Please help w/my experiment: Christian humor and satire

Status
Not open for further replies.

erika

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
27
Location
Georgia
I love to write religious humor/satire and was wondering if yall thought something like the following is funny or not. (I will also post this on the non-Christian humor page as I want to see how the reaction varies between audiences.)

THE FUNNY THING ABOUT STUDYING JOB
The first Bible study didn’t go precisely like I had planned. In my theological wisdom, I thought we would do well to kick off the Old Sinner’s Bible study with the book of Job. To me that book confronts all the illusions about God’s will for us. Are our lives intended to be free from trouble and suffering or are we destined to eat a crap sandwich much of the time we’re in this world? Personally, I knew which way I was leaning, but I thought a little Biblical discussion on the matter was in order.

The school bell rang at 6:30 Wednesday evening with about 15 people in attendance. We all gathered in our downstairs rec room. Cara was in her baby swing and Daniel was plugged into a Barney movie in the bedroom next door. John and I were set. I positioned myself on a chair at the front of the room. Everyone else was seated on the couches or on the Berber carpeted floor (it really does have a tight weave).

“I thought we’d start off our Bible study with the book of Job,” I began
“Job?” Grant asked, taken aback by my choice. “Isn’t that a little depressing?”

“What do you mean depressing?” I asked leaning forward. “Job confronts the issue of suffering and God’s part in it.”

“Yeah,” Grant replied while leaning back on the sofa. “Depressing.”
Sandra smirked and John grinned while my eyes darted around the room.

“Well depressing or not, I thought we’d discuss Job.” Everyone nodded or shrugged and I began the tutorial. “Job is the fable of a righteous man’s suffering.”

“Fable?” Jessica asked. “He wasn’t a real person?”

“We don’t really know,” I explained. “We only know that the book of Job was written to expound upon a commonly known story about a righteous man who suffered numerous tragedies.” I received some surprised glances and curious nods. “The book begins by telling us of Job’s righteousness.”

John interrupted from the back of the room where he was sitting on the floor with his knees bent and back against the wall. “But are there really any who are righteous?”

“No,” I told him. “But the term righteous used in the Old Testament does not always have the strict definition Paul ascribes to it. It’s like saying something is good. In the strict sense, only God is good. But let’s face it, we all use the term good for many things that aren’t purely good. Love is also similarly tossed around, meaning different things in different contexts.” I think everyone got that analogy as the group seemed uniformly pleased with my explanation.

I returned to the Biblical discussion. “So first we establish Job as righteous. Then the book goes on to describe the interview between God and Satan.”

Sandra interjected. “Okay, that bothers me. I thought Satan was banned from God’s presence. He’s the disobedient one, right? So how is it that he just pops in on God whenever he feels like it?”

“Maybe he’s got a standing invitation,” Jerry quipped with a self-assured smile.
Everyone chuckled and smiled, despite the fact that it was a moronic comment. Jerry thought he had a sense of humor. This was a painful bit of self delusion, but one the rest of us tolerated for the sake of Christian charity.

“Perhaps Jerry,” I politely smiled. “But I think it’s better to remember that this story should not be taken too literally. And remember, God is the creator. He is everywhere He wants to be, so it’s not like Satan is ever really beyond God. He is always haunted by His presence even if he fails to recognize that fact. I suppose you could say his is the ultimate self-deception.” The group looked bewildered. “It’s like this. Satan doesn’t just roam around without God’s knowledge or tolerance. Job is clear that evil is first and foremost beholden to good for its very existence. In this way it is included with all the other angels, even if it doesn’t recognize itself as such. That’s the real issue, not if Satan is really subservient to God but whether he wants to admit he’s subservient to God.”

“Alright,” John said. “But why did God mention Job to Satan? Sounds like he was setting Job up?”

Everyone nodded and I shrugged. “Yeah,” I ceded. “It does sound like that.”

“Well?” Grant beseeched. “What’s that about?”

I shrugged again. “I don’t know. Maybe God was setting Job up.”

