Is the gospel funny?

James Cary writes: Previously on this web log, the question has been posed: "Was Jesus funny?" In the last couple of years, equally I've been writing my new book, The Sacred Art of Joking, I've ended that yes, he was funny. I'll tell yous how and why in a moment.

Start, nosotros have to briefly address some other question to arise from researching this book which is this: "Can theologians be funny?" I think I have an respond to that i too and theologians aren't going to like it. But consider this. Theological books are rarely funny. Books on bookish theories about humour are fifty-fifty less funny. A book past a theologian most comedy therefore seems unlikely to raise many, if any, chuckles.

Soren Kierkegaard'south work in this area is not an inviting prospect. In 2004, Princeton Academy Press released an anthology of his work chosen The Humor of Kierkegaardin which Thomas Oden tries to debate that Kierkegaard is the funniest philosopher of all time. If you have to explain why or how something is funny, then it probably was never that funny to brainstorm with. Methinks Oden doth protest too much?

There are some informative and helpful books in this area, like Prostitute in The Family Treepast Douglas Adams (not thatDouglas Adams). Some other volume I enjoyed is the sadly out-of-print The Humor of Christby Elton Trueblood who highlights occasions in which Jesus is, in his view, joking. In one chapter, he boldly claims the Parable of the Shrewd Manager can onlybe reconciled to the context if one takes the whole affair as a joke. It's an interesting theory. It'south too a readable book, partly because it is slender and accessible.

So why would I embark on this journey of writing a book about comedy in the Bible, given I'm non a theologian, nor the son of a theologian? As it happens, I do accept a degree in Theology (BA Hons Dunelm, since you lot enquire). I can barely be described as a theologian, still, given I was hardly the most attentive of students, doing the bare minimum to get an acceptable final grade. My primary distraction is key here. I spent most of my time at university writing, rewriting, directing and producing comedy. Twenty years on, I'm all the same at information technology. I've written or co-written near 150 episodes of BBC comedy ranging from Mirandato Another Case of Milton Jones. I besides blog and podcast about technical aspects of one-act writing.

I approach the subject field of Jesus' jokes non as a theological expert, just a comedy technician. Equally such, the evidence and my instincts would suggest that Jesus was funny. Sure, there is no verse which said "Jesus laughed", just who laughs at their own jokes? It's non skillful class. But too, being picky, Jesus laughing and Jesus making jokes are two carve up things.

We know from Psalm ii:iv that God laughs. He is amused by our attempts to live without him or eradicate his presence from the earth. It is laughable. Imagine if your goldfish alleged war on you? Yous wouldn't recoil or tut. You'd laugh. The Bible contains plenty of rebellious goldfish, from dim-witted disciples and sanctimonious Sadducees to pompous princes and hard-hearted harridans. We read stories of deeply flawed people making poor choices which are every flake as comic as they are tragic.

So why don't we laugh when we read these stories? Firstly, we don't read them. Most Christians don't read their Bibles every mean solar day, and those who practice read a small fraction of it. Nosotros can't be amused by stories nosotros don't know.

Scripture is read aloud in church then why are nosotros not rolling in the aisles? Over again, the comedian in me would suggest that comedy is partly about expectation. Church building is, broadly speaking, serious. Information technology tin deviate into sentimentalism or hysteria, only rarely one-act. Read the room. Ecclesiastical fine art shows serious saints doing important holy things. There are thousands of paintings of Jesus looks sombre, and thousands more where he looks serene. There are barely whatever that prove him grin, allow alone sniggering or stifling a giggle. Comedy in church is an abnormality. Jokes are deployed in sermons to 'lighten the mood'. In short, no-ane is going to church expecting to laugh.

It'south no surprise, then, that the small portions of scripture that are read aloud in Church building never garner chuckles. Permit us have the story of the human born blind in John ix. It'due south a funny story that, read well or performed verbatim, can brand audiences laugh out loud. I've seen information technology done. I've heard the laughs. Merely what are the chances that the whole chapter volition be read aloud, then the story has time to build momentum? And what are the chances that the Bible is read well? Church building readings are commonly done, at all-time, in a very perfunctory manner.

Moreover, the reading of the lesson is seen as a way of involving someone in the service. This is curious to me, since the Bible is the very words of God. Anglicans even say then at the end of the reading, saying "This is the Word of the Lord." If that is so, why not put some endeavour into reading it aloud well?

Few churches would approach the music in this style. No minister would toss a guitar to a tone deaf teenager and tell them to give information technology a become. Nosotros don't let children play the organ (their feet can't attain the pedals, for one thing). Why do we accept this approach to the public reading of Scripture? One of the casualties of this situation is the comedy.

