Pensees: Irreverent

I’m with you Bob. Some things just do not go together.

“As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

2 Timothy 4:5

In 1 Kings 18, Elijah seems to employ a bit of satirical humor.

I saw the Canner/Whitt video- AFTER I saw the debacle of Ergun Caner’s schtick masquerading as a sermon (tacked into in a variety show masquerading as a church service) entitled “Why I am Predestined NOT to be a Hyper-Calvinist.” Frankly, Bob, I thought the video was not just for the “yuk it up” factor- it was humor intended to make a serious point. Whether they were effective may be up for debate, but I didn’t think them to be in bad taste.

I saw the Piper matter as not much different than college kids employing a good-natured parody of the mannerisms of a favorite speaker or prof. Of course, being the grumpy married college student I was, I never did enjoy student chapels all that much…

Bob,

I enjoy humor. And I even enjoy a good “celebrity” roast. But much of what passes for humor isn’t. In fact, if anything, it has the comedic effect of a bucket of dead babies.

I watched the clips you did and didn’t find them terribly funny or helpful. Perhaps in this area humor like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But, then again, perhaps not.

Greg, I doubt that when Elijah used his satire (if you want to refer to taunting as satire)anybody was giggling. Everybody there knew that somebody was going to be dead at the end of the day and most probably thought it was going to be Elijah. Even while Elijah taunted them the priests were in the process of slashing their bodies, screaming frantically to a god that would not respond. The souls of those men were frightened and certainly beginning to feel the crushing darkness of despair even as their lone antagonist became more and more confident in his blasphemies of their baal.

The onlookers of the contest between Holy God and terrorizing baal were emaciated and broke. They had just gone through three years of famine because of the word of that lonely prophet who was now mocking the four hundred prophets of the state religion. They all knew Jezebel to be a bloodthirsty queen who would stop at nothing to protect her interests and they might have sensed danger just for being spectators of Baal’s embarrassment. Obadiah was so afraid of the royalty that he could not bear to disappoint them in the least, begging Elijah not to disappear on him lest Ahab kill him for giving false hope that the “troubler of Israel” might be found and executed. Nobody was giggling and making parodies.

That is the same God that uttered the Doctrines of Grace.

When Piper was saying he was bad, he was saying he was totally depraved, ruined, and utterly hopeless as all men are unless grace prevails. His badness provokes the wrath of God and merits for him unending, unmitigated, and unrelenting wrath of Omnipotent Holiness for ten thousand eternities. Were it not for the fact that he is covered by the blood of Jesus Christ he would be part of the countless hordes that consciously burn or will burn in hell.

To mix that with a song by Micheal Jackson who gloried in his badness merely shows that whoever did it does not appreciate the frightening fact that these truths both save and damn.

Call me humorless, but I don’t mind people realizing that when I talk about these things there is nothing to laugh about.

I actually believe it.

1) Thankfully some are beyond the point that “if I did it innocently enough in college it must be okay.”
2) Greg should read the first part of the chapter… Obadiah and Elijah certainly didn’t mock each other.
3) Actually, Elijah didn’t use satire (at least not in the polished way we use the term today), he flat out mocked them. They deserved it. They were worshipping false gods and cutting themselves to shreds in the process, which was only a tiny taste of the torment that they were about to endure for eternity. It wasn’t exactly funny then, and definitely shouldn’t be to today’s reader either.
Wow! To use that as an excuse to mock a servant of God…
Gotta be gutsy, I guess.

Bob, I see you beat me to it. Had I seen your response, which was much more eloquent than mine, I wouldn’t have commented. That’s why I’m a “read only” blogger most of the time!

Well, I won’t defend the Piper matter. But I do think it is quite a stretch to say they were mocking or taunting him. “Roasting” is a common device used to express admiration and respect. This may have been in poor taste and judgment, but I would be reasonably certain that whoever composed the video would count themselves among Piper’s admirers and supporters (and no, it wasn’t me).

But regarding the debate video- I would say there was ridicule happening there- and as I said, after watching the Caner sermon- there is much that is deserving of ridicule. If you listened to that message, I think it would be a little clearer.

