Johnny Cash’s Favorite Finger, Good-Faith Critics, Luther’s Advice, and a Theology of Mockery
While not every idolatry deserves the “go-to-hell” wave, some reach such a level of outlandishness that hoisting the jolly roger seems fitting and comical at the same time.
The New Saint Andrews ad, published two weeks ago, has received significant interest. The ad is an invitation to courage. The commentary notes that,
“The rigor we uphold is not an end in itself, but a necessary condition for glory. Those who disdain hard work will find that freedom and fruitfulness remain ever elusive.”
The video urges “a lifetime of long shifts of swords and shovels,” referencing Nehemiah’s people stationed ready for war with those instruments (Neh. 4:13-14). It touches on its academic rigor when it speaks of “reading stacks of books taller than their fathers,” which has always been a distinctive flavor of classical education. NSA wants individuals “impervious to manipulative women of all sorts,” including a “full cauldron of Karens,” a direct reference to the woke mobs led by many false female teachers (Kristin Du Mez, Aimee Byrd, etc.) and “hand-wringing clergy” (an image of Steven Furtick appears). The antidote to this mass hysteria is “to hear and heed the words of Lady Wisdom.” The ad attacks the “larping online masculinitots” (Andrew Tate) and “brokers of official respectability” (Russell Moore).
The video then encourages us to live faithfully, tirelessly seeking the good of the city, and never failing to pursue righteousness, even if it guarantees conflict and mortality. Unless one has been steeped in leftist ideology, this form of sobering exhortation should be deeply admired in an age of cowardice.
The entire 91 seconds is filled with rhetorical brilliance, with each word and image offering a direct parallel. Each metaphor is fitting. Each image conveys a thousand words. But apart from the standard intoleristas, most readers were filled with a healthy commendation. Some even observed that they wished they could return to college for that kind of education. I am among those.
The many NSA videos released between 2020 and 2024 were compelling and delivered a proper punch to the gods of this age. When COVID shut down the world, NSA lit it up with creative and biblically saturated motifs. But somewhere between 49 and 53 seconds of this video, there was a cyclone of reactions, which we will address shortly.
It Ain’t Me, Babe! It Ain’t Me You’re Looking For!
The ad invites those contemplating New Saint Andrews College to be “willing to hoist the Jolly-Roger and Johnny Cash’s favorite finger whenever faced with idolatry.” I have italicized two words here because they form an important addendum to the conversation.
The first one is willing. New Saint Andrews acknowledges that not everyone will be willing to do what they find resourceful when dealing with high idolatry. NSA is not looking to be an open-tent college. In fact, the Shackleton ad based on the 1901 call for men to go on hazardous journeys is an invitation to a particular calling that most will not be willing to engage in. The ad is tailored to cut specific candidates out of this educational pursuit.
It may be because these candidates are cowardly—according to the College’s standard—or because NSA’s style does not suit their preferences. For the record, the college has reached the maximum capacity for its freshmen class, and rumors suggest that it will likely reach those numbers again for the class of 2025-2026. So, in one sense, the ad is eager to cut the application process by a whole lot.
The second significant word is whenever. If words and images were carefully paralleled, we must understand the purpose of the image used. The ad is referring to high-handed public displays of blasphemy. NSA is not using modern definitions of idolatry that encompass everything and everyone. If idolatry is everything, then idolatry is nothing. We can be sure that NSA is not borrowing the broadly defined usages of idolatry defined by the Gospel Coalition. We are talking about the forms of idolatry that merit the death penalty in God’s universe (Lev. 24). If such public displays were reserved for the harshest judgment in God’s theocratic world, then the middle finger of disgust would be an infinitesimally mild manifestation of that wrath.
One would have to be severely predisposed against New Saint Andrews or possess the Doug Wilson-Derangement Syndrome to interpret the ad as advocating that we show 20% of our right hand to everyone who does something we consider naughty.
This may be the proper occasion to put my cards on the table. I am a board member of New Saint Andrews, and with that privilege comes the responsibility of interviewing representatives of each class. I have done so and have met and greeted hundreds of NSA students and alumni and worked intimately with them in conferences and projects. If they do engage in the art of satire and mockery, they do it in a godly and discerning fashion. This leads me to this fact: I have never heard one cussword from the mouth of an NSA student. They may be paying reverence to my clerical collar, but I have been in easy-going environments where such language could be used, but as of yet, no word has been used flippantly in my presence.