Scripture is a script. It was written to be read aloud and performed, rather than studied given nearly people for most of human history couldn't read. It lends itself to public functioning. One can simply reply that information technology doesn't read very funny at kickoff glance, but Shakespearean comedies aren't funny on the page. The language and the community are foreign. It takes work. Give the words to decent actors and a managing director and the comedy will soon sally.

The church no longer has that tradition of dramatic performance, let alone a heritage of one-act. The mystery plays of the Fifteenth Century declined with the Reformation. Protestantism gave nascence to Puritanism, a move much admired by modern solar day evangelicals (like me). But permit us also annotation one of those puritans, Oliver Cromwell, closed the theatres. This is not a move that has any use for light amusement.

For Christians to recover their Biblical humour, a profound shift in Church building civilization would demand to take identify. But comedy is and then low downwardly on the list of priorities, and is and then toxic when it goes wrong, no-one is terribly interested in addressing this problem.

This is a pity given that our civilisation takes comedy extremely seriously. Primetime tv set is dominated by comedians like Michael McIntyre, Graham Norton and Paul Merton. Politicians are at pains to show they have a sense of humour. We are suspicious of people who take themselves too seriously. And still it'southward nosotros Christians who seem to be lacking a sense of humour, complaining and tutting when our religion is mocked on television, shrieking that they'd never mock Islam in the aforementioned way (which I address at length in my book).

Islam takes us to 1 other factor in discussion nigh Jesus and comedy, merely it'south probably non what you think. Information technology is the idea that God condign a man is funny. There is something comic about the Incarnation. The very idea that God could go a man is so incongruous and unthinkable that Muslims can refuse Christianity almost entirely on that basis. For them, God could never be clothed in mankind and walk amongst usa. The very idea is blasphemous. Or at to the lowest degree it would be if the person challenge to exist co-eternal with the Father weren't actually telling the truth.

This is one of the many ironies around the Easter story. Jesus was accused of challenge to be God. Religious people who knew their scriptures could not accept his divinity and wanted to kill the Author of Life himself. He was executed beneath a sign that this was the King of the Jews, put upwardly equally a joke just actually factually correct.

To meet the comedy played out more than overtly, we need to look at the events between the Incarnation at the Nativity, and the Crucifixion on Good Friday. Jesus'due south life, as the god-man, is inherently comic considering of his cosmic power. Again, nosotros're not expecting to detect information technology funny, but in other situations it is normally played for laughs, or at least, information technology used to be.

So allow us go dorsum to 1978 and the commencement Supermanfilm. Back so, superheroes weren't in every single blockbuster movie, scrapping over the burning remains of New York City. They were a bit of a novelty. And let'south recall Lois Lane's showtime interaction with Superman. She is falling from a neat height and Superman flies up and catches her. "I've got y'all," he says, with a reassuring smile.

Lane instinctively sums up the comedy of existence rescued by someone who looks similar a normal person, simply has special powers like beingness able to fly. She replies to Superman with "You've got me? Who'due south got you lot?!" Information technology's an first-class honest question.

We demand to remember this reaction as we read about the disciples, the Pharisees and the crowds encountering Christ for the first time ii,000 years ago. Here was a man raising people from the dead, feeding five k people and walking on water. A valid reaction to such divine incongruity is astonishment, and our reaction is, in turn, laughter.

Call back back to all those other films y'all've seen where something out of the ordinary happens, similar a space transport passes over head or someone turns into an animal. A nearby security guard or homeless person looks into their cup and questions whether they've had too much to drink. (At that place's a like joke to this in Acts 2 when the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost causes some to wonder if it'south the booze talking). Again, a proper presentation of the accounts of the life of Jesus would bring this all to life and we could marvel afresh at the astonishing reality of Jesus'southward divine power.

Countless manufactures take been written about the fact that Superman and most superheroes are essentially Christ figures. They usually accept to sacrifice themselves or make themselves vulnerable in some mode in order to salvage the earth from evil. What is ofttimes forgotten is the very incongruity of the superhero and the Christ effigy.

If you're a specialist, in that location is always a temptation to meet the world exclusively through your ain lens. Equally a comedy writer, I need to ensure I don't autumn into that trap. I'm non arguing that Jesus was essentially a stand-up comedian. He wasn't. He said things that were funny. His incongruous identity as a god-man is comic. If Christians would only invest time and energy in engaging with the text of the Bible equally a script to be read and performed, nosotros might recover that precious joy that comes from the applesauce that lies at the centre of the Gospel that sounds similar folly to the world: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for usa. Similar much observational comedy, it's funny considering it's true.

The Sacred Art of Jokingby James Cary is published past SPCK on 17^thJanuary.

http://www.jamescary.co.uk/sacred-fine art-of-joking/

Is the gospel funny?

0 Response to "Is the gospel funny?"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel