February 28, 2006
Where Did the Picture Go?
Frankly, I’m glad it’s gone. I didn’t really think it was the smartest thing — and for everybody’s information, I did not have anything to do with it. Some folks were offended on my behalf and I am certainly grateful for their love and respect. Some made appeals to SI and now, as far as I can tell, the picture is gone. Again, I think that is best. I think it’s best not because it was me that was the brunt of the joke. There are other concerns that were raised about the propriety of such a picture joke on a pastor. I’m not sure that I feel the same anxiety. Foreigner that I am, I’m not as sensitive to these things.
BUT, let me be clear, I was not offended either by Aniol’s comparison or SI’s picture. I give both Aniol and Linscott the benefit of the doubt. Neither had intentions that were demeaning. I took no offense. Enough folks apparently felt that it was inappropriate because of the peace symbols, the levity toward a pastor and what-not that it seemed best to the SI personnel to take it off. I concur even though I had nothing to do with that either. I’m so tired of over-sensitivity that I was actually content to be the brunt of the joke. I have wanted to start a Let’s-Not-Be-So-Touchy Campaign for a long time now.
The King James Version says, “Great peace have they which love Thy law, and nothing shall offend them” (Psalm 119:165). It is granted that there are different readings of this verse, but the essence of it remains the same: there is a certain stability of mind that accompanies well-placed affections. Those that are easily offended are those whose affections are mis-placed, more on themselves and less on God. When our self-worth is wrapped up in how people think of us we are destined to be touchy. Any slight, even innocent humor, makes us react defensively. We see it in young people all the time.
Just recently, I watched a young person in our church react defensively to good-natured jesting. I was a spectator. I was not the one doing the teasing. The young person reacted defensively and though everyone else in the group laughed, she was frowning, suddenly casting a cloud over the jocular mood. What that young person did not realize is that he was sending a very strong message to his pastor. She was saying, “My self-worth is wrapped up in how I am thought of by other people.” I felt sorry for him, not because she was being teased, but because he was the victim of his own mis-placed affections.
It is unfortunate when men get touchy, easily offended. Americans are way, way too touchy. Humor is almost a lost privilege anymore because somebody somewhere is going to take offense. This is due to the fact that there is too much self-consciousness and self-love. It is particularly sad when men in ministry are often the most touchy, their egos so over-sensitive that if they are not stroked with the fawning respect they feel is their due they will react like a pouting monarch. Everybody will walk on pins and needles around them until their ego has been sufficiently pampered.
This does not mean that respect is never due. Just this past Lord’s Day my levity from the pulpit toward another leader in our congregation crossed the line in my conscience. The Spirit of God would not let me rest until I had cleared my conscience with him and then I publically confessed it to the body that evening. To my coworker’s credit, he was not offended. He’s not touchy. He loves the Lord and he knows I love him and though he wondered if my levity was a little too free, his ego was not wounded. In fact, several in the congregation told me that they thought nothing of it, but they were also greatly appreciative of the fact that I was convicted of my transgression and cleared myself with our leader even though he himself was not agitated. We both sent a strong message to our beloved people: “Hold them in high esteem who labor among you for their work’s sake” and “Great peace have they which love They law: nothing shall offend them.” Both are significant messages.
When Dr. Bauder had his well-publicized faux-pas and subsequent public apology, there was a lot of discussion. I personally thought they he would very likely clear himself with an apology. I never thought that his choice of words was best. What disturbed me most, however, was the over-sensitivity and hyper-reactionism of the readers. I argued vehemently that the over-sensitivity of our culture is used to justify the clamming up of a good speaker. Unfortunately, though, readers often reflect their leaders. Any disagreement, any public jest, and any slight (even if not done maliciously) is considered an offense of irrepairable extent on the most precious persons in our world, our selves. Of course, our “testimony” is used as the excuse. We don’t want our testimony to be hurt, we say. Translated: we don’t want anyone to get a laugh at our expense or at the risk of being lowered a few notches from the great place of esteem wherein we have placed ourselves.
Therefore, I’m on a Let’s-NOt-Be-So-Touchy Campaign. Teach it to your teens and children. My Dad did me a great service when he taught me as a little boy to quit taking offense so easily, suck up the sobs, and start laughing with them as they laughed at me.
One time when I was just eight years old, two teen boys that I adored started teasing me by telling me that my epidermis was showing. I had no idea what my epidermis was and I was frantically checking myself all over to cover the horrifying exposure. They laughed mercilessly, pointing at me, and acting like I was being naughty or something. Interestingly, my dad was in his study hearing the whole thing through his window, getting angrier and angrier at the teens. But he stayed in control of his paternal protective-ism and later told me how upset he was. He told me how I could have responded. I could have said, “I don’t know what my epidermis is, but I’m glad it’s showing. I’m confident enough to know that whatever really needs to be covered is covered. Ha. Ha. You guys are funny. HEY, EVERYONE! MY EPIDERMIS IS SHOWING!!!!” Dad basically told me to be confident enough in who I was to join their laughing at me. He then taught me the word “epidermis.” I decided then and there to enjoy laughing at myself, being transparent about what I didn’t know, and to get a better-than-average vocabulary.
