The use of humor in Gospel Preaching

[DesertBerean]

Humor can make people think. And no, we don't have any stand up comics in my church...

[Buzzword]

I have listen to a lot of sermons and started wondering about the following:

1. Is there anywhere in scripture where the preacher/teacher/prophet was trying to get his audience to laugh?

2. Did Jesus ever try to get His audience to laugh?

3. Jesus did tell some “almost” humorous stories, like the log in your own eye, with some very deep spiritual meanings, but would it make people laugh?

4. Is trying to make your audience laugh, also making lite of the subject?

5. Should the teacher/preacher emphasize the seriousness of the subject, by not showing any humor?

6. Would humor hurt someone in the audience caught up in the seriousness of the subject?

7. Why do preachers today use humor?

This seems like much ado about nothing.

Humor can be an effective rhetorical tool in breaking tension and keeping a congregation engaged.

Jesus did not say "My Father's house shall be a house of stick-in-the-muds who don't know how to have fun."

A lack of humor from behind the pulpit tends lead to a lack of humor in the church as a whole, which tends to turn young church members into former church members, and older church members into bitter church members.

I've never heard of a pastor being called to be a killjoy, especially when so many genuinely funny things happen in daily life.

That being said, humor has a time and place.
Certain spiritual subjects (for example, death and grieving) do not lend themselves to levity.

But I would contend that a pastor should always have an easy smile and an easier laugh, because part of his calling is to personally connect with and meet the needs of those under his authority.

A pastor with a constant scowl who treats his Bible like a judge's gavel is just playing god from his ivory tower every week.

[phat8594]

That is also why there is a proliferation of modern "worship music" that repeat words or phrases over and over and have very little substantial theological meat to them. It's almost as if the church thinks that nobody will get the deep meaning in the old, well written hymns that the church built into their worship in days past.

We have been reduced to the lowest common denominator: don't understand the Word because we aren't being taught the Word and just need to be entertained for an hour each week.

Although I can appreciate the desire to not water down the gospel and to preach repentance (two things I feel strongly about), I could not disagree more about a proliferation of modern worship music -- even ones 'that repeat words and phrases over and over'. To be frank, this sort of reasoning that comes from the likes of John Macarthur and his followres -- where the religion of old is held up in a place of reverence, while anything new is simply not considered legitimate -- begins to hold high the rules of man more than the rules of God. And frankly, it comes from a place of ignorance (no offense of course) and with little view of context.

Firstly, worship music is not about learning more theology, but actually praising God. The 'quality' of the worship has less to do with the 'theological meat' per se, and much more with the hearts of those worshiping. Although we shouldn't be singing something that is blasphemous or heretical - there is nothing wrong with singing things in line with the 'simpler truths' so long as the worship comes from the heart. It's about worshiping in Spirit and Truth -- not about singing theology. (I say this as one who has a great appreciate for theology)

Secondly, condemning music because it repeats things seems a bit silly, don't you think? So what if it is repeated? Is this really a true and Biblical concern? Or is this more of looking for something to criticize? After all, we even see in the Bible praises that are repeated over and over (e.g. in the Psalms, visions of heaven, etc).

Thirdly, worship music has been something that has been composed for quite a long time. After all, even the classical hymns were 'modern worship music' at some point -- although in a different format, genre and style than we see today. Just as today, there were hymns that were great and hymns that were not so great. As time passed, the best ones stuck while the ok ones went by the way side.

It is an unfortunate and all too common fallacy to glorify the past and criticize the present through misunderstandings and revisionist history. I for one am very thankful for modern worship music as well as old 'modern worship music' (hymns) -- for they are products of faithful men and women worshiping the Almighty God. I sing modern worship all the time and I love it - yes, I even enjoy it -- but I enjoy it because I get to praise my God and savior.

After all, it is the glory of man to use his God given creative abilities to find new ways to express and bring glory and praise to God.


Revelation 4
And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say,

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!”

[mossrose]

TE=phat8594;142405]Although I can appreciate the desire to not water down the gospel and to preach repentance (two things I feel strongly about), I could not disagree more about a proliferation of modern worship music -- even ones 'that repeat words and phrases over and over'. To be frank, this sort of reasoning that comes from the likes of John Macarthur and his followres -- where the religion of old is held up in a place of reverence, while anything new is simply not considered legitimate -- begins to hold high the rules of man more than the rules of God. And frankly, it comes from a place of ignorance (no offense of course) and with little view of context.

