Friends,

This is just in: Christians Must not laugh.

James was right after all: “Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom.” (James 4:9) Must be why Luther rejected James as canonical.

Thanks to the ADM culture for reminding us of this sobering truth.

(See also: Post)

Said the ‘editor’:

Yeah, this scenario is side-splittingly hilarious: God creates mankind who rebels against the most loving Being there could ever be. They become so deluded they actually think their Creator is their enemy. In an act of grace and mercy, which is beyond words God comes into His Own creation as one of them.

Because of His perfect justice these rebels could not dwell with Him. So to show these helpless creatures that deserve nothing but to be destroyed how much He loved them, knowing they would never understand or even want Him, God – in the Person of His Son – allowed them to brutally torture and kill Him.

Yeah, that’s the funniest thing we’ve ever heard.

Actually, if you think about it, it is hilarious–in an ironic and disturbing sort of way. What sort of a god is so silly that he would rather die than to allow his creation to? There is something terrifically absurd about it, isn’t there? I mean, honestly, absurd!

16“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
17” ‘We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.’ 18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ‘ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Seriously. Now Christian comedy is off limits. Before long, it will be against the Bible to breathe the air that God made.

Joy, which was the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian. And as I close this chaotic volume I open again the strange small book from which all Christianity came; and I am again haunted by a kind of confirmation. The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth. (GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy)

Amen.

jerry

PS–feel free to contribute jokes to this thread, you know, the sort of stuff that might make our pouty faces of concrete crack, crumble, and reveal.

(or Cutting off your face just to spite your nose )

In the comments of my recent post, Rick Frueh made a very good observation:

I find that many legitimate points are sometimes raised by men like [name deleted], but the method and tone with which they raise them, as well as these non-issues, obscure any thoughtful addressing of these same issues.

Rick reminded me of a post that I wrote a couple weeks ago over on my blog.  I’m re-posting it over here, given the level of relevance that Rick raised.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

While I will name “victims”, I’m not gonna name the offenders:

1. It’s not relevant.
2. Why would I give them free publicity?
3. I’m old and can’t remember 2 of the 3, anyway.

Illustration 1

Some time ago, a well-known pastor released a video series on the problem of the Bible not being taken seriously enough and/or the Bible being twisted in these days. As part of his defense of this topic, he played audio clips of “preachers” that illustrated his point.

Among his issues was the alleged irreverence of using humor. And yes, if your church has a two-drink minimum, then maybe there’s something wrong. But among the clips played was one of Ken Davis. For those of you not familiar with Ken, he isn’t a preacher; he is primarily a — wait for it — comedian. Ken uses his comedy to segue into issues of a serious nature.

Apparently, this pastor has a problem with a comedian being funny. Or at least, if he’s also a Christian.

Hezekiah 2:43
Whatever you do, in word or deed, do all to the glory of God. That is, unless, it’s being funny.

So, with such a silly thought, how am I supposed to take any of what you say seriously?

Illustration 2

During one of Rob Bell’s recent “tours”, a blogger who adamantly disagrees with him attended his city’s stop on the tour. While the blogger spun his response as simply a report of what occurred, it was an obvious fisking.

Regardless, in the midst of a theological analysis of the evening, the blogger felt it necessary to note that several of the men in the audience looked similar to Bell, particularly in hairstyle and glasses. He made the declaration that obviously, these guys were idolizing Bell, further “proving” his point that things were amiss.

(It was pointed out that Bell is somewhat fashionable, and if others are fashionable as well, there’s a good chance of overlap, rather than idolization. No response was made to this rebuttal. I was shocked, shocked.)

So, let’s take a serious theological questioning about Bell’s teachings, and throw in a judgment-passing, divinely-revealed analysis of others’ actions, that Bell has no control over, and probably wasn’t true in the first place.

But I’m supposed to buy your larger points?

Illustration 3

Someone email’d me what turned out to be a copy of a blog post. The thrust of the post was intended to be critical of Rick Warren shortly before the forum in which the presidential candidates participated. In passing, the Democractic nominee was referred to as “B Hussein Obama”.

The implication was clear — let’s focus on Obama’s Muslim heritage. Such silliness obfuscates any legitimate arguments that one might have, drowning them out by those who simply dismiss you as a xenophobe.

Now here’s the kicker

1. Much of what the well-known pastor teaches is spot-on, IMHO. Even in that series.
2. There are some major theological differences that I have with Bell, some of which were highlighted by the anti-Bell blogger.
3. If you know me at all, you know that I’d rather sit next to David Dukes at a Jeremiah Wright sermon than see Obama in the White House. And with the kind of goofballs that he hangs with, it would not surprise me to find out that Obama is overly-friendly with those he should not be, who happen to be Muslim.

In short, on a lot of issues, and sometimes even in their main thrust, I agree with all three of the unnamed men that I have decried here. But in their passion to dismantle those that they oppose, they are all three perfectly willing to use any and every issue that they disagree with, regardless of its accuracy or relevance to the main point.

And so the main point gets totally clouded over and ignored. And for those that don’t know better (and that’s more than you might think), everything that that person says gets ignored. For the guy in “illustration 3″, it’s political suicide, as he drives more people over to his opponent’s side or further affirms those that are already there.

But when you start mixing personal opinion (and/or gross stupidity) with Scripture, then you’re driving people away from God — a much more serious offense — “two-fold the child of hell”, “millstones around the neck”, and all that stuff.