Everyone glanced at one another. Carrie piped up. “But God doesn’t set people up.”

I leaned back in my chair and crossed my legs. “Yes He does.”

Grant laughed. “What the hell do you mean?”

“I mean God sets us up,” I repeated.

“But He loves us,” Sandra pleaded leaning forward. “He doesn’t set us up to fail.”

I rolled my eyes. “Sandra, are you perfect?”

“No,” she admitted.

“Were you born perfect?”

“No,” she repeated.

“Then how can God ask you to be perfect if He knows you’re already configured to be imperfect?” I held my hands out in invitation.

“But…” she stammered. “That’s… God’s…”

One of Carrie’s stripper friends piped up. “But God doesn’t ask you to be perfect,” she declared while pointing at me. “He only asks that you love Him.”

“Oh really?” I countered, hearing Cara’s muffled cry emanate from the bedroom next door. “He doesn’t mind if we yell at our children when they annoy us by their very existence? He doesn’t mind it when we dream of putting a pillow over their puffy faces until they stop moving? He’s okay with all of that?” I saw some harrowed expressions in the crowd. John knit his brow in a look of concern. I threw up my hands. “So God gives us sexual desire, then after we act on it after we’ve obeyed His stupid rule about premarital sex, He ‘blesses’ us with children who arouse in us the most demonic thoughts and desires. Then He tells us we’re wrong for thinking the crap in the first place. What kind of love and mercy is that, I ask you?!”

I tried to make eye contact with the group but everyone averted my stare. Scott finally broke the silence. “Is this a Bible study or a ***** session, cause I’ve got some issues too?” He had a faint smile on his face as though the question was intended as a light-hearted musing. I found it strangely unfunny.

“Well Scott,” I said uncrossing my legs and leaning forward. “I didn’t know my troubles were so amusing to you.”

“Oh crap,” Grant moaned looking up at the ceiling.

“Ugh,” John groaned massaging his temples.

“Oh, so the book of Job is just some great fairy tale,” I began to rant. “Is that what you all think?” I stood up and placed my hands on my hips. “Well let me assure you, it is no fairy tale of how we all get great things in this crap-covered world. It’s about getting screwed and learning to accept it. It’s about the fact that God doesn’t guarantee you rose petals and orgies. He gives you ungrateful and difficult children, fickle friends and husbands who liked your breasts before you nursed two kids. But that’s what we’ve got, so suck it up and praise Him.”

A stunned and uncomfortable silence swept across the room. All you could hear was the annoying Barney “I love you” song wafting out of the adjacent room. Finally I turned around and left the room ostensibly to check on the kids, but mostly to get the hell out of there. I knew I had made a colossal *** of myself and no one really wants to stick around after they become of aware of such an embarrassing truth.

Back in the bedroom, I nursed Cara while I sobbed quietly. Daniel came over and snuggled up beside me in a show of affection that I greatly appreciated. Turns out there were some bright spots in this parenting gig. Granted, the positives were few and fleeting, but they were there and at this point, I’d take any I could get.

I heard John mumbling in the rec room and then he walked through the bedroom door.
“Everyone’s leaving,” he informed me while crossing his arms. John sighed as he studied my tearful face. “This has got to change Erika. You can’t even keep it together in front of our friends.”

Tears rolled down my cheeks. “I know,” I whispered.

John came over to the bed and knelt down beside me. “I can’t make you get on medication. But I can hire a nanny and have her come in at least three days a week. And that’s what we’re gonna start doing around here. You got me?” John tried to look in my downcast eyes.

“Yeah,” I mumbled.


“And I’m gonna lead the Bible study. You can give Carrie and Sandra and Grant all the input in the world, but from now on, you’re strictly a behind-the-scenes deaconess. Your job is to nurse, write and worship. Understand?”


I looked into John’s eyes with a heartened expression. “You mean they want to continue the Bible study?”
John smiled. “Yeah, but not with you leading it.” I smiled faintly. “Actually, everyone really liked discussing the book of Job up until the point you decided to blame God for your stubborn refusal to get happy.” John’s head bobbed from side to side. “Up until then, it was a good discussion. The psycho mother bit was a little unnerving, but we all agreed so long as you don’t speak in the future, we think it could be a good Wednesday night.”

John and I laughed and I realized then that post-partum depression has some bright moments. But it's probably not conducive to leading Bible study.
 
Last edited:

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
Honest opinion? I didn't find it funny.

What I can't tell you for sure is why.

It could be because I find the subject uncomfortable. If that was your intent, that's fine, but then don't ask me to laugh at it. I think it's very hard to satiarize a group and then make it funny to that group. This may be funny to non-Christians who want to laugh at Christians. I don't find it funny because I suspect I'm the object of the satire.

It could be because I have an odd sense of humor. I really like word-play (puns and such), but I don't particularly find human foibles funny. For instance, I don't think boorish behavior is funny and the protagonist's behavior is boorish. Others might think it's funny.

It could be that it's just not good humor. I don't really know. I'm not a humor writer and I don't know what elements go into humorous writing. I do think that humorous writing needs to be fast-paced, and some of the paragraphs are a little slow going. I also think if this is the complete story, you need to end it with a bigger bang or punchline.

I'm not saying it's not a good story. I'm not saying it doesn't say some important things. I'm just saying that I don't think it's funny.

ETA: I also had a problem with the language. Granted, many Christians swear at times. But I have NEVER heard anyone swear in church or at a bible study. Even non-Christians who come to church (say for a funeral or wedding) don't swear. Almost everyone knows when such language is appropriate and when it is not. So that part didn't ring true.
 
Last edited:

erika

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
27
Location
Georgia
I appreciate the feedback. Please understand, I'm poking fun at myself more than anyone else. Nonetheless, if it, offended I apologize. That really isn't my intent. I have a somewhat sarcastic sense of humor which can be misconstrued.

My real point with all of this was to spur some discussion in a funny way, make an absurd point if you will. Obviously it failed in that sense, at least with a Christian audience. This is an excerpt from a WIP which takes aim at every segment of society, so in that sense the satire is even-handed. But again, it's a tough line to walk. Do I make fun of myself and risk offending others for the sake of amusement? Would such a treatment of theology and Christianity open the agnostic mind to Biblical truth? Or is it hurtful? That's what I need to know.
 

Gravity

Seen 'em come, seen 'em go
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
3,942
Reaction score
965
Age
71
Location
Once you've heard the truth, everything else is ju
Erika: long story short, I went from athiesm, to agnosticsm, to radical Christianity. Back when I was a member of the first two groups, your piece would have reinforced my thinking that Christianity was for idiots. Now, looking at it from this side, like Roger, I still fail to see the humor. I dunno. Maybe it's just me. But as I said earlier, I do sense a lot of anger coming through your writing. Whether that's good or bad, I can't say.
 

L.Jones

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
470
Reaction score
53
Eroka - to me the last place a person should have to apologize (except for direct personal attack) is among writers. Writers who are offended by ideas different than their own are probably going to sturggle with their chosen craft a LOT.

That said and going for honest, I didn't find the piece funny, either. But like Roger I go for word play and broad humor. I am not sure it's satirical, either. Have to think if that's the right word. When I hear satire I think The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or certain Saturday Night Live skits, sooo...

Okay, deep breath, this is why I think it's not funny. I never, not once, lost sight of the author's opinion and motives (as you put it in other posts) in the piece. I never found myself involved in the Characters, setting, situation. This comes from a purely fiction writer, so that is my perspective.
Story first, everything else... there isn't anything else. To parapharase a famous quote attributed from time to time to just about every famous author:
If you want to preach, write a sermon. If you want to send a message, call Western Union. If you want to write a book, tell a story.

annie jones
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
erika said:
I appreciate the feedback. Please understand, I'm poking fun at myself more than anyone else. Nonetheless, if it, offended I apologize. That really isn't my intent. I have a somewhat sarcastic sense of humor which can be misconstrued.
Don't worry on that score. :) I wasn't at all offended. I was just trying to analyze why I didn't find it funny.
 

erika

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
27
Location
Georgia
Gravity said:
Erika: long story short, I went from athiesm, to agnosticsm, to radical Christianity. Back when I was a member of the first two groups, your piece would have reinforced my thinking that Christianity was for idiots. Now, looking at it from this side, like Roger, I still fail to see the humor. I dunno. Maybe it's just me. But as I said earlier, I do sense a lot of anger coming through your writing. Whether that's good or bad, I can't say.

Ayn Rand and Ann Coulter are angry also, wouldn't you say? But their anger works. It's scathing at times, but entertains and enlivens. There are in fact moments when we should be angry (i.e. Jesus and the money changers)? I'm in no way equating myself to our Lord or Ann Coulter. Just throwing out a little food for thought.
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,975
I'd have to echo Gravity and Roger here, Erika, though I'm not as adept iin being able to tell you the 'why' of my reaction. You have a certain skill with language...I think it must be in the direction of the anger in this piece. Your character seems unjustifiably angry at a bunch of fellow humans whose intent was good--to come together and study the Bible. She seems more frustrated than righteously angry. Whether frustrated with self or others, frustration always has that element of self in it that keeps it from being the type of anger that Christ exhibited.
 

A. Hamilton

here for a minute...catch me?
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
4,594
Reaction score
2,257
Location
N. Cali
with the exception of 'The Old Sinner's Bible Study', i didn't find it funny either. but neither was it offensive. it was mostly an interesting read, and compelled me to want to explore what was going on in the m.c.'s life, and help her solve it. i agree that the language seemed out of place for the setting. and i felt the brief reference to one of the participants being a stripper was out of place and thrown in for shock, unless that was part of the satire? other than that reference, we knew little about the crowd so therefore the m.c.'s behavior seemed over the top.
one thing though, it left me wanting more commentary on Job, which was a bit of a tease. guess i'll have to find my own Old Sinner's Club ;)
 

Nateskate

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
509
Location
Somewhere in the mountains
I don't know. I just think the Bible study didn't get the gist of the book at all.

Perspective- Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. The person as described would have been an Edomite Prince, not a Jew, which makes its place in the Bible altogether unique.

Given the time and place it was written, it is most likely Job had no piece of the Bible at all, and neither did any of his friends. So, jobs "Righteousness" and Jobs "Religious perspective" are essentially about him being a rather good-hearted God who cared about God, but one who might not have had much actual spiritual knowledge.

Translation: A guy doing the best he could do with what he had to work with.

The question someone might ask, who wasn't looking to poke fun at the book was, "Why would God have allowed this book to make it into the Bible" - speaking to people who are at least aware that Paul said all scripture was inspired, and Peter said Paul was inspired.

The point of the book is about intellectual honesty. If the book had been written about someone who actually had a Jewish understanding or a Christian understanding, they would never have been as intellectually honest as someone who didn't feel compelled to "defend God" defend his church/belief system. - well, God is good...I know that...so it can't be God's fault...must be mine...

Instead we see the hearts of men revealed as they truly are. That is the benefit of the book. Job honestly questioned God's goodness when he was tested. Men actually believe if God likes us we won't suffer and if God doesn't like us we will suffer, which is error laced thinking.

Remember, "Out of the abundence of the heart the mouth speaks..."

Job, the most righteous person in the world at that time had a superstitious view of God. Remember Jesus saying "There is non born of a woman greater than John the Baptist...yet..." - Jesus was saying in effect, there is an Old Testament and New Testament view of the same issues.

I don't have time to expound on everything. The book is TOO deep, not TOO shallow. When did satan get cast out of heaven? -lose total access? He still had limited access in Jesus time. He was "The accuser of the brethren..." And he demanded that Peter be sifted like wheat- in punishment.

Satan had legal access to the world. "I will give you all the cities...if you will worship me..."

So, the idea that Satan had no access to heaven at any time was not Biblical at any point.

Why did God bait the question? Too deep for a full discussion, but why do humans think everything is about humans? The NT said we will judge angels at some point.

