It is my opinion that fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals are, on the whole, bumpkins and louts, that the cultural “decline of the West” is a painfully real thing and that the church has embraced that decline like a child embraces a cool pillow. I have said so in the past, I have explained what I mean by bumpkin, and I have given plenty of examples and compared the work of bumpkins to the work of poets and contrasted the work of entertainers with that of worshipers (e.g. Hamilton and Tersteegen).

It has been excitedly pointed out to me that some of what I see as inferior work is really for the children and the simple. I don’t find that a helpful or relevant observation, partly because we have had children and simple folk ever since Adam and Eve got frisky. If we excuse the inferior thing, it is for the sake of our children?! If it is clearly banal, we will call it “simple”, accept it as worthy worship and blame it on the unread?

The bumpkins want us to believe that they really do know how important it is to raise children with proper standards and guidelines. That is why they cut their hair all the same, keep them from wearing skirts that are too long, and tell them not to listen to rock. It is, for some strange reason, also why they feed them Hamilton and Garlock instead of Zinzendorf and Watts.

Go figure.

And what is true of our “Christian music” is true of our political activism. Christians in the public square are treated like the goofs and whiffleballs they clearly are, and all they can do is blame the messenger.

Likewise with “Christian theater”.

But let me remind our careful readers what is at stake here: the church has consistently objected to the theater in every form, whether in Euripides, Mozart, Shakespeare or musical. This is the considered and prudent judgment of previous saints. I do not expect to persuade many—in fact I don’t expect to persuade any. I think it is too late for that. As a general guess, I would say we blew our last chance somewhere between the influences of Machen and Tozer.

I allow that some might be persuaded by the overwhelming evidence, but, as I’ve said, I don’t think we can pry the stage out of the hands of modern Christians with dynamite, hydraulic winches and crowbars.

So I raise the issue of Wilde in Bible colleges for what reason? It is, once again, a question of form. Form and meaning. The relationship between form and content. Christians do not understand literary forms, musical forms, and now dramaturgical forms.

[If you still doubt me, try to get a hold of Steve Pettit's Heavenly Melody hoedown or Matt Black's soul-wrenching rendition of Are You Washed? Imagine the singers on stage with canes and top hats. Does the music still work for you? If it does not, ask yourself why. Does the dancing ruin it for you, or do you just begin to appreciate the music for what it is saying about the blood of the Lamb and the hideous crime on Golgotha? Or listen to the Wilds’ version of Am I A Soldier Of The Cross? all decked out as a nursery song.]

I don’t think I have ever been afforded as clear an articulation of the bumpkin’s rationale as I have here. If I had told Christians 30 years ago that there would be theater in churches and Oscar Wilde in fundamentalist Bible colleges, and if I told them that what follows was the excuse being offered, I would be smiled at and asked if my mommy knew where I was.

This is the considered opinion, not of a child and not of a sharecropper, but of a graduate of Bob Jones University and an attorney who works just outside of Chicago. I presume he doesn’t own a pig and it’s safe to suppose he wears shoes to work; he doesn’t look like a bumpkin. He saw the play and it was, he says, “appropriate”. And here is his justification for the outrage. It’s part of a larger discusion [sic] which you can read here.

Feel free to ignore the silliness about consensus and common sense, and overlook gaseous phrases like “A Christian college must present a balanced and thorough educational experience to prepare a young person for real life”. I think he is trying to sound erudite. If Christian colleges wanted to prepare us for “real life”, our education would have been very different. Face it, the dress code and the demerit system would have been very different and there would have been fewer red dots on our books. What they told us, and what they told me, was that they were preparing us to be separatists.

That word has a very strange odor these days. But here's Mr. Hervas:

Normally I would not enter this type of discusion. Rarely can a consensus be reached where ideology trumps a measure of common sense. However, I just returned from Clearwater and attended the Thursday night performance with my daughter. The play was well done and well attended. It was entertaining and appropriate in the college setting.

