An interesting point! Certainly, I'd agree that anything which is "amusement for the sake of amusement" in the context of worship is inappropriate... but does amusement always lead away from serious thought? Can't it have a "sting" in its tail which causes us to sit up and take notice? I wonder...

Worship is always a personal experience with God and it is never meant to amuse but to exalt and glorify the Lord.

If it weren't for the twinge of sadness, I would find this quote amusing - and no, not for absence of reflection/thought. :/

This is a ridiculous straw man argument. Who commonly defines amusement as absence of reflection?

Have you ever seen a skit (or what have you) that was funny, amusing, or enjoyable that was an expression of worship? Fuhgetaboutit!

"In the context of worship, amusement is a waste of time and a waste of life, and therefore a form of sin."

Chalk one up for the law!

(and here's one hoping he's missing something with the "out of context" reference)

John needs to lighten up just a bit. Sometimes its good to lighten things up during worship. I think that we evangelicals sometimes take ourselves too seriously.

Psalm 126:2 ESV
Then our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with shouts of joy; then they said among the nations, “The Lord has done great things for them.”

I think Matt and Omar need to lighten up just a bit. Remember, this statement is taken out-of-context. Personally, I'm not that thrilled about this segment in Out of Ur, because people here are pretty good at misunderstanding and making false assumptions when things are presented IN context. But keep a couple of things in mind.

First, anyone who has ever heard Ortberg preach or read any of his books will know that he certainly does not take himself too seriously, and that he has a pretty good sense of humor.

Second, notice the way he is defining his term "amusement." Matt wrote the following: "Who commonly defines amusement as absence of reflection?" Well, that is why Ortberg is taking the time to define that term, so that whether or not I agree with his definition, at least I understand what he's trying to say. That's what critical reading is about: understanding what an author is trying to say (instead of importing our own meaning into his writings) before making a judgment on the truth of the argument. In this case, I think it is hard to argue that amusement, as defined by Ortberg, is appropriate for worship.

Finally, notice the final sentence quoted: "To arrest someone's attention, on the other hand, is to cause them to sit up and take notice." Since the article is titled "What Does God Think About Entertainment?", and since this out-of-context quote is dealing with "amusement," it appears that what Ortberg might be doing is making a distinction between that which truly engages someone's attention, and that which simply puts one's mind on cruise control.

Loved this quote, and the challenge it contains. I think our culture does not need more "a-muse-ment" we are "a-mused" enough. If we are planning worship to amuse, we are--indeed--missing the point...er...Person of our worship.

Thanks Out of Ur for this opportunity to muse...