On the contrary, I am speaking from my own experience with several churches that I have attended. The music that is brought in as "worship" is mostly banal, repetitive baloney, that focuses more on how I feel about God rather than what God has done for me or extolling His character and attributes. There are a few modern songs that are fine, and I have no problem with them. But every single church I have attended has completely done away with hymns like "O Worship the King", "Arise, My Soul, Arise", "Great Is Thy Faithfulness", and many, many more, and replaced them with fluff like "Like an Avalanche, whoa, whoa, whoa.....", etc.

This music is meant to put the people into an emotional state, and that is what the pagans did. It is repetitive for the same reason, and it's main goal is to take the focus off God and put it onto me.

I have no problem with bringing in a little bit of modern music.....as I said, some of it is very good, "How Deep the Father's Love For Us", is one example. But every church I have attended has gone to a format of ONLY modern music and they don't sing the old hymns at all. I have a friend who became a believer about 20 years ago, she attends a church with this modern music (and fluffy sermons as well), and she doesn't know a single hymn, except maybe a few Easter and Christmas songs.

Firstly, worship music is not about learning more theology, but actually praising God. The 'quality' of the worship has less to do with the 'theological meat' per se, and much more with the hearts of those worshiping. Although we shouldn't be singing something that is blasphemous or heretical - there is nothing wrong with singing things in line with the 'simpler truths' so long as the worship comes from the heart. It's about worshiping in Spirit and Truth -- not about singing theology. (I say this as one who has a great appreciate for theology)

Sorry, but the music in church should underline the theology that is supposed to be being taught in worship services. And the Israelites thought they were worshipping God when they made the golden calf. They were certainly sincere, but sincerely wrong, and it didn't end well for them.

Simple truths are fine, but a large proportion of modern worship music is too full of milk and not enough meat. We are supposed to move on from that sort of thing as we mature, not regress back to our baby Christian days. Worshipping in spirit and in truth is very important, and that leads me to your next point.

Secondly, condemning music because it repeats things seems a bit silly, don't you think? So what if it is repeated? Is this really a true and Biblical concern? Or is this more of looking for something to criticize? After all, we even see in the Bible praises that are repeated over and over (e.g. in the Psalms, visions of heaven, etc).

As I said before, repetition is a way to create emotional responses from people. I don't need to sing the word, "glory" 27 times in a song to be able to worship God in spirit and in truth. I WANT to be aware of what I am singing (and praying, and doing) so that I can focus on the Lord. I want to be fully engaged with my heart, my mind, and my strength, as scripture directs. I want my mind to be focused on the deep and glorious truths about God that cause me to bow humbly before Him.

I also have issues with a bunch of people standing up on the platform playing and singing as a "worship team", and the congregation barely singing at all. Corporate worship is meant to be exactly that -- the entire congregation joining in singing praise to God, not being entertained by a group.

Yes, some scripture is repetitive, and much of that is poetic usage. But you can't compare poetry written by a God-inspired man (David, etc.) with some of the stuff written today and played on the airwaves as true worship music. How can you compare the simple, repetitive lyrics of "One Thing Remains",

“Your love never fails / It never gives up / Never runs out on me / Your love never fails / It never gives up / Never runs out on me / Your love never fails / It never gives up / Never runs out on me / Your love / Your love / Your love.”

with something like, "A mighty fortress is our God/ A bulwark never failing./ A helper He amid the flood/ Of mortal ills prevailing."

The writer of the former certainly doesn't care to engage our minds, but rather to work up our emotions.

Thirdly, worship music has been something that has been composed for quite a long time. After all, even the classical hymns were 'modern worship music' at some point -- although in a different format, genre and style than we see today. Just as today, there were hymns that were great and hymns that were not so great. As time passed, the best ones stuck while the ok ones went by the way side.

Sometimes change is good and sometimes it isn't. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

It is an unfortunate and all too common fallacy to glorify the past and criticize the present through misunderstandings and revisionist history. I for one am very thankful for modern worship music as well as old 'modern worship music' (hymns) -- for they are products of faithful men and women worshiping the Almighty God. I sing modern worship all the time and I love it - yes, I even enjoy it -- but I enjoy it because I get to praise my God and savior.

After all, it is the glory of man to use his God given creative abilities to find new ways to express and bring glory and praise to God.

There is no misunderstanding on my part of the dangers of doing away with theologically sound music and replacing it with banal fluff. Perhaps you should look into the reasons why some of the old hymns were written, why the focus was on God and not on the writer or the performer. No revisionism here, only by those who want to change how we worship.

Oh, and by the way, music is NOT the most important part of any worship time. That would be the hearing of the Word of God. And that brings us all the way back to the op.

I stand by what I have said about music previously. And I stand by what I have said about stand-up comedy in church.

Revelation 4
And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say,

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!”

Exactly. I sing that now.

Romans 12

1. I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, ato present your bodies bas a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

2. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

[Zymologist]

What about Psalm 136?

[mossrose]

What about Psalm 136?

Are you talking to me?

What about it?

Compare it to the lyrics I quoted above from "One Thing Remains".

NO comparison. The Psalm is fabulous. The other is banal fluff.

And that's what it is, comparing apples to oranges when someone says "what about Psalm (pick a number)".

It's two different things, my friend.

[Zymologist]

Are you talking to me?

What about it?

Compare it to the lyrics I quoted above from "One Thing Remains".

NO comparison. The Psalm is fabulous. The other is banal fluff.

And that's what it is, comparing apples to oranges when someone says "what about Psalm (pick a number)".

It's two different things, my friend.

I just don't really understand the argument that modern worship music (or a majority of it) is bad purely because of the repetition. You appeared to be saying that the repetition is only acceptable in Scripture, but not in songs.

This coming from someone who's not a huge fan of modern worship music. I personally find the repetitiveness kind of annoying.

[mossrose]

I just don't really understand the argument that modern worship music (or a majority of it) is bad purely because of the repetition. You appeared to be saying that the repetition is only acceptable in Scripture, but not in songs.

This coming from someone who's not a huge fan of modern worship music. I personally find the repetitiveness kind of annoying.

I didn't say it was bad purely because it is repetitious. I have a bigger beef with the lack of theology in most of it.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I didn't say it was bad purely because it is repetitious. I have a bigger beef with the lack of theology in most of it.

Or bad theology in it.

[Zymologist]

Or bad theology in it.

FWIW, there's plenty of bad theology or lacking theology in older hymns too.

[mossrose]

FWIW, there's plenty of bad theology or lacking theology in older hymns too.

That's true. That is why it is of the utmost importance to KNOW the truths in God's word so that we will recognize poor theology or the lack of any in what we read or sing or hear.

Only then can we choose those things that true worship consists of.

[phat8594]

On the contrary, I am speaking from my own experience with several churches that I have attended. The music that is brought in as "worship" is mostly banal, repetitive baloney, that focuses more on how I feel about God rather than what God has done for me or extolling His character and attributes. There are a few modern songs that are fine, and I have no problem with them. But every single church I have attended has completely done away with hymns like "O Worship the King", "Arise, My Soul, Arise", "Great Is Thy Faithfulness", and many, many more, and replaced them with fluff like "Like an Avalanche, whoa, whoa, whoa.....", etc.

MossRose, I greatly appreciate your heart and your response. Despite your personal experiences and preference, I hardly think describing modern worship as "banal, emotional baloney that focuses more on how I feel..." is a fair description of the reality. Could it be said that some modern worship songs aren't that great? Sure. And the same could be said of old hymns. And again, some songs may be on how God makes me feel, and some may be about what God has done for me -- much like the Psalms.

As one who appreciates many of the classic hymns, I hardly think that there is some sinister reason behind leaving certain hymns behind. Part of it, I am sure is the mere fact that many younger people have a hard time connecting with these songs due to their archaic (yet beautiful) language. I can appreciate the love of these old hymns - and yet it's not the archaic language or style of the hymns that make them holy - it's the heart of the worshiper. It's not the job the hymnal or worship leader to bring worship and praise into the building, but it is the responsibility of the people of God.

This music is meant to put the people into an emotional state, and that is what the pagans did. It is repetitive for the same reason, and it's main goal is to take the focus off God and put it onto me.

Again, this sounds much like what I have heard from the likes of John Macarthur --- who has also said that he wishes all the music and all emotions would disappear -- and who frequently associates those he disagrees with with pagans. Although this is an effective rhetorical tactic to get people 'on your side' it is simply disingenuous and is actually fallacious in reasoning. (remember, there are also pagans who disavow all emotions)

Simply put, you are assuming the worst (in malem partem) of someone you disagree with. You are assessing their motives - but in the worst way possible.