That’s fine. I don’t think that whoever was mocking Piper either. I think it was done by fans. That doesn’t mitigate my point one bit in my mind. It is still making light of the doctrine. It’s not Piper I’m concerned about, frankly.

As far as Caner goes. He is the joke. I heard as much of the message as I could endure. But when you do a parody of something that is already parodical, when you make a joke of a joke, you give credibility to the very thing you are satirizing.

But this is not about Caner. Caner, in my mind, nearly blasphemes. I wonder about that man. But when the best pastors can do is make a goofy little skit to parody the whole debacle then we will never see true religion and reverence restored. If that debacle is to be memorialized, it should be in sackcloth and ashes. I am embarrassed everytime I think of it.

Well, Bob, just to prove that I determine my position on issues by choosing the side opposite yours…

This really didn’t bother me. Perhaps I’m just hardened. Now, I can’t see the Piper video, so I’m not commenting on it. But I don’t think the MacRap was belittling him or preaching. (Though I suppose they might have left the word “Bible” out of it.) If anything, it demonstrates the folly of mixing rap with theology; the reason it’s funny is that it’s ludicrous. It’s essentially what we did by putting Scott’s face on a CCM CD (http://immoderate.wordpress.com/2006/03/30/aniol19thbday/), or putting Scott’s head on a drummer (http://greglinscott.wordpress.com/2006/03/30/on-scott-aniols-19th-birthday/), or putting my face on a boy band (http://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2006/05/12/introducing-the-yobf-boyz/), etc. It’s just higher tech. In fact, it’s the type of humor you & I engage in when you defend me vs. attending a preaching conference. It’s light-hearted, but not really irreverent, as I see it.

Certainly this kind of thing can be taken too far. Maybe this was too far. But I chuckled, then moved on.

On the other hand, the rap at Piper’s church wasn’t intended to be funny. It was intended to be offered to God as serious worship. That’s much more offensive, IMO.

Once again, my point is not that Piper or MacArthur were being mocked. They weren’t. And even if they were that isn’t this issue. The issue is the seriousness of the doctrine and the dignity of the means of grace that preaching is supposed to be.

Scott’s head on a drummer and so forth is nothing like taking preaching on serious truth and making a joke out of it. You can do whatever you want to your face.

It’s the gamesmanship with truth that I do not like.

And… as much as you hated the rapper at Piper’s church at least it wasn’t intended to be funny. I hate rap and question the validity of its use, but I think I could tell that they were serious. Wrong? Possibly. But volitionally burlesquing it? I don’t think so.

I’m a little confused. How do the same people that are scandalized by music that supposedly only represents worldliness, eroticism, and violence when it is used by an obviously serious convert to share his testimony turn around and think it is okay in a spoof utilizing preaching and doctrine?

At least Aniol and Martin are consistent.

Embarrassed for me? Inconsistent? Man, you are killing me.

I don’t have much to add to what I said before. At any rate, I’ll sleep well, knowing that I’ve helped to bring peace to the Aniol/Bixby Feud by giving them both someone to shake their heads at. Glad to be of service.

Is that kind of like Family Feud? Sounds like fun.

I try to distinguish, especially with the children in our church, between being silly and having goofy fun (which I love) and how we should act when we’re hearing about God and the Bible.

For instance, each Wednesday evening when I teach the children, we begin by singing a goofy fun song. Something about Austrians yodeling or little green frogs. Then just about each week we talk about how it’s good and ok to have fun and be goofy, but not when we’re talking about God and the Bible, or when we’re singing about God and the Bible. Then we move to a time of singing hymns. Out of a hymnal. Yes, children. Anyway, I want them to know that silliness is ok, but not when mixed with Bible truth.

I think this is the same issue here. It’s ok, IMO, to “roast” a professor for instance in a student body meeting, but those that I’ve seen are making light of his mannerisms, teaching style, etc. NOT the content of his teaching, especially if it’s biblical content.

Incidentally, this is the problem I have with a lot of gospel songs. They make biblical truth sound silly. But let’s not get into another music discussion. At least not until tomorrow! :)

Ever see the woodcuts from some of Luther’s books? I’ve got one somewhere that has a couple guys pulling their pants down and, ah, “breaking wind”, in the direction of the Pope.

FWIW, Piper has responded:

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2006/11/piper-bad-not-mad.html