Three Responses
With the caveat aside, I would like to address the nature of these responses. I don’t want to assume that all responses were created equal. The reactions to the ad have also been eclectic. I can summarize them in three ways:
The first group found the ad fit the tone we should expect in the “negative world” (Aaron Renn’s language). The “middle finger” is an apt response to a Paris Olympics Ceremony that replaced one of the holiest scenes in Christian history—the Last Supper—with a table of drag queens, a half-nude transgender actor, a bearded-blue-dressed blonde man, and additional figures grotesquely dressed to convey a fanciful display of blasphemy. This first group argues that the Bible offers significant examples of prophetic outrage that fit the display of idolatry. Whenever the opportunity arises, they will happily condemn it and offer them the middle finger of wrath. While not every idolatry deserves the “go-to-hell” wave, some reach such a level of outlandishness that hoisting the jolly-roger seems fitting and comical all at once.
The second group was composed of decent evangelicals whose background or sensitivities, or biblical interpretation, concluded that the use of the middle finger represents a different kind of vileness that does not comport with the ethos of a Christian college. They argue that the Bible demands a different type of grammar when speaking about idolatry (Eph. 4:32, Col. 4:6). These individuals would not seek to compromise the fight against idolatry. Still, they do express a disregard against foul language. Christians should stay away from such speech at all costs.
The third group represents the woke evangelicals. Anything that rhymes with Moscow or Wilson will receive disparagement. They offer their own version of the middle finger to those who provide Johnny Cash’s precious to idolatry. The Doug-Wilson-Derangement Syndrome controls much of how they react. Therefore, when Wilson or NSA helps a blind, lame, and deaf elderly widow across Main Street, it is interpreted as an act of aggression against civilization. Suppose Wilson defends the Gospel against Christopher Hitchens or articulates evangelical blessedness before 15 million viewers on Tucker Carlson; they will argue that he is seeking self-exaltation or being double-tongued to court moderates. I confess little sympathy for this crowd and know they have empathy attachments to idols.
The Case for Mockery
I will argue for Group One and hope to persuade Group Two while subtly mocking Group Three. But before I talk about specific concerns from the video, I should offer a brief defense for mockery or the serrated edge to get things started. Douglas Wilson’s book, The Serrated Edge, is marvelous in tracing the Classical roots of satire and mockery, but my task is not as fanciful. I aim to provide an overview of the Biblical rationale by establishing Genesis as a presupposition for this discourse.
Several recent essays have offered a rich description of what has happened to the winsome phenomenon. There was a time when winsomeness was merely a synonym for Francis Schaeffer and L’abri apologetics. Those days have ended. There are many evangelical writers and theologians who are using nuance and winsomeness as an opportunity to minimize Gospel principles and maximize “we-are-the-world” choruses. For many, winsomeness is just code for offering sophisticated opposition to Republican politics. The anti-Trump paradigm has softened these “Gospel-centered” apologists, and now they are happily cheering for Team Kamala (insert cackle). The Gospel Coalition is indicative of this shift. They can find the Gospel applications in Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, but boy, don’t you dare mess with our crusade on behalf of Third-Wayism.
Dr. James Wood explains this third-wayism in Tim Keller’s thinking:
Too often it encourages in its adherents a pietistic impulse to keep one’s hands clean, stay above the fray, and at a distance from imperfect options for addressing complex social and political issues.
The late Tim Keller left a legacy of missiological faithfulness in the city but set the stage for missiological compromise in the Church. His inheritors in the PCA and elsewhere are not elevating conservative ideals but alternative political realities contrary to the Western tradition and Biblical revelation. Just ask them how they feel about six-day creationism to get a sense of their winsomeness. These endeavors did not produce the expected fruit; instead, it has led inevitably to the prodigalness of the evangelical left.
The result is a Babylonian conundrum, with these figures defending the other side instead of protecting the voices most closely aligned with the cause of the Gospel. Megan Basham’s book Shepherds for Sale flows like a detailed account of theological crimes and misdemeanors among Big Evangelical franchises.
The winsome project has led to the adulteration of the good by compromising it. I believe these authors have failed to protect the creational order and priorities. In Aaron Renn’s taxonomy, the church lives in a “negative world.” We live in an age of disorientation where God’s created order is treated with disdain and disgust and where the West is viewed as the great purveyor of evil. The cumulative effect of these trajectories means that we need to heed Solomon’s wisdom. There is a time for everything, and while much of our speech needs to be seasoned with the right biblical ingredients, it is not devoid of spices. The mode of operation of many in the Evangelical world has compromised our churches and our children. They cry, “Peace, peace,” but there is no peace. We need to direct our speech rightly and sharpen it prophetically. Christians should have a distinctly courageous and bold approach to our relationship with ungodliness in this world.