It is actually quite interesting...perhaps coincidental...that I had a conversation with a younger person this weekend who said:

1. They can connect better with modern worship music, because they can easily understand the words. They can spend their time in praise rather than trying to understand.
2. They prefer more repetitive music, because it allows them to focus less on 'getting the right words' and 'understanding the words' and more with just praising God for His goodness.


Interesting, isn't it? Although you assumed that the repetition is to basically meant to focus more on self -- this person actually preferred it, because it helped them focus more on God. It is the exact opposite of what you have stated.


That being said - if you are able to focus more on God through hymns -- then great. After all, it is God we are praising.

I have no problem with bringing in a little bit of modern music.....as I said, some of it is very good, "How Deep the Father's Love For Us", is one example. But every church I have attended has gone to a format of ONLY modern music and they don't sing the old hymns at all. I have a friend who became a believer about 20 years ago, she attends a church with this modern music (and fluffy sermons as well), and she doesn't know a single hymn, except maybe a few Easter and Christmas songs.

And there are many believers around the world today and throughout history who don't know hymns. I don't really see this as a problem. Knowing hymns (although a beautiful expression of praise) is not a litmus test to true Christianity.

Sorry, but the music in church should underline the theology that is supposed to be being taught in worship services. And the Israelites thought they were worshipping God when they made the golden calf. They were certainly sincere, but sincerely wrong, and it didn't end well for them.

I don't know where you see that in the Bible...after all - the Israelites clearly were turning away from the LORD and His commandments and wanted to "make...gods who shall go before [them]".

Simple truths are fine, but a large proportion of modern worship music is too full of milk and not enough meat. We are supposed to move on from that sort of thing as we mature, not regress back to our baby Christian days. Worshipping in spirit and in truth is very important, and that leads me to your next point.

Again, I think much of this is misguided. Even many hymns wouldn't contain what most would consider the 'meat' - and how many of the modern songs contain many of the same truths as in the 'classic' hymns.

As I said before, repetition is a way to create emotional responses from people. I don't need to sing the word, "glory" 27 times in a song to be able to worship God in spirit and in truth. I WANT to be aware of what I am singing (and praying, and doing) so that I can focus on the Lord. I want to be fully engaged with my heart, my mind, and my strength, as scripture directs. I want my mind to be focused on the deep and glorious truths about God that cause me to bow humbly before Him.

Again, I think you are misrepresenting the motives of those who write modern worship music. And I appreciate that you want to be aware of what you are singing -- and as stated above -- for some people -- it's easier to be aware of what they are singing when they don't have to spend the time interpreting the song. I think it's great that you want to be aware of what you are singing -- it's just that many in the modern worship movement feel the same way -- they just express it differently. This is a cultural issue, not a truth issue.

I also have issues with a bunch of people standing up on the platform playing and singing as a "worship team", and the congregation barely singing at all. Corporate worship is meant to be exactly that -- the entire congregation joining in singing praise to God, not being entertained by a group.

Yep -- and as stated above, it's the responsibility of the people of God to bring the worship -- not a hymnal, and not a worship team. But again, this is not a hymn vs. modern worship music issue - but a heart issue. I have been in many churches that only sing hymns that are simply 'dead' for lack of a better word -- hardly any participation, hardly any true heart to praise...and I have been in modern churches where almost everyone is engaged singing on the top of their lungs. So, again, it's not a hymn vs. modern worship music (that's the man made part of religion) -- it's a heart issue.

Yes, some scripture is repetitive, and much of that is poetic usage. But you can't compare poetry written by a God-inspired man (David, etc.) with some of the stuff written today and played on the airwaves as true worship music. How can you compare the simple, repetitive lyrics of "One Thing Remains",

“Your love never fails / It never gives up / Never runs out on me / Your love never fails / It never gives up / Never runs out on me / Your love never fails / It never gives up / Never runs out on me / Your love / Your love / Your love.”

with something like, "A mighty fortress is our God/ A bulwark never failing./ A helper He amid the flood/ Of mortal ills prevailing."

The writer of the former certainly doesn't care to engage our minds, but rather to work up our emotions.

First off, both many Psalms and songs are artistic expression of praise. Secondly, many Psalms are meant to be accompanied with music.

Thirdly, I think you are once again assessing motives when you truly don't know the people. For both songs, I would assume that both are meant to praise God rather than work up our emotions.

I personally do not see a problem with a song that is trying to extol the wonders and greatness of God's love. After all, when we look at 1 Corinthians 13 -- I think we can all see the importance of love.