This was about the greater question and accusation which could have caused angels to stumble as well as men and had to be addressed.

Satan basically said no free will creature can actually love God. We cannot choose to believe he is good and that his nature is good. We all are only animals who respond like an animal. If God gives us treats we love him, if not we hate him.

Satan said, those you think are righteous are only using you- there isn't a human on earth better than me- so you are unrighteous for punishing me.

There's a lot on the line here for men and angels. The question had to be answered. Well...the question is still being answered every time we suffer yet choose to believe God is a good God. So, being like Job isn't such a bad thing. We're making a point for men and angels.
 

Nateskate

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
509
Location
Somewhere in the mountains
My previous post is not meant to sound flippant. It's not. But the questions brought up by the Bible study will leave some in doubt and I figured some answers to some of those points could help. I wanted to add an addendum. Job is one of the hardest books to read or comprehend.

But as for specific points, Satan was cast out of heaven because of his transgression- specifically he lost his office and the authority of his administration. This does not mean he was no longer accountable to God, or that he didn't have to answer to God. So when he was summoned he came, and had limited access because of his post-fall position.

Satan had authority on earth. God had given it to Adam. However Romans says that to whomever you submit yourself, that is your lord. When Eve, then Adam submitted to Satan, technically/legally they handed him the keys of authority to the earth. So, when Satan tempts Jesus and flaunts that he will give him the nations of the earth in exchange for Jesus' worship, Jesus does not dispute his power to do so.

Satan is referred to as "The prince of this world" and also "the prince of the power of the air" meaning he has some level of authority on the world.

So that when Peter sins, Satan DEMANDS to sift Peter like wheat. Jesus doesn't discount Satan has the right to make the demand. In fact, Jesus says he will pray for Peter-

Sift like wheat is a metaphor that he was going to attack Peter, and Jesus is implying he wasn't going to stop it. "Legal grounds?"

Satan wants full access to all of our lives, and shows his hand in Job, that if God didn't protect us, this is what Satan would do to us all-based on legal grounds that he is the prince of this world.

We have small pictures into spiritual warfare, and Satan's plans. But we see that Daniel's prayers where hindred by a war in the heavens. "The Prince of Persia" spoken of in Daniel was not referring to the physical monarch of what is modern day Iran. It was a spirtual Prince who was opposing Michael the angel.

Are spiritual wars still fought over people and places? Yes. The Bible even mentions that there was a war over the fate of Moses body after his death.

My ascertion that the story of Job was not just about humankind will be questioned. But Paul indicates that humans who willingly submit to authority are a "sign to the angels". Our lives not only have implications in this world, but in heaven in ways we can't comprehend.

Satan was throwing down the guantlet and saying before all the angels in heaven, that God's beloved humans did not actually love God. If the most righteous person on earth loved God conditionally- meaning he could not see God's beauty and love him for who God is- then no one loves God.

We know this isn't true.

Job reacted like many react. He defended himself by accusing God.

"God shoots his arrows..." God never attacked Job. God put a hedge around Job his entire life to keep Satan from touching him. He removed the hedge and Satan shot his arrows.

But of course, Job did the best he could with what he knew.

If you look at God's answer, there is no scripture written yet. Jesus refers back to scripture, and makes clarifications. God used the only scripture written at that time, "Nature" what Job could observe.

And through nature, God speaks to all of Job's accusations. God does care about creation. God is actively involved. He is strong enough to answer prayer...etc. He gave animals instincts. He placed all boundaries to keep planets from colliding and the seas from destroying the lands...etc.

Paul says in Romans that God's nature can clearly be seen through the things he has made, namely the world. So, God opens Jobs eyes -get your eyes off your suffering and look at order/beauty/logic...etc, and you can find that God is good.

In fact, Job held this perspective.- God is good, even after suffering. What changed it? Not nature. It was other people's theology lessons.

But in the end, Job gives Satan a setback. How? Because Job was still sick and broken when he repented. All he needed to know what his heart always told him was true- that God is good. Then he could deal with suffering and loss.