A Creational Case for Mockery
This ungodliness regime in our world (Eph. 6:12) needs a multi-layered response. Among these responses, the one that gets overlooked is mockery, or, as the classicists would say, satire. I want to begin by offering an overview of how mockery unravels as a prerequisite of God’s design and then answer some specific concerns with the ad.
First, I argue that the Genesis story uses mockery against evil. And by mockery, I mean hard and insulting speech against blasphemy or other forms of exalted idolatry. Creation, by its very nature, is an apologetic against principalities and powers. Sun, moon, and stars are not merely heavenly descriptors but symbolic ones that proclaim the heavenly reality as an opposing system against the mode of operation of fallen history.
The Creation account presents man's dignity, the purpose of work, the complementarity of women, and the establishment of priestly categories as antagonists to the attempts of evil men and their institutions to reverse the created order. God’s creation is established to war against false creations. Thus, the creation account supplants other accounts by providing an ideal established order and decency for the private and public arenas. Some have argued that Moses purposely offers a hierarchical structure that subverts the pagan structures. Whether this is relevant or not, Genesis is inescapably historical literature that elevates one world and mocks another.
Second, the Old Testament narratives portray a continuity of the created order. The priestly, kingly, and prophetic world works in harmony to carry Yahweh's creation to the ends of the earth. It is a work of expansion, and wherever evil abounds, the ancient Church is called to speak against it. She speaks against it with woes and warnings, promising covenant judgment upon the nations should they fail to heed the Creator's Law-Word. The language is distinctly unwinsome; it is direct and unsophisticated, according to worldly standards.
Biblical language is accommodated to circumstances. Moses’ rebukes of the Israelites (Exodus 32:7-14) or Peter’s rebukes of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) function in historical, cultural, and literary settings. Harsh words are not thrown flippantly in the Old Testament Scriptures. They are contextually used in accordance and proportionately to the addressed evil.
When Jeremiah says that God’s enemies will lie in dung on the ground, he uses strong language. When Ezekiel attacks God’s enemies, he uses what some would consider profanities. His reference to the Egyptian’s whores and their large testicles (Ezek. 16:26) and the vivid descriptions of sexual arousal (Ezek. 23:20-21) would be enough to make lots of blushing readers. Of course, I am only touching the surface. We may say he employs poetic or rhetorical imagery to convey condemnation and judgment, but God’s prophets still do not shy away from harsh language—sexual and sociological. Isaiah 30 mentions explicitly that the way to walk as the “People of Zion” is to “desecrate the idols” and rid them “like menstrual cloth” (Isaiah 30:19-22).
One may argue that we are not prophets or that if we want to be prophets, we should attempt to act as they acted, but ultimately, all of the Bible is profitable for rebuke and reproach (II Tim. 3:16). So, perhaps we shouldn’t prophesy naked in the 21st century, but that does not mean that the jeremiads against wickedness cannot be adopted and adapted to our modern discourse. Even the hardest theonomic critic would agree with that proposition.
One response from a Baptist scholar noted that the Old Testament’s language is no longer ideal for those in the New Covenant. He argues that to return to Old Testament vocabulary for judgment is to fail to see redemptive history’s flow. But this is a distasteful explanation of Paul’s language in II Timothy 3 that all Scripture is profitable, including those unpopular passages. Furthermore, I will assume that most of my readers have zero dispensational tolerance.
Finally, I affirm that Jesus continues the role of creation’s greatest apologist in his earthly ministry, particularly in his ministry in Jerusalem. He was preceded by a man who, much like the combination of Johnny Cash and a monastic monk. If one assumes John the Forerunner embodied Victorian ideals in his delivery, you may need a new Study Bible. It’s not a sophisticated scholar that prepares the way for Messiah Jesus. It’s this desert-pirate-like character. John paves the way for a new priest/prophet/king of malediction upon those who despise Yahweh's established order. Indeed, he promises blessings to all who draw close, but to those who hate the kingdom, Jesus chastises, overthrows, and erupts with fury against false teachers. Thus, Jesus' own ministry is a re-establishing of the Creation order; an order of mockery against evil. He absorbs a creational apologetic for satire and righteous anger. He forms a new creation of men, comforts abandoned brides, works as a new Adam to make all things right, and challenges principalities and powers as Yahweh's sun of righteousness. Jesus is the greater Ezekiel!