So, I’m not very touchy. And I wish more people would loosen up as well. I am not trying to sound super-spiritual. I’m just trying to tell you the facts: my sense of self-worth is not in any way connected to what you or anyone thinks of me. If I’m the brunt of the joke, who cares? I have been maliciously attacked enough to not take the least umbrage at innocent jesting, even if it crosses the line for what is appropriate.
I think the picture was funny. It made me laugh. I was tempted to doctor up a picture by putting Greg Linscott’s face on my body. That would have been the ultimate of insults to poor Greg. I am such a shriveled weakling that Cindy Sheehan could beat the living daylights out of. The problem is that if I were really trying to get Greg’s goat, I probably would fail. You see, it’s true: great peace have they which love God’s law and nothing will offend them.
Posted by Bob Bixby at February 28, 2006 12:00 AM | eMail this entry! | 1303 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories:
I appreciate your candor. I was just trying to figure out if that was you or a look alike.
Posted by: brandon gott at February 28, 2006 02:59 AMME? IN A TURTLENECK SWEATER?
Now that WOULD get my goat…
I moved the thread into the forums, where it will be more obscure. However, I am placing this explanatory comment there.
—————————————
When using humor there is a line, I believe, that can be crossed into inappropriateness or even the sacrilegious. A concerned party has expressed concerns that this happened on this thread. In deference to this concern, I have moved the post off the front blog and into this forum category thread.
However, I believe there is an appropriate use of this device. Humor can be used not to mock, but to provide satirical commentary- which is what I was also trying to do. Bob’s comments on the worship wars, whether we agree with them or not, certainly did not make him an extremist in the tradition of Cindy Sheehan, as Scott Aniol implied. The illustration (a photo of Sheehan herself with Bob’s face pasted amateurishly into it) served to demonstrate how ridiculously overstated Scott’s implication really was.
Douglas Wilson has a small book out that deals with how Christians can use satire in an appropriate way:
A Serrated Edge
—————————————
Posted by: Greg Linscott at February 28, 2006 05:45 AMGood move, Greg. And good article too. I understood your satire all along(as you know). Wilson is right to say that the minute a pastor uses it he is bound to be corrected by believers for being unbiblical.
But. . .if you examine the picture that you made of the Sheehan-Bixby monster, you will see why I wear turtlenecks! The neck seems to go on forever!
Posted by: Bob at February 28, 2006 06:32 AMYes- but if you look at my pictures, you’ll see us “honkin’ Filipinos (Thanks, Jason)” already have begun to obscure the distinction between neck, head, and shoulders through more natural means…
The epidermis story is great, BTW. I had a similar story in my youth where someone tried to get me to acknowledge I was a heterosexual. You can imagine where that went.
Posted by: Greg Linscott at February 28, 2006 06:55 AMOh, boy; what did I start??
Bob, I really think you and I need to get a picture together some time and publicly post it so that every knows THAT WE’RE FRIENDS! :)
Although, now that I think about that, such a picture would be dangerous, especially in the hands of Linscott!
Posted by: Scott Aniol at February 28, 2006 08:42 AMI with your campaign Bob. To educate and enjoy. Besides anyone from your Bible College days would remember the “Bodacious Bob” skits. I personally needed the laugh offered me by the picture. Been reading your blog and the links for a while now and have been blessed by the brain feed.
Posted by: Kyle Sullivan at February 28, 2006 09:26 AMBob,
I think I know why the teen in your congregation has self-worth problems; they flow from his/her gender identity issues.
Posted by: dmd at February 28, 2006 11:07 AMI’ve been reading this extended Sheehan insult/jest, wondering, “If Bob Bixby is the Cindy Sheehan of the worship wars, what does that make Pastor Gaumer? Bin Laden? Further, what does that make me? One of his shoe bombers?”
Posted by: Jon Henry at February 28, 2006 11:48 AMOf course I’m kidding about being into shoe bombing (in case someone misses the element of humor).
Posted by: Jon Henry at February 28, 2006 03:38 PMToo late, Jon… we’ve already called the FB(F)I…
Posted by: Greg Linscott at March 1, 2006 07:46 AM:)
Posted by: Jon Henry at March 1, 2006 12:42 PMWhat that young person did not realize is that he was sending a very strong message to his pastor. She was saying, “My self-worth is wrapped up in how I am thought of by other people.” I felt sorry for him, not because she was being teased, but because he was the victim of his own mis-placed affections.
Was the teasing about his/her indeterminate gender?
Posted by: Austin at March 1, 2006 02:09 PMDave and Austin,
When you pastor a small church as I do you sometimes refer to real-life illustrations as ambiguously as you can without actually inventing a story. Of course, the “ambiguization” of the illustration may actually come very close to a re-invention.
I hope that my gender-confused illustration was so radical that you knew I actually meant it!
One thing for sure, no one knows who I am talking about!
Posted by: Bob at March 1, 2006 03:22 PM