So in that poster . . . is that a man and a woman or a man and another man dressed up as a woman?

Hmmmm. Excellent question.

Let me see if I can find an answer for you.

I'm a little shocked at this. I took a few grad classes at Maranatha years ago and thought the school had a nice feel to it, though it's academics at the time were lacking.

I know every school has its moments, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why they replaced Jaspers with Oscar Wilde.

Apparently the fundy-artsy crowed from the World's Most Screw-up University is finally bearing fruit in the midwest.

Perhaps Maranatha's next edifying theaterism will be Hugh Heffner's Chastity and the Importance of Moral Character.

parepidemos:

Q: A question arose concerning your production: On the poster you have available for "The Importance of Being Earnest", is that a depiction of a man and a woman or two men one of which is dressed as a woman? Thanks for your kind assistance.

A: Hi,

Thanks for emailing us. The picture is of a man and woman; in the story there are two couples--two men and two women--the picture just shows one set. The story tangles these four characters up, making for a hilarious story, but everything gets sorted out in the end and the two men get the girls they want. If the story line was confusing you, we apologize. Feel free to google the storyline and read it. I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, please let me know!

Regarding the post from [visitor] tjp: "Apparently the fundy-artsy crowed from the World's Most Screw-up University is finally bearing fruit in the midwest"

Blaming the BJU for another school's lack of discernment is a cheap shot, bordering on baring false witness.

Brother dissidens has been known to snipe at the university, but without tjp's Would-be Vulgarity.

Mr. Semper,

Bearing false witness? Puh-leze.

The only false witness is that of the fundy-artsy crowd who thinks they can witness Christianity through perverts like Shakespeare or Wilde.

I'm sorry the word "screwed-up" troubled you. I meant it in the sense of "confused" or "misguided." I thought that was a better word than "unusual," which carries such synonymous baggage as "crazy," "exotic," "freaky," "grotesque," "odd," "queer," "rummy," and "weird."

Now, come to think of it. Maybe that's why I rarely hear BJ called "The World's Most Unusual University" any more. Perhaps they learned that "unusual" was unequally yoked with "queer" and "rummy."

tjp:

I think this is not so much a question of “finally bearing fruit”. We have had many abundant harvests and we have just built bigger barns.

I agree with Pascal that the theater is, of all the amusements, most to be feared, but that doesn’t mean that the theater is the greatest evil. I take it that the failure to worship God aright is a far worse thing. And turning worship into amusement is blatant idolatry.

I don’t disagree with you that BJU has played a leading role in the lowering of enduring standards, but bear in mind the theme that unifies these recent posts: it is not just that people do bad things; we know people do bad things. It is not about BJ or even fundamentalism. It is about our entire religious culture from Ockenga to Haggard. It is indifference to words and meaning, it is the rejection of what is good, true and beautiful. It is about what shapes your thoughts and affections.

What we must do is examine the justifications we are offered (as with Piper’s or Breimeier’s or...). Anyone can say he is aware that some person is a profane man, but that explains nothing and it fixes nothing. What reason is offered that ensures that profanity will continue? Who is willing to pursue goodness and beauty in this matter?

It was said some time ago that my attitude toward, my “permanent sneer” at, evangelical culture comes from a frustration with people who don’t yet share my understanding of the problem. That is utter nonsense.

What earns the sneer is the continuing apostasy, the refusal to consider one’s position, the unflagging loyalty to a party line. And it’s not just me: look at how they treat Aniol on their blogs. There is always a justification for what they have done and what they continue to do.

It never changes.

If you push a dog’s nose into his mess, you will have made your point and the dog will show remorse. You can tell these people nothing. They won’t believe Edwards, they won’t believe Tozer, they won’t believe Eliot, they won’t believe Machen, they won’t believe Weaver, they won't believe Kaplan. It is a very small thing that they won’t believe me! They believe only themselves—and then market some more drivel-worship for your children.

They are sinning against the light.

I understand your hostility, but don’t let it misdirect your thinking. The real problem here is not an occasional or accidental indiscretion in choosing to perform the work of an outstanding apologist for debauchery. It just never occurs to them, even when questioned, what might be an appropriate entertainment for the Christian.

The response to parepidemos’s question (in comment #4 above) is from the arts department of a fundamentalist college in good standing among those who embrace the “idea” of separation. If they cannot connect the dots between Oscar Wilde and flaming impiety, who will they object to? Robert Mapplethorpe? And for how long? These are the people who will separate over hair length or fellowship with John MacArthur.

The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

We do not need one more sappy song from Mr. Lynch; we need a good, long, heart-felt, groaning, tear-stained Miserere.

Ya, I hate blue china.

I hope I haven't ruined blue china for your wife if she really had her heart set on it.

I'd rather eat off blue china anyday.

They won’t believe Edwards, they won’t believe Tozer, they won’t believe Eliot, they won’t believe Machen, they won’t believe Weaver, they won't believe Kaplan.

What are the passages in Eliot, Machen, Weaver, and Kaplan (whoever that is) condemning drama?

Diss,

Asking respectfully, would there be a difference in your mind between a school like MBBC presenting a Wilde play and performing a series of pieces by Aaron Copland?

BTW- thought you would find this link interesting...

[link]https://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=436&CalendarID=23805[/link]

Greg,

I'm saddened by your link.

What it suggests, however, is that separatism hasn't revolutionized the moral diet but has left its devotees in the same culturally-deviant position as non separatism.

Again, when we look to the queers and morally capped for entertainment, inspiration, and cultural meaning, something has gone terribly awry.

Again, your link to Liberty saddens me.

Curious George:

Ah, we shifted gears while you weren’t watching. [Second and third paragraphs of comment # 7.] I keyed on the phrase “[u]finally[/u] bearing fruit”. I don’t quibble with tjp that BJU has played a major role in the decline of fundamentalist culture (if that is even a meaningful phrase), I just don’t think it “finally” happened. It has been happening. Further, and more importantly, the decline is not limited to the embrace of the theater. BJU’s detrimental impact is not limited to the theater and it is not recent. In fact, I don’t think we could have gone so quickly from preaching against the theater to making movies without “properly prepared hearts”, if you know what I mean.

Consider the output of the university in terms of its a) publications, b) its preaching, c) its liturgy/religious entertainments, and d) its political shenanigans—exercised as a service institution over the conduct of any church, let alone Baptists churches. This should never have been tolerated and it was.

I can stay out of theaters. I can skip the bathrobe brigades and pathetic movies canonizing hayseed reprobates. But I am compelled to worship and I am expected to exercise fellowship with orthodox Christians, and the stultifying influence of this one institution on American conservative (again, if I can use that word) Christianity is far more significant than its love of shows.


Greg:

That is a good—and fair—question (I take it you are referring primarily to Copland’s similar moral deformity). Bear with me while I untangle some threads here.

First, I don’t like Copland. It is not likely, if I were a music director, I would ever elect to perform Copland. I recognize his place in the line of Western composers and I can appreciate him for what he was, but I do not “like” him. But I realize that’s not your question.

Would I refuse to play him solely because of his perversion? No. I genuinely like the work of Vladimir Horowitz and I genuinely dislike the work of Tchaikovsky. My thinking is more nuanced than a simple knowledge of one’s perversions.

But I think an equation of Wilde and Copland is not quite fair either (and I don’t suggest you’ve made that equation). Wilde was known, was celebrated, and his work was and is defined by the pervert he was. To this day Wilde is venerated not just for being an artist, but for being a very recognizable sort of social vandal and moral apologist. He is celebrated today, really not so much for his literary genius as for his assault on society. Copland is not.

I think this is a real difference; I don’t expect, oh, even me and my closest friends, would necessarily agree, and that wouldn’t bother me. I’m just trying to flesh out a real distinction.

What you have with the Maranatha situation is odd. You have (at this moment in time) a religious community greatly exercised over same-sex marriage and marital fidelity, etc., performing Wilde. To someone who doesn’t know Wilde’s place in our culture it might pass unnoticed, but to others it is very odd. Similarly, we are talking about a particular institution emerging from a particularly humiliating scandal. I think, all things taken into consideration, it looks very weird. Do these Midwestern bumpkins not know what they are doing? Do they see no dissonance here? Do they expect to be taken seriously when they speak, or are they as oblivious as they appear to be?

[Just make a crude comparison here for the sake of illustration: can you imagine the Puritans not picking up on this dislocation? This is what I mean by merely waving the word “separatism” like a banner and actually being separatist where it counts. We live in a very bizarre world of separatists.]

It seems to me a more enlightening comparison would be not Wilde vs. Copland, but Wilde being performed in a “separatist” Bible college vs. Wagner being performed in Israel.

I return again to my overall criticism: we are dealing here with people with tin ears, people without any sensitivity whatsoever. For instance, a whole set of arguments could be arranged for and against performing Wagner in Israel, but no matter how you might examine the question formally and aesthetically, you are still left with the sort of offensiveness that transcends everything.

Second, there is the whole question of rationality, here are people who separate and insist on separation over issues like who can wear pants in a summer camp and members of which race we can date. I think this is profoundly irrational. Disturbingly irrational.

I said earlier that I didn’t like Copland. I don’t mean that in a shallow way, as though I just can’t dig his tunes. I discussed this once over dinner with Sardonis. He likes Fanfare For The Common Man, I do not. His wife asked why, and I said his music was the honest expression of American vulgarity and destructive cultural leveling. As a simple example, fanfares are not for the common man, they are for men worthy of special honor and for occasions of note. That’s why we came up with fanfares, to make that distinction. These were not the “personal theme tunes” of kings. To honor the common is to dishonor the great.

Could we have a Fanfare for the Apes? Well, in our culture we can now! And that’s the point.

Now of course this judgment is not based on a single work, my conclusion is that Copland’s work is properly regarded as “American” because he succeeds in expressing American sentiments. He does it well, that is why I accord him a high place as a composer: he did well what composers ought to do. In this case it is just a sentiment I reject.

Of course I don’t expect anyone to accept this, it’s an opinion, it’s a perception, it’s an aesthetic judgment, it’s my understanding of what artists do and how culture works. As Weaver would say, it keeps things aligned, it works against the usurpation of some parts over other parts, it prescribes fitness and size....

In the same way, I do not object in a crude way to Maranatha’s performance of Wilde per se. I object more strenuously to this anti-cultural streak that is ignorant and contemptuous of the meaning we require to live rightly.

I ended my explanation by saying, “...but that’s just how it seems to me; I could be wrong”. Sardonis’s response seemed like a very quick and heart-felt, “Yeah!”.

Again, this is not the sort of agreement I expect we must all come to, but it is the level of the discussion we should be engaged at.

“I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability.” Are the works of the man who said that the sort of things that amuse Christians? I do not know that Copland ever put me in that uncomfortable position.

I know this is not a complete answer to your question, but I hope it illustrates how I approach it.

Outside of growing up in the Susquehanna Valley and professing Christ as Savior, I expect you and I have little in common (unless you worked a summer or two at Hersheypark - then we'd be three for three).

I find it odd that while your observations of broader evangelicalism mirrors what I have found to be true; your tortured descriptions of the goings-on in fundamentalism are - in my experience - unrecognizable.

Nonetheless, if you care to flesh out your four-point sermon on the evils of Bob Jones: "a) publications, b) its preaching, c) its liturgy/religious entertainments, and d) its political shenanigans", enlighten me.

(Post 15 is addressed to dissidens)

Thank you. Your response was enlightening in helping me understand your concerns.

semper:

Surely you jest.

I too find it odd that you agree with my critique of broad evangelicalism and then plead naiveté when it comes to a critique of fundamentalism.

It was not a sermon; it was a reply to Curious George. My sermon on the evils of Bob Jones has way more than four points.

I think the last paragraph of your comment # 5 gives away the game.

I discern; you criticize; he snipes

I’m guessing you will understand why I don’t take your question seriously. Some criticism is apt, some is sniping, and then you ask for enlightenment.

Greg:

I will add this in passing, since it might help some to broaden the scope of their considerations.

One of the expedients to this kind of discussion (the relative merits of performing Wilde as opposed to Copland, as an example) is a broad competence which encourages a charitable disposition. There may not be agreement, as with Sardonis, but there is at least a kind of backdrop, an understanding of what guides another’s thinking. For instance, it is very hard to respect the opinion of someone who thinks pantyhose constitute men’s clothing; the same will be true when discussing nonsartorial things.

I have a friend who likes Hemingway, Wagner and Copland. Ugh, there’s a way to ruin a few perfectly good evenings! If we practiced separatism as currently understood, we could never be friends.

We are not likely to get this with a command culture (“command culture” as in a “command economy”). We have built ourselves a command culture. Not just fundamentalists. Neo-evangelicalism has a command culture as well, just not as coherent.

In each case, it is harder to express one’s nuanced aesthetic judgments in a hostile environment. If you swim against the current you can easily be dismissed. With fundies you will be dismissed as being “undiscerning”. With neo-evals you will be dismissed as being “legalistic” or “anti-diversity” or “narrow”.

Meanwhile these parties drift toward opposite poles: one trying to mimic new trends, the other trying to oppose those mimicking new trends. But aside from all the fun this conflict provides, neither produces a real culture. Neither party produces artists and poets, they both produce approved entertainers.

Just food for thought.

dissidens: re: “…pathetic movies canonizing hayseed reprobates…”
Please reconcile the following two definitions:

reprobate n. A morally unprincipled person. One who is predestined to damnation. adj. Morally unprincipled; shameless.

Robert Sheffey n. A circuit riding preacher during the 1800's. He rode through the Appalachian mountains proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sheffey was a man of prayer, tireless worker, soul winner, and had a servant's heart of love.

He also fathered an illegitimate child by one of the women on his circuit.

That is how I reconcile it.

It has been a long, long time since I confirmed this so I cannot stand by it, but if memory serves, it was a married woman he defiled. But about this detail I could be mistaken: here I am only offering my recollections of a 1979 phone conversation with a professor of church history (Weeks) who was then teaching at Maranatha.

Hagiography is tricky business.

I salute you for sitting on this bombshell for twenty-seven years. Such knowledge would have left a lesser man bitter. I see you dodged that bullet.

This was hardly a bombshell for me. This sort of behavior is not entirely uncommon in preachers, and it didn't produce bitterness so much as suspicion of hagiographers.

That this bullet found its mark turned out to be a good thing.

dissidens,

Several years ago, Maranatha produced a play on the life of Mary, the mother of Jesus. As I remember, it was called "A Portrait of Mary," but I cannot find anything on the web about it, and I may be off on the title.

Although it was billed as an evangelistic opportunity, many in the student body were well aware that the script came far closer to teaching mariolatry than anything resembling the gospel.

I have no doubt that those who chose both of these plays are well-meaning and godly individuals, so I really do not want to flame them personally. However, I sense that when the fundamentalist establishment talks about exercising discernment in regards to the arts, their thinking digs no more deeply than to condemn a 2-4 beat in the music and to excise the profanity, innuendo, and outright debauchery from its scripts and libretti.

Am I correct in my conclusion that you make a similar point in these words below?

dissidens wrote:
"In the same way, I do not object in a crude way to Maranatha’s performance of Wilde per se. I object more strenuously to this anti-cultural streak that is ignorant and contemptuous of the meaning we require to live rightly."

And thanks for the following comment. It seems like an important point to me:

"Again, this is not the sort of agreement I expect we must all come to, but it is the level of the discussion we should be engaged at."

I understand this to mean that there will be some gray areas of judgment, but our fundamental responsibility is to be engaged in a serious approach to exercising that judgment. True?

This is just too rich. Dissidens has presented some rather unpleasant facts. First, he served up Wilde. Second, he killed the sacred Sheffey cow. These were facts that were floating out there. There was no private eye hired to dredge out secret sin. Some, if not most, within fundamentalism callously looked the other way.

It is telling that some here wish to kill the messenger of some rather unpleasant and inconvenient news that lacks novelty. But, I believe the point was that we have long since passed the sin of the theater to move on to the glorfication of impiety. We do not just dabble nervously with sin; we revel in its indecency. We then snort indignantly at anyone who dares to point out our impudence.

parepidemos:

I cannot speak to the portrait-of-Mary play, but you correctly take my meaning on every other point.

This is not about flaming anyone. If Christians want to be serious, this is what it means to be serious. The fact that one circuit rider should sin is certainly not a bombshell; not with the wealth of material fundamentalism has produced. And continues to produce. For goodness sakes, we are awaiting trials for worse things as we speak.

Nor is it especially noteworthy: I followed up on the story because I heard it first from some colleagues of my wife, mere Christian day-school teachers. (Not that day-school teachers are “mere” things, but I mean this was known by people who were by no means church history scholars who’d labored heroically to dig up embarrassing facts to embarrass a rival institution. They were Maranatha grads with nothing more than a B.R.E.—or the Maranatha equivalent at the time—one of which was a music major.)

Believe me, this is the sort of thing I already knew existed. [link]http://www.livingston.net/wilkyjr/link27.htm[/link]

I think it is also indicative that those who preach repentance cannot themselves repent. As exlibris says, we are not talking about unknown facts. I’m sure this inconveniences the guilty, but we are asking about some bleating sheep here.

The point, as with the Wilde, is that we are dealing with a shallow, artificial and naïve view of our culture. How can this not be important to us?! If you checked the link above, you can see how this stuff is already being used to discredit the “religious right”. The past is very present.

What we have exampled here is a very embarrassing misuse of culture, and it is a perfect accompaniment to the silly songs we hear. Culture is not about pretty stories for film, or tales, as our Maranatha respondent (comment #4) wrote: “ [that] tangles these four characters up, making for a hilarious story, but everything gets sorted out in the end and the two men get the girls they want.”

Well, am I ever delighted about that! I mean when it comes to what matters, hilarious stories about men getting the girls they want as told by a five-star pervert “meets and exceeds all my expectations”.

Folks, if you really have your heart set on an amusing tale of romance, concealed identities and “men getting the girls they want”, there are plenty of them. Start with your operas! Why a Bible college would choose Oscar Wilde is just too bizarre.

And yet it somehow fits.

Re: Sheffey

Unless you come up with some sort of documentary proof, your comment about Robert Sheffey is malicious gossip.

Some one once told me that dissidens was a malicious gossip. I think it was in a phone conversation with someone or other about 1979....

For the record:

It is not true that every claim that lacks documentary proof is malicious gossip. It is not even true that every claim that lacks documentary proof is false. Many, many, many undocumented facts exist. As I was taught to do history (and I do have a Th.M. in church history—the relevant field, Dr. Matzko), three independent sources is reasonable confirmation that an event occurred.

I do not assert the information I offered is an established fact: I have only two independent sources. I have never published this as established fact. I was offering an explanation for a judgment I made. I reconciled my conclusions with the selective description of Robert Sheffey that was offered in the form of a dictionary definition. I merely believe it to be true based on my own inquiries and the academic integrity of those I spoke with.

The historian I spoke with was qualified, and I still have no grounds to doubt his word.

Some one [sic] once told me that dissidens was a malicious gossip. I think it was in a phone conversation with someone or other about 1979....

I did have the phone conversation; I didn’t just think I had the conversation, and I named the person with whom I spoke. I didn’t just attribute it to “someone or other”.

Dr. Matzko, on the other hand, is hardly a competent judge, as his first statement demonstrates.

Educational background: B.S. in Chemistry (Mathematics minor), Bob Jones University; Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry, Clemson University

[link] http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divns/faculty/index.html[/link]

Really, Dr. Matzko!

Out of genuine curiousity, who is the other independent source regarding Sheffey?

Wayne, Sawtell. Denver, CO. Interview, 29 September 1983.

I was researching my thesis on the Colorado Controversy, and after the business portion of our discussion we chatted about contemporary fundamentalism, its heritage and institutions and the prospects for separatism as a movement.

Post #31 was from a Dr. John Matzko, whose own link describes quite different qualifications (in history and law) from the Dr. George Matzko whose qualifications you describe (Math and Chemistry) and to whom you link. I think you're yelling at and about the wrong guy (particularly relevant since you've stated that the person lacks the qualifications to be a competent judge).

Sorry--I meant Post #27 above, not Post #31.

My dictionary says "gossip" is "a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts, of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature," a definition which point-by-point fits your tale.

Perhaps with the qualification that it is doubtful whether this story was ever in "general circulation," your group "Christian day-school teachers" notwithstanding.

I'd be interested in knowing if you used the same evidentiary standards--a chat--when writing your master's thesis. If not, why is it more acceptable here, when used to accuse an entire university of "canonizing hayseed reprobates"?

blackmamba:

You are quite right; it is a different Matzko. That is my error.

I traced back from the URL connected to his comment. Presumably John knows more than George. All the worse that he should open with such a statement.

Everything else I stand by. His first statement is egregiously inaccurate.

Who is Wayne Sawtell?

Yep, I'm the history Matzko.

If you have no documentary proof, then you've slandered a Christian brother.

Heheheh. Looks like you touched a nerve there, dissidens.

Who would have thought anybody would care about hayseed reprobates so much?

It is wonderfully ironic. Your blog would never pass for a masters thesis because your opinions are not adequately documented!

Austin:

I never claimed that the story was in “general circulation”, you got that phrase from your dictionary so you can suggest it is nothing but mere gossip. You say it is “without confirmation”, but it was confirmation I was seeking when I consulted a historian rather than believing the reports. In my comment [#26] I was recounting how I first came across the information and where my inquiries began. Even if a story comes to one as gossip and one pursues it to its source, we cannot conclude that the story is merely gossip, nor can we conclude that it is not true.

In fact my third paragraph makes it clear that I did not at first regard it as reliable testimony. My first suspicion was that it was motivated by anti-BJ sentiment, whether gossip or not.

You seem not to want to speak of the qualified and knowledgeable sources I consulted, only the conversations that sent me to them. Why is this?

As to whether it is gossip, again, I fear your dictionary is not your best source for these things. The subject matter of gossip may also be the subject matter of a rigorous academic paper.

John:

It was not true when you first said it. Repeating it doesn't help.

Is it your professional opinion that this statement is true:

Unless you come up with some sort of documentary proof, your comment about Robert Sheffey is malicious gossip.

Unk:

It's like old home week. I'm getting all misty-eyed here.

There's an old story about a farmer who caught a thief stealing his chickens. The sheriff was called, but the farmer said he didn't want to press charges. "Why not?" said the sheriff. "Because I don't want to be associated with a chicken thief."

Which shows the farmer’s commitment to justice, and, by extension, your commitment to truth?

“Unless you come up with some sort of documentary proof, your comment about Robert Sheffey is malicious gossip.”

I cannot imagine another place on earth from which I would rather have learned this.

Mt. 7:2

By the way, how do you interpret Dt. 19:15?

dissidens: you write, "You seem not to want to speak of the qualified and knowledgeable sources I consulted, only the conversations that sent me to them. Why is this?"

Actually, I want to know more about your "qualified and knowledgeable sources." I don't deny that their accusation might be possible. However, knowing that they had these conversations with you approximately a century after Sheffey's death, I doubt their knowledge is first-hand. So whatever source(s) they're relying on should also be available to us as well, no? (Their historical distance from the matter also gives the lie to your claim that they qualify as "two or three witnesses.")

Looking in a few academic databases, I see nothing more about Sheffey than a couple of biographies with titles like The Story of the life of Robert Sayers Sheffey, a courier of the long trail, God's gentleman, a man of prayer and unshaken faith and The Saint of the Wilderness, neither of which I suspect includes evidence of fornication. I can find nothing by anyone named Weeks who has written about Sheffey. "Wayne Sawtell" and "Sawtell Wayne" don't appear anywhere at all ("Sawtell Wayne" does appear in one Google result). And I don't know how to begin searching for your third source, Maranatha grads with B.R.E.'s.

The issue isn't whether there's some possibility that it's true but whether it's credible enough to be worth mentioning in a public forum, especially as ammunition against the characters of many people.

Anyone with experience on the Internet can dredge up several PhD's--some even published--who will put their expert opinion behind any balderdash you can imagine, whether it be about UFOs or 9/11 conspiracies. Unk is right that blogs don't have the same standards as master's theses, but one would expect more than this from someone who talks of "bumpkins" and their "indifference to words and meaning," terms you use to describe people and their failure to draw the same connections as yourself.

You say that you "never claimed that the story was in 'general circulation'," yet the very point of mentioning Sheffey's purported sin seems to be to argue that BJU was at best irresponsible in making a movie about the man,

It seems to follow these lines: BJU is culpable for making a film about a man who was known to be guilty of sin--not known generally but known by a couple of men who don't seem to have published on the matter and who had at best second-hand knowledge, knowledge now brought to light thirty years later by an anonymous gadfly with a Th.M. from an unnamed school. Only a hayseed would suggest it's not exactly like Deuteronomy 19:15.

You say, "it was not true when you first said it. Repeating it doesn't help"; yet other than saying you "stand by" your accusation, all you can offer are repetition, insults, and one-liners to rebut the charge of gossip. We are supposed to toss aside the dictionary and believe that "confirmed" now means hearsay.

You require exacting consistency on the part of the faculty and administration at Maranatha. Just as the Israeli Philharmonic could never have performed Tannhäuser's, even the Puritans would have connected the fact that months after the school's president was accused of an apparently sexual indiscretion, the very same school performs a play written by a man who committed sexual sin. And BJU should not have made that film, because if Sawtell Wayne and the Maranatha B.R.E.'s knew, shouldn't everyone? Yet when it comes to evidence good enough to malign a man's reputation and to impugn a university, "confirmed" means "dissidens says it's so."

Ryan DeBarr: "I know what Remonstrans said; I would like for someone to prove that what he said is untrue."

Likewise, we must believe the Loch Ness monster exists until someone proves it doesn't.

Surely hagiography is tricky business, but rules of evidence aren't. I really don't see how the evidence that's been presented to this forum for Sheffy's reprobation is anything more than hearsay (and yes, I’m aware that evidence based on hearsay can be presented to a jury under certain conditions as evidence, but none of the exceptions work here). Basic facts are yet unknown: we don't know who the woman was, who the child was, when it was done, where it was done, or the names of contemporaries who were aware of the adultery. To be proved, an accusation needs to be followed by facts such as names and dates. We don’t need all the details, but we need something. Citing others who have heard of or repeated the accusation is not the same as presenting evidence.

The accusation alone, of course, is sufficient for some. The dutiful minions here have already picked up the "hayseed reprobate" line and are treating it as an established fact.

Of course, the whole Sheffy issue is just another stick to beat good ol' Bobby Jones Bible School (HT Peter Kreeft). If it turns out the evidence against Sheffy is incontrovertible, all the better for Dissidens’ multi-point sermon against the beleaguered institution. If the story is a bunch of hot air, no matter--he still has all the rest of his points...

Why do you think I'm dutiful? I assure you, I do it out of sheer delight. You make me sound reluctant to eat up everything dissidens says. I resent that.

Thank you for the correction. I will hereafter refer to the gleeful minions of Remonstans.

Have you considered listening to Jesse Jackson? He lobs the most beautifully crafted and unsupported accusations, and appears to be in need of easily impressionable followers lately. You could probably handle both jobs...you seem quite capable that way.

I have appreciated some of the information and insights found at this blog. I've not drunk the kool-aid, but everyone who has seems quite happy...

Austin:

I can appreciate both your enthusiasm and your desperation, but you do need to read a little bit more slowly:

1. I have repeatedly said, I do not accuse Sheffey, or anyone, based on the evidences I have seen. I have even declared explicitly that my understanding is that no proof of an event will exist shy of three independent witnesses, and I have said I do not have those three independent testimonies. I have not published this as historical fact; I have offered it as my belief, and I described how I went from hearing, not gossip, as you choose to call it, but hearsay. I said that I pursued the matter as I did because I did not want to suppose anything based on the recollection of students. Again, if a student reports what her professor said, I choose to go to the professor. You persist in accusing me of putting this forward as evidence. “And I don't know how to begin searching for your third source, Maranatha grads with B.R.E.'s.” [Last sentence of third paragraph.]

I have not. Your accusation is a desperate one. Understandable, but transparently desperate.

But there is a big difference between proof and grounds for belief. With the evidences of corruption that the fundamentalist movement has provided me, there certainly is no reason for me to work this particular vein any longer.

I believe many things I could not prove to the satisfaction of the skeptic or the willful; I believe some things I can’t prove to myself. Proof and belief are two different things. There may be a good deal of overlap, and we would prefer that there be as much as possible, but they are still two different things.

2. Your treatment of the facts is quite embarrassing: the man’s name was Wayne Sawtell, I merely reproduced exactly the entry as formatted in my bibliography. Very few people have commas in their name, at least not where you found Sawtell’s.

3. Wagner was performed in Jerusalem, 7 July 2001.

4. I suspect even you recognize how weak your argument is. This is how you begin your seventh paragraph: “It seems to follow these lines...”. In the previous paragraph you say, “...sin seems to be to argue...”. “Seems to”? Can we tidy this up a bit, please?

5. I have not accused anyone at BJ of knowing about Sheffey’s guilt. I am perfectly prepared to believe the scriptwriters were gullible; I am perfectly prepared to believe they honestly disagree with my conclusions. Nothing I have said hangs on whether the choice of story was witting or unwitting. You simply assume this.

6. I asked John how he interpreted a passage in Deuteronomy. I offered nothing to prove my point from it, you are inferring this all on your lonely. I was asking how he got from the Torah (which lists evidence sufficient for legal action) to his assertion that I cannot believe something to be true absent “documentary proof” or his assumption that reporting my belief constitutes “gossip”. He may have a brilliant hermeneutical insight to offer. I’m still interested to know.

Let us go back to what I actually said in comment #14, third paragraph to Curious George: I can stay out of theaters. I can skip the bathrobe brigades and pathetic movies canonizing hayseed reprobates. These are all choices I make based on what I believe to be true about the theater, church dramas, and sentimental entertainments for women. This is my belief. I don’t have to prove to you the theater is wicked, I don’t have to prove to you these church skits are inane, I don’t have to prove to you what I am persuaded is true about the characters in your movies. I’ll go further to suggest that I can believe quite a bit that won’t pass muster at Bob Jones University.

I am not trying to compel anyone’s belief. If you want to make sappy cinema, you certainly are free to make it. If there is legitimate reason offered by a historian to doubt your stories, I will feel free to doubt them. My readers are, and always have been, free to disregard what I believe. We are very unlike in this respect, BJ and I.

And finally, Yes, people who impose their wills on the consciences of others really ought to be somewhat consistent. If an institution will not allow a student to listen to Bridge Over Troubled Water, it would seem to me that the thoughtful thing would be to not perform a work of Oscar Wilde’s.

Just for balance.

I understand your frustration. Fundamentalism has not been good to the American believer, and it is increasingly difficult to sustain this fantasy of separatism with the gunk oozing from the Fortress of Vanity. I would have preferred to discuss this circa 1900 when fundamentalism might have offered us a less flaky alternative to modernism and neo-evangelicalism, unfortunately I was not yet born. (I blame my ancestors for this.) What I was left with is this cultural backwater where places like BJU dictate what is believable and what is spiritual, make up rules about who I can date, how long my hair should be, and which beat of the measure to stress....

I think it is fair to say we are both somewhat frustrated with things as they are.

dissidens:

1. "I have repeatedly said, I do not accuse Sheffey, or anyone, based on the evidences I have seen."

On the positive side, you appear to be attempting to back-pedal. The negative side is that you're doing it in a Slick Willy-like manner, offering instead of an apology or a retraction the redefinition of terms and oily circumlocutions.

Here's what you originally said, when asked to defend the charge of "hayseed reprobate": "He also fathered an illegitimate child by one of the women on his circuit." It wasn't, "My opinion is that . . ." or "According to hearsay, . . ."; it was a statement of fact. You even specifically emphasized what you were uncertain about, which was the status of the woman involved: "it was a married woman he defiled. But about this detail I could be mistaken . . ." The implication is that you had no uncertainty about the general charge.

Then when challenged to provide the basis for this accusation, the back-pedaling begins: "I was offering an explanation for a judgment I made." By using the word "judgment" instead of making a bald statement of fact, you're attempting to build in some ambiguity: "I merely believe it to be true based on my own inquiries and the academic integrity of those I spoke with." It is now "merely" what you "believe . . . to be true."

The problem at this point is that when a communicated scandalous accusation moves from objective fact to personal belief, it becomes gossip. So you're forced to re-define "gossip": "Even if a story comes to one as gossip and one pursues it to its source, we cannot conclude that the story is merely gossip, nor can we conclude that it is not true. . . . As to whether it is gossip, again, I fear your dictionary is not your best source for these things." It's Ryan DeBarr's argument foreshadowed. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. After all, there's no way to prove that "it is not true" Sheffey had an affair.

You write, "But there is a big difference between proof and grounds for belief. . . . I believe many things I could not prove to the satisfaction of the skeptic or the willful; I believe some things I can’t prove to myself. Proof and belief are two different things. There may be a good deal of overlap, and we would prefer that there be as much as possible, but they are still two different things."

Exactly. No one cares what you believe in the quiet of your own mind or what you find satisfactory as grounds for such personal belief. What is relevant here is what you communicate as fact. You're free to think "Sheffey is a reprobate" based on anything you want, but when you say "Sheffey is a reprobate" in such a public forum as this, either there must be an objective standard of evidence or you're gossiping, as it's traditionally defined.

To see what I mean, try to think of anything that would count as actual, censurable gossip according to dissidens' standards. Let's say Chatty Cathy has a juicy tidbit about Salacious Sue she communicates to us. There's no objective evidence to speak of, but according to dissidens, "Proof and belief are two different things," so as long as Cathy has her own subjective "grounds for belief," the tidbit is not gossip. Under dissidens' standards, the only true gossiper is one who thinks he has no grounds for belief. My guess is that the group of all such people--gossipers who think they have no grounds for belief--could have a comfortable meeting in a telephone booth.

2. "Your treatment of the facts is quite embarrassing: the man's name was Wayne Sawtell, I merely reproduced exactly the entry as formatted in my bibliography. Very few people have commas in their name, at least not where you found Sawtell's."

If there's a larger point here, I'm missing it. Most academics when listing a source use the standard format of LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME. It really doesn't matter that you for some reason use FIRSTNAME, LASTNAME (see comment #30), but I fail to see how your aberration says anything about my treatment of the facts. Note that I searched both for "Wayne Sawtell" and "Sawtell Wayne" (and found nothing about either).

3. "Wagner was performed in Jerusalem, 7 July 2001." My attempt at irony was wasted.

4. "This is how you begin your seventh paragraph: 'It seems to follow these lines...'. In the previous paragraph you say, '...sin seems to be to argue...'. 'Seems to'? Can we tidy this up a bit, please?"

Let's look at what I actually wrote: "yet the very point of mentioning Sheffey's purported sin seems to be to argue that BJU was at best irresponsible in making a movie about the man." The subject of the clause is "point," not "sin"--it's your point or purpose in making the original accusation--and "seems" is the verb. What follows, "to argue . . ." is what grammarians call an infinitive clause, in which I was explaining what seemed to be your point. (And I need "to read a little bit more slowly"?)

Still don't like it? Then I invoke the dissidens and Humpty-Dumpty standard of communication: having my own "grounds for belief" that it's perfectly clear, I publicly declare it to be so.

5. "I have not accused anyone at BJ of knowing about Sheffey’s guilt. I am perfectly prepared to believe the scriptwriters were gullible; I am perfectly prepared to believe they honestly disagree with my conclusions. Nothing I have said hangs on whether the choice of story was witting or unwitting. You simply assume this."

Fair enough. Then explain how this obscure knowledge about Sheffey--should it turn out to be actual knowledge--sheds any worthwhile light on BJU. In other words, what was your purpose in mentioning it in the first place as an accusation against BJU?

6. "I asked John how he interpreted a passage in Deuteronomy. I offered nothing to prove my point from it, you are inferring this all on your lonely."

More oily circumlocutions. The reference to Deuteronomy is now just meant to be an abstraction, having nothing to do with the particular point in contention--plainly you didn't mean to defend the charge of gossip, you were merely looking for hermeneutics. Wink, wink to the delighted peanut gallery.

Your suggestion seems to be that Deuteronomy does not require proof, only "witnesses" (again, I am forced to say "seems to be," because only dissidens knows what his words mean; forget their common or dictionary meaning). However, obviously the passage is establishing standards for proof, standards which have not been met here for the accusations you have made.

Finally, you repeat several times that I am "frustrated," "desperate," and "enthusiastic." Whereas according to you ordinary implication and meaning don't apply in interpreting your own hidden meanings, you think you can infer my emotional state. It's remarkable and wrong. I have nothing at stake in Sheffey's moral purity. Were he found to be a mass-murderer or fornicator, I would be sad (unlike you, were I to find out such a thing I would not think it a "good thing" that the "bullet found its mark") that the man had fallen and that a relatively obscure film by my alma mater omitted some damning facts. Contra to your (seeming?) implications, there would be no consequences for fundamentalism at large or Maranatha and BJU in particular. Everyone involved knows that Christians can sin and at times grossly, often without the knowledge of other Christians.

If I'm frustrated it's with the slapdash way you toss off serious accusations and then try to slip out of them, and I'm frustrated with the inconsistent way you demand rigor from others yet lenience for yourself. I recommend now an abstract interpretation of Proverbs 26 starting at verse 17.

dissidens post 14: “I can stay out of theaters. I can skip the...pathetic movies canonizing hayseed reprobates”
dissidens post 49: "I have not published this as historical fact; I have offered it as my belief, and I described how I went from hearing, not gossip, as you choose to call it, but hearsay."

I don't think the problem is that people sometimes read your words too quickly or make unwarranted assumptions from your posts. Making (or repeating) an accusation without qualification naturally leads someone to believe that you've made a statement that is historically verifiable.

Maybe I should post a note on my monitor whenever I read Remonstrans: "Unless specifically stated to be historical fact, accusations against other Christians on this site should not be assumed to be anything more than the belief of the author. Verification may or may not be possible."

50) Comment from: Austin Matzko [Visitor]
"Exactly. No one cares what you believe in the quiet of your own mind or what you find satisfactory as grounds for such personal belief. What is relevant here is what you communicate as fact."

Austin, I hope you are about to take blackmambaprof to task as well for his comment:


48) Comment from: blackmambaprof [Member]
"Thank you for the correction. I will hereafter refer to the gleeful minions of Remonstans.

Have you considered listening to Jesse Jackson? He lobs the most beautifully crafted and unsupported accusations, and appears to be in need of easily impressionable followers lately. You could probably handle both jobs...you seem quite capable that way."

Are you "slandering" the Rev. Jesse Jackson here?

This whole Sheffey kerfuffle seems like a rather convenient diversion to distract from his more unassailable point that Maranatha, and BJU by extension, are actively promulgating worldliness and carnality in drama under the guise of culture, which seems rather inconsistent in light of their revulsion at anything with a 2-4 beat.

I don't intend to defend dissidens' handling of historical evidence or lack thereof. Sometimes he's a rather abrasive chap. One might say unlikable. One might even say that he revels in a cheap shot or three from time to time. Point taken.

But it is kinda funny that The University has been impugned. SO TO ARMS, TO ARMS!!!

Austin:

You are incorrigible.

One more point, and then we are done here.

Let's say Chatty Cathy has a juicy tidbit about Salacious Sue she communicates to us. There's no objective evidence to speak of, but according to dissidens, "Proof and belief are two different things," so as long as Cathy has her own subjective "grounds for belief," the tidbit is not gossip.

Notice how you insinuated the word “subjective”? Notice how you persist in using the word “gossip”?

This is profoundly dishonest.

The evidence I reviewed was not subjective and I never said it was subjective. I made a subjective judgment based on objective evidence offered me. Big difference. I was talking about what might not be provable as a fact of history and yet entirely believable. These things exist. We live with unprovable belief all the time. The difference between objective and subjective is not the same as the difference between provable and believable.

You accuse me of back-pedaling and yet I say now what I have always said. I’m sorry if I had to include peripheral clarifications when you insinuated that hearsay is gossip. It would have been helpful if you had given us the dictionary definition of hearsay instead. I am sorry you persisted in regarding what I said about my initial exposure to the story as constituting “proof”. I’m sorry we had to begin this whole discussion by correcting John’s assertion that “Unless you come up with some sort of documentary proof, your comment about Robert Sheffey is malicious gossip."

This was not helpful for the discussion. Perhaps in the future I will not entertain questions from several directions at once, giving you the opportunity to confuse the issue.

Let me repeat for you. When I heard reports of Sheffey’s misbehavior I did not believe them, I questioned the source for them. So far as I can recall the conversation (a real conversation with a named person, not a “someone or other”) I was given to understand that there were objective reasons for belief that the reports were true.

I didn’t then and I haven’t now published this anywhere as historically verifiable fact. I explicitly said that I did not possess the sort of evidence which I myself would require. In fact I did not even post this on the blog; my belief that it is true emerged when explaining in public correspondence my reasons for drawing the conclusions I did.

I said that then. I say that now.

And the fact that you grant me the right to believe things but not say them is truly precious.

I was defending Sheffey not Bob Jones University. "He who spreads slander is a fool." Proverbs 10:18

Dissidens: "The evidence I reviewed was not subjective and I never said it was subjective. I made a subjective judgment based on objective evidence offered me. Big difference."

What was the objective evidence (who, what, when, etc.) beyond the story itself, and is it available for others to evaluate?

If the objective evidence is merely multiple sources of the same story, who is Wayne Sawtell? (You've already identified Weeks as a former professor at Maranatha).

Fundamentalists are calling others "minions." How delicious. Then they claim that they "have nothing at stake in Sheffey's moral purity" and "there would be no consequences for fundamentalism at large or Maranatha and BJU in particular [if Sheffy sinned]." Yet a BJU professor who has never commented (at least not to my knowledge) on Remonstrans before takes the time to blast Dissidens a number of times for stating just that. The original post had nothing to do with the circuit riding Revivalist, therefore one can only conclude that Fundamentalism, and BJU in particular, does indeed have something to lose by their exultation of Mr. Sheffy if he indeed was an adulterer. Apparently, in Fundamentalism it is ilicita to gossip about a man who has been dead over 150 years, but licita to gossip about CCM rock groups and singers, Neo Evangelical leaders, and even Fundamental college presidents. Ridiculous. I don't know if Sheffy was an adulterer or not, but the outcry was greater over the accusation that he was than the FACT that a Fundamental college is putting on a play by a pervert that all their students are required to watch. If Fundamentalism is not willing to be serious, then they should not demand a serious audience.

Is it really required?

At NBBC, in my illustrious day, they would put on two plays a year. One was a standard thing by a known playwright and the other some sort of Sheffie-esque sentimental thing. Usually only the second had to be required.

This borders on ridiculous. The effect of the condemnation about the Sheffey film made by Dissidens hinges on the accuracy of the charge that he was a reprobrate. Some took to question this assertion because it is a very serious one.

I asked for the second source, quite frankly, because I don't consider the first one cited as very credible based on past experience. What we have now is a lot of arguing beside the point. An allegation was passed along as if it were true. There was and has been no substantiation of it beyond the assertion that Richard Weeks and Wayne Sawtell claimed it was so. Dissidens is comfortable with their credibility on this matter; others of us are not (in my case, for lack of knowledge re: Sawtell).

This doesn't have anything to do with fundamentalism, culture, etc. Directly, it has to do with the bounds of propriety in public allegations of immoral conduct. Should one pass along hearsay in matters such as this?

Indirectly, it provides an opportunity to assess the argumentation used here and the reasonablesness of the arguer(s).

The funny thing to me was that this post and much of the argumentation provided by its writer in the comments was very good. It seems to me, and this is just my unsubstantiate belief, that a careless comment derailed a good discussion.

Unk,

The play is indeed required at MBBC. Every student must attend unless they have a work conflict or live too far away. Now, shut up, you minion, and leave your opinions in your head.

Ay!

Let me take this opportunity to respond to Dave’s comment, which I think is a good one because it a) illustrates an interesting and relevant point, b) it goes some distance to explain the qualifications I made, and c) to explain the attitude I take (which is, I agree, abrasive and unlikable).

I do not expect Dave (and like-minded people) to accept what I said as though it is fact. I have repeatedly said I cannot prove it to be a fact by any standard I myself was taught to apply. That being true, it does not change the fact that I was persuaded. I remain persuaded.

For example: as to the reliability of Weeks, Dave has reason to doubt. I did not sit under Weeks; had I sat under Weeks I might be as skeptical as Dave, I might not. Two of the history professors I did sit under, one of whom I spoke with again last night, did not share Dave’s skepticism about Weeks. That does not make Dave wrong, that may just mean I sat under professors with very charitable estimations of their colleagues.

On this one issue—the Sheffey question—I found him believable. Had Dave been in that discussion, he may well not have found Weeks believable (for reasons I don’t know and I’m not asking). I don’t know if Dave would have found Weeks believable in 1983; I don’t know if I would find Weeks believable today. But I cannot doubt today what Weeks told me in 1983 based on Dave’s misgivings about him now, and for reasons I am not privy to.

Dave might think me gullible and I might think him prejudiced, but not of it addresses what I believed and why.

It is in this mix that we are having this argument.

It is with precisely this awareness of real-life conditions that I think it is fair to express one’s beliefs and yet be careful not to demand agreement. It may sound like a very fine point, but I think it applies equity as broadly as possible and it respects consciences.

It would not be right for me to begin to disbelieve Weeks now because I subsequently found someone who distrusts him. It would not be fair for me to trust Weeks because I wanted to believe the accounts of Sheffey. And it would not be honest for me to discount the testimony of Weeks because it offends the folks at BJU.

But as several now have pointed out, notice how the subject has shifted. Even if Sheffey were guilty of much more, I am quite certain that if it could be proved, the same people would be rising up to make all manner of accusations of malice and gossip and ill-will. The same people who want me to “get over” other scandalous things would want me to get over this as well.

But the (Wilde) play will go on. That, of course is not scandalous.

This is our culture.

dissidens:

"Notice how you insinuated the word 'subjective'? Notice how you persist in using the word 'gossip'?
This is profoundly dishonest."

There is nothing dishonest about clarifying a distinction you yourself made, concerning the difference between belief and proof and the grounds for belief. "Belief" in your own words is something done by the subject: "I believe many things I could not prove to the satisfaction of the skeptic or the willful; I believe some things I can’t prove to myself." In other words, it's a mental act on the part of you, and your standards for belief are your own. As such, what you believe is inaccessible to outside verification, so by definition it's "subjective"; you say it was "a judgment I made," your example of Dave's different conclusion were he in the classroom, and the repeated "I" emphasizes the subjectivity.

But please don't let "subjective" be such a great hangup. If you find the term "subjective" offensive, choose another. The point remains the same: what you claim as sufficient grounds to avoid gossip is the--not "subjective," so "mental"? "personal"? "internal"? "_______"? whatever--standard available only to you and evaluable only by you. The Chatty Cathy example shows that such a standard is insufficient to preclude gossip, as every gossiper thinks he has sufficient "_______" grounds for the truth of his gossip.

I'm going to try to summarize this point-by-point, lest I be falsely accused of dishonesty once more:

Definition of "gossip":"a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts, of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature."

Your original assertion: "[Sheffey] also fathered an illegitimate child by one of the women on his circuit."

I think we agree that this is a "story" that is "of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature." At least now it is in "general circulation." It remains only to show that it is "without confirmation or certainty as to facts." Yet in your own words, the story is:

• "hearsay"
• "not . . . the sort of evidence which [even dissidens] would require"
• not what dissidens would publish as "historically verifiable fact"

I wouldn't be so persistent, were dissidens simply to admit what he should: a bit of gossip "emerged" in his comments (from their comments, even the disciples seem to recognize something is amiss). But instead of admitting his error, he insists on accusing others of dishonesty. It seems that for dissidens, someone else is always to blame. Again, we have a critic of fundamentalism who can't bear to criticize himself, and someone who lectures us about "meaning" who changes definitions for his own purposes. How is this any different from the people he criticizes?

Thank you, Unk, for following my humble leadership in this matter. Your new title greatly pleases me. I am now demanding a retraction and an apology for your defense of the slanderous, profane, abrasive, sinful, and worse: critic of Fundamentalism who will not reveal his identity so that we cannot personally destroy him, Dissidens. I can only hope that you have the wisdom to escape further condemnation by proclaiming Sheffy to be a good Christian film that everyone should watch. We want you to be a minion, just a Fundamental one.

What if I divulge his identity? What will that get me?

Unk #65: "What if I divulge his identity? What will that get me?"

It's really not necessary, actually. What Dissidens says is more interesting and important than who he is.

I like your new title as well. I get the feeling that we'd probably enjoy each other's company outside of the blogosphere. Maybe over a couple tall mugs of chilled root beer...on the house.

DeBarr #43: "I'd like some evidence that Remostrans has slandered a Christian brother.
I know what Remonstrans said; I would like for someone to prove that what he said is untrue."
DeBarr #66: "This isn't a court of law."

DeBarr asks for proof, but when the rules of evidence become an issue, he says that this isn't a court of law. He must have rules of evidence in mind if his request in #43 is to be meet. If the rules of evidence used in a court of law are inappropriate for this forum, which ones shall we use?

Besides, you don't have to be in a court room to appeal to legal tactics, at least not according to the rules inside Remonstrans. When Dissidens recently repeated a cuss word not previously stated explicitly (even in the article he cited), he claims that he did so to point out the egregious nature of an artist's offense and that doing so is acceptible behavior when giving testimony in a court of law. In another post, he begins his rebuttal by recommending formal legal training for another participant in the debate. But when Dissidens is being criticized for repeating an salacious story ("He also fathered an illegitimate child by one of the women on his circuit") and fails when requested to present factual details...well now, this isn't a court of law...

Until the who, what where, and when of the accusation are presented and proved, the man described as a "hayseed reprobate" should be considered innocent of the accusation of fathering an illegitimate child. The accusation itself should be given as much credence as the story of George Washington and his father's famous cherry tree.

Unk,

If you divulge Dissidens' identity, you will get: 1. a free mint-condition VHS tape of Sheffy to play in lieu of serious theology in Sunday School, 2. an all expense paid college tour of Maranatha and Bob Jones University in which you will stay with the students in the state-of-the-art dormitory facilities and eat chef-prepared cuisine in the dining halls, 3. a visit from one of Fundamentalism's Modern Revivalists, to whom you will confess your sins, 4. a free pamphlet series proclaiming the evils of: Modern Translations, Backmasking and the 2/4 beat, long hair and sideburns on men and pants on women, and Calvinism, and 5. a designer pair of culottes, which we expect you to wear.

However, to redeem your prizes, you will need to present documented proof that will withstand examination in a court of law. All manner of illogical arguments, name-calling, and accusations of sin may be leveled at you if you change your mind and remain on Dissidens' side. Offer not valid in all states; seek qualifed legal counsel for details.

P.S.

Your tour to Maranatha will include free tickets to The Importance of Being Ernest and a Patch the Pirate CD, also free of charge.

Ryan DeBarr: "It's Ryan DeBarr's argument foreshadowed. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. After all, there's no way to prove that "it is not true" Sheffey had an affair.

It's actually your argument; I was just using it against you. Until Remonstrans can prove himself innocent, you're going to continue to accuse him of slander."

Ryan,

Consider this: suppose tomorrow I post on my blog that "Ryan DeBarr is an adulterous reprobate." When questioned as to the basis for such an accusation, I mention a decades-old chat with a man now deceased who has never published on the subject or even met you in person, and another chat with someone else whose testimony is equally inaccessible. I think it's true enough to mention publicly as ammunition against your friends, but I claim not to think it's "established fact"; I say the grounds of my belief are good enough for me, even though they may not be for anyone else.

So, have I gossiped about you? That's something we can determine by looking at the definition of "gossip": according to the definition, I have.

Yet to your way of thinking, no friend of truth (or of DeBarr) could come along and claim that I am wrong or that I have falsely accused you, questioning my sources. Instead, such a person would first have the impossible task of proving that you have never committed adultery--a universal negative.

That's absurd, and I think you know it is. Were I to make such an accusation, you and those who value truth would be justified in accusing me of slander, and if this case ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1920099,00.html ) is any example, there's a good chance you could prove it in a court of law.

And note that all of this is true independently of whether you actually are an adulterous reprobate. "Gossip" and "slander" involve the question of whether my expressed belief in your sins is warranted, not whether it happens to be true or whether I simply claim grounds for belief.

What's sad is that arguments like this--"Oh, yeah? Prove Sheffey didn't commit adultery!"--are the best responses dissidens and the disciples can muster, which probably explains why so far, dissidens has accused his critics--without explanation--of incompetence, desperation, frustration, dishonesty and falsity, defied the definition of "gossip" (without providing his own), and tried to elevate the evidential value of "hearsay"; his supporters have responded by saying the critics' accusations are hypocritical, by suggesting the critics are motivated by a pathological need to defend 19th Century itinerate preachers, and by saying dissidens' overall point is so good that we should just overlook this failure.

This is what it's like to be serious about culture and meaning?

The only thing that would sway me would be a set of the complete works of Charles G. Finney along with the cliff notes.

gargoyle,

I could easily claim the prizes, but rather than regress in my Christian life, I guess I will pass and stay on here at Dissidens U.

another gleeful minion

After reading the complicated back-and-forth, the real issue about the Sheffey question seems pretty simple to me. The BJ people require greater and more stringent proof because the thing seems unliklier to them. For us poor urchins who have had to live with the real-life specimens of the average preacher our whole lives, Dissidens' evidence seems reasonable because his story is more believable.

BJ loyalists are defending a school founded by a revivalist. We have to consider that they have been carefully nurtured to revere the most inadequate of those calling themselves ministers of the gospel. To them an illiterate who shaved the gospel down to almost nothing is a hero who brought the word to the common folk and who, as confirmed by someone speaking decades after his life on the authority of a badly made film, had a heart of love.

Meanwhile, to us he's part of the Deadly Descent. The idea that he may also have indulged in a spot of illicit sex is quite frankly unsurprising. You can only be surprised that way so many times.

Can alana have minions too?

DeBarr: I'm glad to hear that you are getting an education about legal requirements regarding slander, but why check with an attorney? I thought we weren't in a court of law...and have you considered that there is plenty of data on this site to prove Dissidens' hatred of fundamentalism? Proof of hatred provides a foundation for demonstrating malicious intent.

aaroberts: So your personal experience predisposes you to believe a statement about a particular 19th century evangelist. You assume that those who express doubt about the statement do so because they lack the experiences you've had with "real-life specimens of the average preacher". Your lack of surprise upon hearing an accusation commends it to you as true.

These are interesting facts about the way you make decisions, but they don't have anything to do with testing the factuality of a statement per se.

A historian who admitted that such prejudice influenced his conclusions would be ignored. A honest judge who knew as much about himself (herself) would recuse himself.

Also, admitting that you are prejudiced and therefore regard unsurprising hearsay as evidence in no way demonstrates that those who reject such hearsay as evidence do so because they are similarly prejudiced in the opposite direction.

She was simply stating that the two sides have their disposition from past experiences. I thought it was the most sensible thing said in this thread. Well, except for Unk and Dissidens, of course...