Matthew 23 elaborates on his ministry of curses against the idolatries of the first century. The religious leaders have led the people to blindness, and Jesus spares nothing. Serpent, brood of vipers, and dead man’s bones are just the appetizers. These were deeply offensive categories in the first-century. We don’t even have to delve deeply into the meaning of each category to see that his knife is not mildly serrated but deeply so.
His most damning condemnation occurs in the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Jesus did not seem phased in cursing the first-generation religious, political, and academic elites. He did not overthrow tables with niceties but hard words (Mk. 11), as he quotes Jeremiah’s judgment upon Israel (Jer. 7:11). Jesus’ liturgical curses upon Israel in John’s Apocalypse are not mild either. To avoid the actual biblical language, one must carefully edit the Bible—a task also condemned in the Bible (Rev. 22:18).
These three realities form a theology of mockery. We don’t even need to speak of the Psalms of imprecations, which are lively curses upon evil people and wicked schemes. We should note, however, that mockery reaches its glory form in Psalm 2, where the saints are exhorted to join Yahweh in his cosmic laughter against evil schemes. The Psalter encapsulates this hymnal of praise to God and mockery against those who stand against his anointed. We are imitators of God, and God scoffs and ridicules his enemies (Psalm 2:4).
The Church has a fundamental duty to stand as a practicing mockery system because she must protect the Created order from those without and within. Her call is not to winsomeness. As my friend James Wood observes:
"What I describe with this catchall label of ‘winsomeness’ is the package approach of cultural engagement that seeks above all to minimize offense so as to maximize openness to the gospel."
Instead of advancing the antithesis, the Church's voice has sought ways to identify with it and thus create a false narrative of ecumenism. In attempting to open up avenues for Gospel presentations, she has disfigured the Gospel by presenting a disorderly Word that fails to defend creation's ethics. We have accepted the premise that battle is a task of fools rather than the task of creation's ambassadors.
The Bible’s testimony pushes the church to speak decisively against the operation manuals of the day, and that means that she must not coddle to the left in any way. The Biblical satirist and mocker must be discerning, but the Christian cannot act as if the Bible is silent on these matters.
This relates directly to modern attempts to build consensus with leftist apologists. David French, Phil Visher, and Jemar Tisby are not interested in a robust faith that seeks to preserve order above all; they are looking for a liberalized society where drag-queen hour can have its festive day just as the priest down the road. But we must push the antithesis by providing an utterly foreign blueprint to the world; one that confounds the wise. We don't offer sophisticated footnotes to definitive realities. We adhere to a creation apologetic for mockery.
If the Church cannot speak sharply against those realities for fear of offending or because she desires to build bridges with unbelief, she will lose her witness and find herself arguing against the very created order that gives us voices. Such churches will grow deeper into skepticism and unbelief until they eventually no longer identify with the Creator and turn to worship the created thing.
Closing Responses
I made the case as clearly as possible that a godly satirical approach is acceptable. When the Reformers attacked Romanists, or when Luther attacked Latomus, I suspect many would also offer the same level of concern expressed in the NSA ad. Luther observed:
“…[A]ll true Christians stand in a large anti-defamation league and are called upon to combat the God-awful, filthy adversary, using his own weapons and his own strategy: ‘Get lost, Satan…”
The German Reformer cursed the devil, the papists, and anyone else he deemed a threat to the Holy Gospel. Luther didn’t simply insert fart jokes against the devil, but he hurled potent curses towards the things he believed were fundamentally disorienting his world. I can only wonder how he would act to a man pretending to have breasts inviting little children to watch him act out sexual dances in tight pants in a public library near you. And I must say that I am relatively moderate regarding Brother Martin. I am comfortable with the idea that he may have gone overboard a time or ten. But still, this is our Reformation hero. No Luther, no Calvin, no freedom from papal tyranny!
At this stage, we have not even touched on Paul’s sexualized description of what he wishes to see take place among the Galatian Heretic Inc. You can read that for yourself (Gal. 5:12), but Paul’s language would make our Victorian cousins uncomfortable. On a scale of one to naughty, Paul dismisses the chart as illegitimate and creates one of his own.
But what about Paul’s language urging Christians to gentleness? Furthermore, what about Paul’s condemnation of corrupt speech? And won’t this language attract the wrong crowd to NSA?
These are legitimate concerns.
This, however, raises another series of questions. Is Paul against Ezekiel? Or is Paul opposed to Jesus? Would Paul offer an appeal that would contradict his own condemnation of false teachers? We need to be extremely cautious to avoid pitting the Scriptures against the Scriptures. We need to be aware of how conditioned we have been by our culture instead of the Holy Scriptures.
