All joking aside... church fires?

Humble reader,

I must first address you before launching into my latest musings. Thank you for your patience. I confess that I have thought much more in the last three months than clearly I have written. For that I apologize. Now, without further ado...

On March 16, the New York Times reported an update concerning a string of nine church fires in Alabama. Three college students have been arrested in connection with setting these fires. While, I admit some amount of cynism, what struck me was not the fact that three young white men are charged with torching multiple small black churches. The article notes, with some surprise, that the accused came from good families (insert shock) but that hunting and copious amount of alcohol consumption was involved (insert tsk-tsk and shake of head). What struck me was their self-confessed reason, saying that they,

"'had done something stupid' and that they set fire to a church 'as a joke.'" (emphasis added)

I think we can let lie the standard "alcohol+hunting=stupid boys" diatribe. But how exactly do we get from complete stupidity to the offered explanation, which clearly one of the accused, thinks is somehow a rational reason for setting church fires. He is not saying, "We were so drunk that night we just got carried away," nor is he saying, "We were out there hunting and decided to start a fire to keep warm, and it got away from us." He is claiming that the impetus to burn down a place of holy worship, and a place of fellowship for a community of faith was a "joke."

A joke? On one hand, we could simply write these boys off as at best stupid and at worst insane. But what if we assumed that their reasoning really is that this is a 'joke'? How could someone rationalize such a position?

Humor is contextual. We all know that a joke can be gut-busting hilarious with one group of friends and a complete flop with a different group. Humor then is not just individual; it is also communal. While these young men must rightly be held personally responsible should the allegations be proved; we must also question ourselves. While these young men's families, friends and communities distance themselves from such violent and destructive acts, it is easy for us too to take a down-the-nose glance in their direction. However, if indeed this is a 'joke'; then we ourselves must search both internally and in our respective communities for the ways in which the shared context of our lives might unintentionally or otherwise be read not just as implicit permission of such acts. Even worse, what if the way we live sent the message that we would explode with out-loud, boisterous gales of laughter while the black church on the corner flamed, crackled and burned into the ground.

All joking aside... what if we were the ones who made the joke?