all these sayings laughter is the means to an end, the end being truth. However, just because we laugh at an apparent truth does not mean it is the truth. And what all these comedians are doing is leading the cynics in their audience to the illusion of an apparent truth by means of laughter to appear clever.
I understand that sometimes we have an urge to laugh at something funny and not think too hard about it. In so doing we make the truth (or apparent truth) as the means to an end, the end being laughter. But this is how entertainment distorts our sense of what we normally classify as sacred and holy. And for Christians, this is exactly what the cross is for us. The cross is Christianity's most sacred and holy symbol and we should be watchful and diligent that it becomes anything less.
Since the cynics are trying to instill truths through laughter, it is necessary to examine how true the claim may be that if Jesus had been hung by a noose instead of crucified, would the symbol of Christianity be a noose instead of a cross?
This question (or remark) evokes similar questions once addressed to Scholastic theologians by fellow Scholastics of the Middle Ages and Humanists of the Renaissance. One question was: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Another is: "Can God create a stone so big that he cannot move it?" Both of these questions have been answered ad nauseum, but what it basically comes down to is the questions make logical fallacies that make them self-refuting. The same is true with the question: "If Jesus died by hanging, would the noose become the new Christian symbol?" Among logical fallacies this is called a "Hypothesis Contrary To Fact" where you argue from something that might have happened, but didn't. And that is the whole point - Jesus did not die by any other means but by crucifixion, no matter how outdated and unrelateable this fact is to contemporary ears.
To answer the question more objectively so even the cynics can understand, I would say that Jesus died on the cross because he had to die on the cross. It was God's will that he died on the cross. If Jesus did not die on the cross and instead died any other death, then he would have died a charlatan and a false messiah. Therefore the assumption that Jesus even could have possibly died another death except by crucifixion is a false assumption, irrelevant and even impossible.
To a non-Christian this may all sound absurd, until the evidence is examined as to why Jesus had to die by crucifixion. The evidence comes from the Old Testament. In the Old Testament we see many times the cross being prefigured as the instrument through which death would be destroyed and demons vanquished.
In Genesis 3 we are told about the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. By the latter came the curse of death through the devil. The Tree of Life becomes the cross of Christ through which we enter into God's glory. We see this typified in the crucifixion of Jesus where one man crucified next to him ridicules Jesus and dies (Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) while the other man hanging on the cross accepts Jesus and enters into eternal life because he partook of the Tree of Life. Thus, as the Apostle Paul says, by one tree came death and by another tree (the cross) came eternal life.
There are many other places throughout the Old Testament where the cross is revealed to be a source of life and a source of the power and salvation of God. We see this in Exodus 15:29 where the bitter waters of Marah turn sweet after Moses throws a tree by God's command in the water. Exodus 17:8-13 we witness the Israelites defeat the Amalekites by the power of God which worked through the wooden rod of Moses that he was commanded to hold up with his arms in the form of a cross. Leviticus 9:22 Aaron brings forgiveness of sins and peace to the people by lifting his arms in the form of a cross. In Numbers 2 we read how the camp of the Israelites were to be divided by tribes around the Tabernacle in the exact position of a cross, and this prevented Balaam the Prophet from cursing Israel when he looked at their formation from the mountain and blessed them saying: "How shall I call down a curse upon whom God did not curse? For from the top of the mountains I see him, and from the hills I envision him" (Number 23:8, 9). Also in Ezekiel 9:4 God sends an angel to mark the foreheads of all his people before the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem; the literal translation says to "mark a tau" which is the letter "T" which is in the shape of the cross. And there are other such stories in the Old Testament in which the cross is a source of life, a source of power and a source of salvation and protection.
There are also a few prophecies which foretell the cross as being a source of salvation for Israel. Psalm 22, quoted by Jesus on the cross, foretells the death of the Messiah which can only best be described as a crucifixion. This is especially evident in verses 17-19: "For many dogs surround me, an assembly of evildoers enclosed me. They pierced my hands and my feet. I numbered all my bones. And they look and stare at me. They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots." In Deuteronomy 21:23 God commands that all those who are put to death on a tree should not hang there overnight, and he curses all those who hang on a tree to die. The Apostle Paul explains in Galatians 2 that God did this to show by what sort of death the Messiah was to die.
