by Murray Hogg

In one sense it ¢â‚¬â„¢s difficult to talk about John Calvin and humour for at least two good reasons. First, because opinions as to what constitutes humour are widely variable, and, second, because Calvin was quite serious about his theological writing. Consequently, if we take his theological writing as a guide we are going to find little that strikes us as funny. But why should that strike us as surprising given that Calvin wasn ¢â‚¬â„¢t writing comedy for 21st century audiences?

Perhaps a better question would be to ask after Calvin ¢â‚¬â„¢s opinion of humour. In particular, do we have reason to think he regarded it positively or negatively? The answer here is not hard to find. Essentially, he regarded some humour positively, but was aware that humour could be employed to negative effect. Humour could be, in Calvin ¢â‚¬â„¢s view, godly or ungodly depending upon its intent and impact.

It helps to start with the fact that Calvin saw humour throughout Scripture. Given Calvin ¢â‚¬â„¢s understanding of the divine inspiration of scripture, it follows that he regarded humour as something God himself is not adverse to using.

Commenting on Philippians 3:1 Calvin wrote:

…the Holy Spirit in His instruments has not always avoided wit and humour,
although He has kept from scurrility, which is unworthy of his majesty. There
are innumerable examples in the prophets, and especially in Isaiah, so that
there is no profane author who abounds more in witty allusions and metaphors.  (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, ed. David W. Torrance and  Thomas F. Torrance, trans. T.H.L. Parker, Calvin ¢â‚¬â„¢s New Testament Commentaries  11, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965, 268)

So Calvin thinks that the scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exceed every  ¢â‚¬Å“profane author ¢â‚¬  in humour  ¢â‚¬“ one can only conclude that Calvin holds humour in the highest regard.

Yet one finds warnings against inappropriate humour in Calvin. The problem is, as we all ought to know, that humour can so easily be employed to negative effect. Calvin is aware of this, and so moderates his view with a realistic awareness of humour ¢â‚¬â„¢s darker side. Consider how he expands on the the Pauline injunction against  ¢â‚¬Å“foolish talking ¢â‚¬  in his comment on Ephesians 5:4.

Foolish talking, by which word I understand conversations that are either out of place and pointless and fruitless or even ungodly and harmful by their emptiness.

Moreover, as idle talk is often concealed under the garb of jesting, and wit, he
expressly condemns pleasantry, which is so agreeable as to seem a praiseworthy virtue, as a part of foolish talking. The Greek word  Ž µ ¡ ½  â€ž   Ž ± â‚¬ Ž µ Ž » Ž ¯ Ž ± [ ¢â‚¬Å“jesting ¢â‚¬ ] is often used by heathen writers in a good sense, for that sharp and salty pleasantry in which able and intelligent men may properly indulge. But as it is exceedingly difficult to be witty without becoming biting, and as wit itself
carries in it a sort of affectation not at all in keeping with godliness, Paul
very properly recalls us from it. Of all three, he declares that they are not
befitting, that is, that they are inconsistent with the duty of Christians.
(ibid, 197)

Now, given Calvin ¢â‚¬â„¢s view that the Holy Spirit has employed humour throughout scripture, we must see him as here not rejecting but rather moderating the use of humour by Christians. Three things Calvin thinks we should avoid: First, using humour as a cloak for idle talk; second, allowing wit to descend into biting; and, third,  ¢â‚¬Å“a sort of affectation not at all in keeping with godliness ¢â‚¬  which often goes along with humour.

We might say, then, that Calvin is very strongly attuned to the dangers of humour, although he is clearly in no doubt that humour can be godly  ¢â‚¬“so much so that God himself employs humour in the message of scripture. Calvin clearly thinks that Christians should evaluate humour not merely on whether something is funny, but on whether something substantial is being said, and whether it is being said to positive effect. Consequently, the best way to understand Calvin is not to see him as having a general opinion about humour, but as being interested in specific cases. If this particular joke, witticism, or jest has positive effect, well and good. But if not, then there is nothing to commend it.

Ultimately Calvin seems to me to err on the side of caution  ¢â‚¬“as though he would rather have no jesting whatsoever than risk a jest gone bad. Yet it also seems that the notion of joy is a far more important one in Calvin ¢â‚¬â„¢s thought. Life may not always be funny, but it could, in Calvin ¢â‚¬â„¢s view, be joyous, and that seems to me a far deeper and more substantial thing. Although we might not agree with Calvin as to what constitutes appropriate humour, there seems little to object to in the basic idea that humour is a godly thing which can easily be turned to a less than godly purpose.