It was a good observation.

Unk,

As much as I sympathise with you heartfelt request, I simply could not give away such a valuable commentary set (let alone with the cliff notes!) to anyone who has tainted themselves by association with that gossip Dissidens.

Joe,

Repent! Dissidens will drag you down the slippery slope of orthodoxy if you do not decide RIGHT NOW to accept my offer. Don't delay, the altar is still open...remember, this could be your last day in cyberspace...

Alana,

Women should keep silence. Period. You may be right, but that doesn't give you the right to write what you wrote. Let your husband speak for you. If you are single, too bad. However, if you switch sides, we will let you run a women's Sunday School class or be a missionary to an obscure land without internet access. And we will give you the culottes.

gargoyle: I am glad to see that there's room for fun, games, and plain old silliness at Remonstrans, but as I said earlier, what NRW says is far more interesting than who he is.

I liked what Alana had to say. I think it's illogical to state what someone's dispositions and experiences are/were based on reading their opinions, but at least she's offering an explanation for the disagreement.

It isn't illogical at all. Come to think of it, to say it is illogical is downright silly. In general, I always come to my conclusions about someone disposition by reading or hearing their opinions. Is there any other way?

lilrabbi: No minions for me, please. I'd have to refer to them as sub-minions, and that's just too complicated. :)

from aaroberts

BJ loyalists are defending a school founded by a revivalist. We have to consider that they have been carefully nurtured to revere the most inadequate of those calling themselves ministers of the gospel. To them an illiterate who shaved the gospel down to almost nothing is a hero who brought the word to the common folk and who, as confirmed by someone speaking decades after his life on the authority of a badly made film, had a heart of love.

Alana, not only have you failed to grasp the psychological motivations of my father and me--a failure that is quite understandable, considering you know almost nothing about us--more importantly you've misread the disagreement in these comments.

First, this is not about "defending a school." As a matter of fact, I've suggested several times (with dissidens' seeming agreement) that whether Sheffey was a reprobate has no bearing on BJU.

Second, for me (and I strongly suspect 99% of anyone remotely associated with BJU) nothing hangs on Sheffey's guilt or innocence. As I already said, I would be saddened to learn of his fall, in the sense that anyone's sin--and its repercussions--should be cause for grief for any Christian. But that's it. It's laughable to think that there's an inordinate affection for Sheffey among BJU students, grads or faculty. The film in question was made about thirty years ago, which means that most of the movers and shakers in its creation are past retirement age. Attacking the film is about as emotionally stirring an issue to today's generation as is, say, bringing up Nixon's politics.

Third, I have no psychological predispositions that would lead me to disbelieve evidence of an evangelist's sins. Of the men I've met who call themselves "evangelists" nowadays, I probably personally dislike more of them than not. I can think of many seemingly good men who have fallen, and I know nothing more about Sheffey than what I've seen from a couple of viewings (years ago) of his eponymous film, which is to say I know nothing at all.

So what is this discussion about? Dissidens and his warrant for accusations of adultery. That's it.

Nothing I've suggested about his being guilty of gossip hangs on who I am as a person. If you want, conjure up an image of me as the most emotionally stunted, evidentially-blinkered Sheffey-worshiper and evangelist-sycophant. Warrant is objective--not a personal feeling, disposition or something that depends on one's personal experiences; the definition of "gossip" is the same; and the charge still applies to dissidens.

Austin,

Sir, this discussion was about Maranatha's foolish decision to put on a play by a homosexual. Your father and yourself were the persons who sidetracked the discussion and discombobulated over an aside by Dissidens. Again, if BJU and Fundamentalism have nothing to lose if Sheffy was an adulterer, then why did you go out of your way to change the course of the discussion over a comment that did not even mention Sheffy by name? If gossip was truly your only concern, then there are far worse and blatant examples all over the Internet that deserve your attention. The gossip on certain bread and butter Fundamentalist sites over David Jaspers' scandal was a good example. The gossip was atrocious; yet I did not see either you or your father taking much interest there. No, you are concerned with potential fallout in Fundamentalism over a film about a Revivalist that is STILL being circulated and used as a teaching tool in their circles. Stating that you have no great interest in the fall of Sheffy is laughable. I am sorry, but I doubt your sincerity in this matter.

I just threw away my latest CBD catalog. I was glancing through it and noticed they sell the aforementioned film in that. I was quite astonished. And then I wondered if they sold the end of the spear too.

After looking all over the page I saw it right beside the aforementioned film.

Side by side! How's that for a strange coincidence?

gargoyle writes:

Again, if BJU and Fundamentalism have nothing to lose if Sheffy was an adulterer, then why did you go out of your way to change the course of the discussion over a comment that did not even mention Sheffy by name?

First, it doesn't matter if you doubt my sincerity. As I already explained, nothing I've argued depends on my having an upstanding character. Besides, I suspect that when the defense of dissidens' gossip becomes a discussion about my motivations, my interlocutors are grasping at straws.

Second, I didn't sidetrack the discussion. Dissidens and "semper vendentes" did in their exchange.

Third, I think I've made my motivation pretty clear, but I'll elaborate for your sake.

The authors of Remonstrans set up themselves as the critics of evangelicalism in general and fundamentalism in particular. Wherever they find inconsistency, foolishness, a lack of seriousness, etc. they--as the self-appointed guardians of meaning and culture--don't relent from castigating the offenders.

But quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Not themselves, and not the toadies, from what I've observed.

As far as my not addressing every case of gossip on the Internet, I'm flattered at your belief in my superpowers. Alas, I can stand up for truth, justice, and the American way only in a limited domain. I happen to read this blog. I happen not to have read any that gossiped against Jaspers.

I got my father involved when I asked him, as a historian at a fundamentalist college, if he knew of any basis to dissidens' accusation.

Debarr: You are correct; I did know what you were referencing to. I'm sorry that I responded that way--I'll try to keep a civil tone with this comment.

Your statement that “slander cases are very hard to prove” is undeniably true (the bar is set high to protect freedom of speech/expression). Nevertheless, print media outlets do get sued for libel and do lose. What is interesting about the article Austin refers to is that a blogger (a person with no connection to any particular news organization) has now been successfully sued for libel. Thus, those who believe they have been lied about by a blogger now have a legal precedent to pursue damages.

In order to successfully sue for libel, a plaintiff must meet several criteria. He must prove that the defendant’s defamatory statement was made as a statement of fact and not merely of opinion (usually readily apparent one way or the other, and Dissidens’ original statement was made as a statement of fact—subsequent qualifications are as irrelevant to a defense in this case as is the errata section of a paper. Once the statement is made, the alleged damage has occurred). If the plaintiff is a public figure (Sheffy would qualify), he must also prove that the intent in making the statement was malicious (more difficult, but definitely possible). Finally, the plaintiff must also prove that the statement is false (this can range from somewhat easy if the accusation contains specific enough, to extremely difficult—sometime impossible—if the defamatory statement lacks details). If there are other hurdles, I am unaware of them—this covers the basics at least.

Since Sheffy is long dead, and there are no specific damages (that I can think of at least) associated with defaming his reputation a century after his death, the likelihood of anyone suing Dissidens for libel is 0%. Even if a member of Sheffy’s estate (if there is one?) tried to bring a defamation suit against Dissidens, the final hurdle (that of proving that the accusation of adultery as false) would be impossible to prove, since no details (who, what, where, when) have been included in the accusation. Based on the information available in this thread to date, the hypothetical suit would fail.

Thus, describing Dissidens’ statement (“He also fathered an illegitimate child by one of the women on his circuit”) is (as you have stated) better described as “gossip” than “slander” (in the technical, legal sense that we generally use it today. (From what I can tell, John Matzko did not use it in the technical, legal sense in his initial posts, as his use of Proverbs 10:18 demonstrates; the word in Hebrew is not a legal term). However, had Dissidens included any details whatsoever (either in the initial post, or in response to multiple subsequent requests), the statement could possibly be proved or disproved (and thus possibly be described as “slander” in a legal sense).