The answer is threefold:
First, Paul’s use of corrupt language does not exclude the use of imprecation, satire, or Johnny Cash’s middle finger. When we pray that God’s enemies be scattered and destroyed (Psalm 68), we are not violating Paul’s admonition. Not all enemies are created equal. Some are legitimately won over by our hospitality and kindness (see Rosaria Butterfield’s testimony). I could spend hours and hours addressing the level of kindness shown by NSA students and kirkers that would make Mother Theresa proud and simultaneously jealous. I have seen women gather to provide meals for people in town who have spent the last 20 years accusing Doug Wilson and NSA of all sorts of things. But when that opponent’s husband was dying of cancer, guess who showed up? And I can multiply this by the hundreds. So, yes, the Moscow Mood, which some view as evil, is actually quite busy with deeds of mercy and grace.
However, when we are speaking of vile public displays in the ad and other sorts of things David French views as “free speech,” I’d say to hell with them! Paul says that God has given them over to a reprobate mind (Rom. 1). The greatest show of love is the middle finger of rejection and defiance toward their hideous deeds.
Paul’s call to compassion is specifically and primarily applied to the household of faith. And, as I have made the case continually, all virtues can be turned into vices. Even love can be turned into vice. Think of the “Love Thy Neighbor” promotions made by the media during COVID. The love CNN promoted was actually hatred. So, the Scriptures must carefully define compassion and love, not our sentiments.
Furthermore, as commentators have observed, “corrupt communication” is Paul’s way of urging the church to avoid biting and devouring one another. The corruption present had nothing to do with naughty words (indeed, there is an extended application), but fundamentally, Paul was eager to see the unity of the body preserved. Nevertheless, gossip and slander kept the church away from purity. We should show compassion and love to our enemies (unbelievers), but that love is not saturated by sappiness but by boldness, confrontation, and, at times, warm soup to the homeless.
Second, some think we need to offer more moderate bull riders. Again, it is easy to exaggerate the ad's intent, and some may be genuinely naïve to the purpose of the ad. In my estimation, those who haven’t spent a few days in Moscow during dances, block parties, Psalm sings, worship, fellowship, coffee at Bucers’ or Sword and Shovel, or interacted with a couple of NSA students will likely miss much of the ethos. They are much more prone to misunderstanding. If I were a first-time visitor to this conversation and read what I saw online as an intro course into NSA/Moscow, I’d be amused! And, of course, like any other community, NSA will produce its share of turds who need to be kicked out and disciplined. No one denies these conspicuous details of life. But it is evident that there is a massive disconnect among the critics to the realities in that little town and the comments make that remarkably clear. It’s not one ad that determines the permanent mood but the combination and longevity of the institution that must compel us to form a richer portrait.
Third, the ad may attract bad characters to NSA. This is true, and one can hope that the pastoral and character references, and the education offered at NSA will temper the more zealous among them. I suspect the piles of books on virtue and rhetoric will also moderate these students. We can also add the splendid selection of churches in Moscow, ID, and the years of pastoral experience, enhancing beauty in the maturation process. But, and this is an important but, I am much more concerned about the “liberated” young man who has not developed a high intolerance for idols; who games well into 3 am and who sees Russell Moore as a personal icon of purity and political sobriety. That soul is in much greater danger than the kid who would stick his middle finger daily in the Atlanta traffic to a “Drag-Queen” parade. I can tell that young man, “Stop being an idiot! All language and symbols are to be used in their proper context.”
The ad is not an exhortation to mid-week middle finger gym exercises on Main Street, nor a call to tune your lexicon of naughty words; it is a call to understand the times. The negative world is not out there carefully nuancing its tactics; no, it’s bombarding you daily. You cannot stand by acting as if you are hurt that a college in the panhandle of Idaho is calling Christians to stand up straight, get their swords and shovels ready, and be willing to fight whenever idolatry comes at you.
If you are offended by Johnny Cash’s middle finger at this stage of the game, I am afraid the ride to the Sons of Issachar concert is gone. I can understand if you don’t want to use bad words. I can assure you that the ad is not standardizing “f-bombs.” It is dishonest to assume such nonsense. But what you cannot do is act as if God is standing by, simply pleased to see diabolical displays of his acts in history and remain passive in light of its hideousness. God is infinitely just, and he will have the last laugh, and we should join in it as well. We should jolly well raise our Christian flags together in defiance!
Pentecost Cheers,
Uriesou T. Brito
FOLLOW ALONG
FACEBOOK / X / YOUTUBE / INSTAGRAM
PODCAST / KUYPERIAN / SUBSTACK
Beautifully written.
Amen.