Another one...

(This was originally posted on a different site, which was taken down, so the context might be lost.)

My wife recently got another critique on the site that took the road less travelled, choosing satire rather than passive-aggressive piety to make its point. I'll let readers decide whether it made any difference.

Again, context, context, context, so here's the note in full (minus the writer's name, which really isn't relevant to his comments or mine).

Caveat: This note is reproduced as written, so the obfuscation of the obscenity is as-received. However, it's not hard to figure out what was intended, so if you're at all concerned about NSFW or NSF-wherever-you-are, then skip this post. I won't mind...

I noted your "Purpose Drivel" t-shirts for sale, and also how you make no profit for the shirts. They are sold on a site with other Christian items, such as a pray for beer college shirt, Darwin car adornments, coexist stuff, etc. All of these items "Have a little FUN while contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" as you state about your Drivel shirts. They make people at least think about Jesus. The shirts fit right in with those items.

I attended an art fair a couple of years ago, and a man was wearing a black shirt with large bold letters exclaiming "Fu** Jesus" strategically placed on the shirt. While not particularly suited for children, this shirt indeed makes one think about Jesus, although in a somewhat confrontational way. For all I know, the man wearing the shirt was a devout Christian using the shirt as a tool to start a conversation, kind of like street evangelists use fire and brimstone. However, I did not confront the man about the shirt, mainly because he probably would have used one of the chains attached to his belt on me.

Perhaps that shirt design would be suitable for an "adults only" section of your website. Another idea might be a play on the topic that Jesus loves the little children perhaps portraying him as a child pornographer. All just a little fun.

So, keep up the good work lifting up the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who Himself never avoided controversy, and was willing to be obedient to the Father to the point of death, to pay for my sins.

How droll.

I admit to being torn over this note. On the one hand, I'm pleased whenever someone's exposed to culture, and this writer obviously spent some time with "A Modest Proposal" in high school. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to understand any of the aspects of that piece that make it a classic. It's painful to witness someone so thoroughly advertise his ignorance.

Just in case anyone missed the critique's point, the author doesn't like the shirts and does not seem to agree with putting them under a slogan "having a little FUN while contending for the faith." He's using irony for satirical effect, speaking glowingly of our supposed motives in a way that shows his disagreement with them.

At least, that's what he's trying to do.

The problem is that writing good satire is hard. Take Roger Kimball's description of the satirist's job:

The satirist presents an exaggerated, over-the-top caricature of some state of affairs in order to highlight a recognizable element of failure, hypocrisy, turpitude, or pomposity.

Kimball identifies two things that should be present in satire. First, there has to be an honesty in how the topic is addressed. A caricature by definition needs to be rooted in actual aspects of its subject. Building a straw man and attacking that isn't satire; it's mockery. Second, the manner of caricature should show a decent amount of wit, and while it may skirt the line of tastelessness, it doesn't cross it. A good satire is like a sugar-coated razor blade; its truth slices deeply but its humor is what opens the audience to be cut.

So, did our critic meet the demands of his chosen genre? You be the judge.

First, does his note treat the position being satirized honestly, even as it exaggerates for effect? I don't think so. Any commonality between coexist, obscenities about Jesus, and the t-shirts on this blog will only be found in the mind of the writer of the critique, in my opinion.

Second, is it witty? Does it avoid tastelessness? If you think so, please justify the comment about child pornography, because I'm not seeing the levity or restraint.

Honestly, I can respect someone saying that the shirts on this site are counterproductive. That for the unbeliever, they appear to sow division in the church. That the "poison the well" in discussions with a believer who likes Purpose Driven methodology or Emergent theology, preventing any substantive critiques we make from being heard. I don't agree with that position, but it's a coherent argument with at least a passing nod to Scripture (e.g. 1 Pet 3:15; Eph 4:14-16). I'm open to talking through it with someone.

Unfortunately, this writer chose instead to be too-clever-by-half and ended up arguing against a position that no one is holding.

BTW, the thing that really fries me? His closing paragraph, taken straight, is solid theology. But given the tone of the rest of the piece, it's impossible to know whether to believe him, or to take it as part of the satire. So the one potentially artful touch to the piece has the effect of making the gospel into a punchline.

What a waste.