Was I spiritually edified by it? Hardly, except in the joy of young people doing a good job in the performing arts. Did I bust a gut at some of the satire that promoted rather worldly concepts- nope, but I did smirk at the understanding of the humor in its intended context.

A Christian college must present a balanced and thorough educational experience to prepare a young person for real life. Objectionable elements should be censored in an appropriate fashion. Censorship is guided by the nature of the objectionable elements and the context in which the play is presented. Obviously, sexual overtones, profanity, etc. must be censored. The college age crowd is sufficiently mature to appreciate the differences between a farcical criticism of British high society and unbiblical concepts. I go to baseball games and see a lot of things I would not consider appropriate, but I see no reason to stop going.

I was unaware that Wilde was imprisoned for homosexual conduct. It never came up in the play! Taken to its logical extreme, very little in this world is not attached in some way to biblically objectionable conduct. From Microsoft to Disney I could find good reason to boycott. In music and literature I would have a list a mile long to object. The students at Clearwater were well served in exposure to a well done performance of Wilde's play. I have no fear that my daughter will be weakened in her spiritual walk. Rather, she is better equiped by the opportunity to evaluate the play and the message. Simply because the play is performed and not read in class is a distinction without a difference. This is college. Concerns about the slippery slope are not well founded and fail to appreciate the educational experience necessary on a Christian college campus.

I am a bit surprised by the attention this subject garners. This issue has been hashed out for many years. The majority of fundamental Christian colleges understand the need for quality secular drama as a part of the overall educational experience. I see no reason to take issue with a reasonable and properly censored approach to teaching and performing the secular arts.

Note that he was not “spiritually edified”, but he was entertained.

And was it a good entertainment?

Well, near as I can tell from his explanation, it was good in the sense that most of us might say a pole dancer performed a good dance. Not good in the sense that St. Paul would approve, but it showed, I dunno, eagerness? aptitude? disposition?

How was this play good?

Read this excuse for Christian thought and try to determine if this man’s daughter is “better equiped [sic] by the opportunity to evaluate the play and the message.”

I say all this to respond at length to Ryan DeBarr’s recent comment: I do not think one needs to read Plato or Augustine to understand the problem. One need not go to the university and study literary forms.

DeBarr is absolutely correct in what he says. One does not need to read Plato or Augustine to understand the problem here. One doesn’t even have to read Dr. Seuss to understand the problem here. The problem is obvious here. The problem was obvious even to Angela Morris of Maranatha whose actors won’t deliver the offensive lines. She loves directing the play. Just ask her. But the problem here is resolvable on simple moral grounds because this play is so bad it must be censored. What if Wilde had not been as crude in his contempt of morality and religious verities? What if he had cleverly bowdlerized his own work and saved Mrs. Morris the trouble? What if he had lampooned Christian virtues without the sexual overtones and profanity Mr. Hervas encourages us to censor? Would that have made the play good?

Guys like Charles E. Hervas think it “appropriate” and proper preparation for “real life”. He thinks that if he just deletes the naughty bits, the students at Clearwater Christian College will be “well served”.

That, contrary to what is exciting the participation of those on SI, is the issue. Is the form acceptable? Is the meaning that Wilde intended his readers to grasp something a New Testament writer would approve of? I suggest it is not, and to know why it is not is to understand the forms and meanings of our poets. This we learn at the university and when we study literary forms. These are things Aristotle and Augustine have expressed their views on.

Mr. Hervas says “Simply because the play is performed and not read in class is a distinction without a difference.”

Is it really?

When Fulke Greville wrote his plays, was it a distinction without a difference to him? Was it a distinction without a difference when John Milton wrote Samson Agonistes? Robertson Davies described the closet drama as “the dreamiest of literature, most second hand and fusty of experience!". How about him? A distinction without a difference?

Behold the bumpkin.

Churchmen are wrong but the bumpkin is right. Aristotle was wrong but the bumpkin is right. Milton is wrong but the bumpkin is right. Pascal was wrong but the bumpkin is right. The Puritans were wrong but the bumpkin is right.

Hail to the bumpkin!