To conclude, what we get from all this is that if Jesus was to die the death of the Messiah of Israel, then his only choice was to die by crucifixion which was clearly foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament. There was no other option for Jesus, and there is no other option for his followers but to look to the cross as the source of life, the source of power and the source of salvation for all mankind. And it should not surprise us that the world ridicules the cross. This was done in apostolic times as well, as St. Paul writes: "We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to all those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 23, 24).




An interesting post, John, but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. How can people like ourselves, specifically, who have firm convictions about The Cross, find ourselves laughing at the antics of Cartman and his fellow South Parkers, for whom every holy symbol is an invitation to mock?
ReplyDeleteThis gets into a much deeper issue than was intended by this essay, which merely deals with specific puns against the Cross of Christ. But you raise an issue that I believe is important and relevant.
ReplyDeleteThe way I look at it can best be represented by the Apostle Paul in two passages from two of his Epistles - 2 Cor. 6:3 and Phillip. 1:18.
2 Cor. 6:3 I consider to be one of the most humbling passages in the writings of St. Paul. He reveals here and in the passages that follow what it takes to live a blameless life so as not to be a stumbling-block or offense against the ministry which we minister for God. The point I want to make is that when something we consider to be holy is mocked, I believe it is an invitation for us to be more humble and evaluate our life and ministry whether or not it is we who invite this mockery or not. The truth is, more often than not, it is Christians who do in fact invite this mockery.
Phillip. 1:18 encourages us to reevaluate the way Christ is spoken of, "whether it be in pretence or in truth". I tend to find myself divided in my heart when I see Christ spoken of in an offensive manner. On the one hand I may be offended or find the whole thing ridiculous and pointless, but on the other hand I'm glad that Christ is mentioned either so I can reevaluate my thinking on an issue or at least knowing that people are struggling, whether for ill or not, to make Christ relevant for their life.
In light of these two passages therefore, I can see the positive in all the mockery. People are wrestling with God and their understanding of Him. Sometimes they are fed lies and draw these lies to their logical conclusion. Sometimes they judge the tree by its fruit and find the fruit bitter and rotten. Whatever it is, it helps me to evaluate how I live the Gospel and present myself as an Orthodox Christian in the world so that at least I don't invite such mockery. When Jesus himself was mocked by those who tortured and crucified him, he forgave them for not knowing what they were doing. I think as Christians we should do the same with those outside the Church who are ignorant of the fullness of truth.
Having said this, it seems the heart of the issue is why do we seem to laugh at the mocking of what we consider holy and sacred? I can only speak from my experience. Just as we are called to "live in the world but not be of the world", which is the way of the Saints, so also I believe it is possible for the mature Christian to seperate that which is holy and sacred from its desecration without being drawn in to the desecration. But that is assuming that something holy and sacred is being desecrated. More often than not, it isn't being desecrated even though it appears to be. But when something truly holy and sacred is desecrated, I personally don't find it funny but at most interesting.
As far as South Park is concerned, I don't think it is anti-Christ nor anti-Christianity. At most I would probably consider it to be anti-Christian. And this is why I think it's funny (since "funny" is very relative) and even witty at times, because I relate to what they joke about. Even the way they portray Christ is an image of how they see Christians - basically weak, corny and stupid. They aren't depicting the Jesus I worship. They are depicting a Jesus created by Christians that I consider to also be whacked out of their minds. Just because someone may put the name "Jesus" on something or someone doesn't mean it is Jesus and we can't be humored by it.
The fact is that they hit stereotypes that may not be true for all, but are still true for some. It's the same with racial humor which is funny because we relate to it, not because we agree with it as a whole. Deep within the recesses of our minds we are all thinking similar things that if expressed we are afraid we will offend. When it is revealed that someone is thinking along the same lines it's hard not to be humored by it. What is even funnier is if a comedian can bring up something we never thought of before but draws us into his experience of something that we can remotely relate to as well.
So in my opinion, what is at the heart of the issue is not the fact that we are laughing at something that is sacred and holy one minute and desecrated the next. We are laughing at something that we know deep down is not even holy and sacred at all, but behind the comedy is a statement about something else or an interpretation of something by someone else in a funny way. Plus I think a laugh can also be an "aha!" moment where it makes us think and examine a subject we never gave much thought to.
On the otherhand, sometimes something is so stupid that it is funny. Or it's overexaggerated. Of course some things go too far, but these things I never find funny at all nor witty. But I always keep in mind that art is usually a social commentary and humor is another form of rhetoric.