We have so much more than Job ever had. We can look at Jesus, and what he said, and how he lived, and what he suffered. We don't need to know every answer to every question, only that God loves us.

Job didn't have what we have. But we can look at Job's life and learn countless lessons.

Hope that helps someone. And E, I actually thnik you have helped a lot of people by bringing these things up. Tough questions, but I think overall it brings things into the open, which will help others.
 
Last edited:

mrsrgm

Registered
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
37
Reaction score
4
Location
Canyon, TX
I've heard people swear in Sunday School and at Bible Study and I find them refreshing for thier honesty (like your story said - nobody is perfect). I think your comments about 'Job' were also honest. I didn't like the 'You did it because of post-partum depression' ending. Seemed too cliche. Maybe because I'm the kind of Christian who appreciates real people as opposed to Holier Than Thou's. It never hurts anybody to hear the hard truths and argue the obvious sometimes (How COULD God make us imperfect and then expect us to be more?). Answers none will ever have, just fun to explore sometimes. The piece isn't hilarious, but it had humorous moments. I think it could be worked with.
 

SeanDSchaffer

I did not find it humorous, Erika. I did, however, see a lot of anger in your post. Which is fine, as anger is an ordinary part of life, even the Christian one.

I think the main reason I did not laugh was that your post seemed to blame God for all the evils that happen in this world. To take a perfect, Almighty God and blame Him for all the evils that human beings do, either in His Name or in the name of their own pleasure, is frankly abhorrent to me. The fact that we like to blame others for our own faults, is proof that we as human beings are in no place to judge God.

Did I sympathize with parts of the story? Yes, I did. The part where the narrator talks about the stupid decisions people make and then not willing to live with the consequences (Cara's muffled cry from the bedroom comes to mind), does speak to my heart in part. But at the same time, blaming God for the 'Stupid rule' and saying it's His fault for giving us the sexual desires we have, is problematic, because it takes away our own responsibility and tries to make God responsible for the sins we commit.

Am I offended by your post? Absolutely not. I see in your post a lot of the anger toward the Church that I myself possess. How can I be offended by that? But I do wish to point out to you that what Mankind has done to me, is not God's fault. It's the fault of arrogant, hypocritical human beings who believe they have the right to command me to disobey God so that their own will is brought to pass.


If (and this is a big 'if') the Church at large has hurt you, I would like to remind you that God is not responsible for that hurt. Human beings are, because they refuse to obey the God they claim to love and worship.


I hope this helps, and I hope you can find this post profitable in some manner to the writing of your work.
 

Betty W01

Empress of Cyberworld
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
717
Reaction score
141
Location
right here, silly
I didn't find it funny, either, but was not offended by it. You raise some interesting points, but ones that might be better explored in a serious piece. Good luck with your next piece!
 

SherryTex

Working on 2nd WIP
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
2,286
Reaction score
1,739
Location
Wash DC area, surrounded by overachievers
Website
www.sherryantonettiwrites.blogspot.com
Erika, it wasn't the theology that made the piece problematic as far as humor goes, it was the idea that we the readers should laugh at someone (the mother) suffering intensely spiritually and emotionally from post partum depression. We don't know it to start, only that this person seems irritated by her audience in the Bible study, and by the Bible itself, given her rant.

Madness like anger can be funny, (there are countless movies out there to prove this the case, World according to Garp, Man of LaMancha, Monty Python skits, Ruthless People, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but this character came across as despairing and wrathful, sad and struggling, angry at God, her husband, the bible for lacking clarity, and herself for letting loose all of that feeling in public. The end was sweet, and even redemptive. This could be part of a larger piece with humor elements, but you need to have a foil to her self assured interpretation, she interrogates the study group. You need more of a tennis match set up, tit-for tat until she breaks down and reveals her own struggle and its parallel with Job. Good luck with it, it has a lot of stuff to struggle with and is trying to tackle the toughest question religion faces, Why does an all Loving all Knowing God allow his creation, his beloved, us, to suffer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.