Sometimes change is good and sometimes it isn't. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

Yep, I think we would all agree with that. But we must not confuse cultural with moral. And often times the church wants to hold onto the old cultural and makes it a now moral issue. The church should seek to be generational, and embrace communicating the never changing truths of God within the ever changing cultures of the world. God forbid we be like Hezekiah who only cared about his own generation and own days.

There is no misunderstanding on my part of the dangers of doing away with theologically sound music and replacing it with banal fluff. Perhaps you should look into the reasons why some of the old hymns were written, why the focus was on God and not on the writer or the performer. No revisionism here, only by those who want to change how we worship.

And again, I think you are assuming the worst motives possible. Absolutely we should look into some of the reasons why some of the old hymns were written -- but have you ever looked into the reasons why some of the new, more popular songs have been written?

Why do you assume they want the focus to be on the writer and not on God? From my experience with modern worship leaders and song writers, it is actually the opposite of what you suppose. They have the desire to put the focus on God.

Exactly. I sing that now.

I actually quoted that to show you that it was a repetitive and never ceasing. The same thing was said over and over and over again. I would assume that you would freely recognize that the heart of that is not to work up an emotional response, correct?



And I will leave this post with two of my favorite modern songs - worship team, electric guitar and all:

[Pentecost]

Ms. Mossy, you keep pickin' on poor li'l One Thing Remains, but the lyrics are:

Higher than the mountains that I face
Stronger than the power of the grave
Constant through the trial and the change

Which are all theologically sound so far right?

Then it goes into those parts you keep on mocking about God's love, which I don't think should be under emphasized if we're to believe the Apostle John.

It does then mention the singers a bit, and their feelings. Its one stanza of a song out of three plus the chorus, but it helps the singers affirm some proper ways to react to God's felt presence.

The final stanza:

In death, In life, I’m confident and
covered by the power of Your great love
My debt is paid, there’s nothing that can
separate my heart from Your great love...

Conjures thoughts of our future resurrection, the power of God (which is rather emphasized in the Pentecostal teachings that Jesus Culture would have been drawing from), and our debt being paid by the redeeming power of the cross. Then it ties it together to be personally evocative to the participants.

If you aren't getting something out of it, maybe that's your own fault, because I find it helpful for songs to remind me of these powerful truths.

[bling]

When you are trying to be very serious about a very serious subject (heaven or hell) can you really take people to the point of laughing out loud and not detract from others caught up in this life and death situation?

I do not see Jesus or any of the others trying to get their audience to laugh out loud. The “humor” was also very thought provoking and if you “laughed” it would be because you did not grasp the seriousness of the subject.

I attended this church in which the preacher was short, bald, wore thick glasses, spoke in a monotone and never used “humor”. His message was always very serious and you had to take notes to keep up, if you wanted to discuss it later. This church grow rapidly, to standing room only. The leadership announced there would be two morning services with different lessons directed at different age groups and the preacher would announce the subject the week before for you to decide which one you wanted to attend. There was standing room only at both serves, all the members went to the first and stayed for the second. The leadership pleated with the members to just go to one service, but since the leaders where hypocrites (they were attending both services themselves) the congregation followed their example and not their words. The preacher had to repeat the same sermon twice to keep the people from going to both services.

[Bill the Cat]

When you are trying to be very serious about a very serious subject (heaven or hell) can you really take people to the point of laughing out loud and not detract from others caught up in this life and death situation?

I do not see Jesus or any of the others trying to get their audience to laugh out loud. The “humor” was also very thought provoking and if you “laughed” it would be because you did not grasp the seriousness of the subject.

I attended this church in which the preacher was short, bald, wore thick glasses, spoke in a monotone and never used “humor”. His message was always very serious and you had to take notes to keep up, if you wanted to discuss it later. This church grow rapidly, to standing room only. The leadership announced there would be two morning services with different lessons directed at different age groups and the preacher would announce the subject the week before for you to decide which one you wanted to attend. There was standing room only at both serves, all the members went to the first and stayed for the second. The leadership pleated with the members to just go to one service, but since the leaders where hypocrites (they were attending both services themselves) the congregation followed their example and not their words. The preacher had to repeat the same sermon twice to keep the people from going to both services.

There is a local church here where I live that started out with 15 people in the top floor of a warehouse office. The preacher uses quite a bit of humor to talk about the life a believer can live in Christ. In 10 years, they now have a 3,500 seat auditorium with 2 services a day and something going on every night of the week.