Enjoy the guffawing at self-made strawmen. I know the title is “Weep and Howl,” but the last word “Enjoy” will be the MO. If Maureen Dowd could understand the thought processes of this little hangout of disaffected detractors of fundamentalism, she would be very proud.

One of the leaders of those dastardly Conservative Evangelicals wrote the following:

“People often ask me, ‘Are you hopeful?’ And the answer is yes, I am hopeful. I am not optimistic. Christians have no right to be optimistic, but at the same time we have no right not to be hopeful. Optimism is a belief that things are finally going to end up happy. Hope, on the other hand, means that we know the Lord God of all creation, who sits in the heavens and rules over all the peoples of the earth. We know His grace. We know His mercy. We know His holiness, His character, and His love. Above all, we know His Son, and thus we live in hope.”

God’s providence will accomplish what unreflective institutions can never deliver. The hope is seen in young people studying at institutions marks by the words, “Theological education is serious business.” Some are intentionally breaking with the fundamentalism and shallow evangelicalism of their predecessors. Where does it go from here? I don’t know because God will ultimately write the endings to the works of His providence. Thus, I have hope.

Keep scrounging the web for Christians blissfully unaware of their unreflectiveness—it is like shooting fish in a barrel! Have fun training your “Dowdy” pieces on the religious silliness of our time and place. Optimism is uncalled for, but offering no hope falls massively short of the Scripture’s message.

Maybe I missed the point, but I took "enjoy" to be an ironic reference to the intended purpose of the video on that page.

Thanks for the link, Dissidens. Like having the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent on my shelf, it is helpful to have evidence like this handy to show where danger lurks.

I'll definitely be sharing this with my own children. It speaks for itself.

I'm at a loss to understand why parents would allow their children to be trained by people who would revel in such nonsense (and pay for the privilege!).

Amos:

Yes, the contrast between weeping & howling and enjoyment was intentional. It was clearly in the mind of James when he contrasted present wealth and future misery.

I enjoy irony. Always have. I’m thinking of putting on my headstone “Beloved By All”. That’s just how committed I am to irony.

Time Magazine named Mohler “reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S.”, which sounds impressive until you recall what kind of stuff Time Magazine publishes. But Mohler liked it enough to put it on his website.

Which is nice.

You can also get some nice pictures of Al here. http://almohler.com/photos.php

Which are also nice.

I keep a long list of things Al Mohler has said that I disagree with. Fairly high on that list is your quotation from his book. Mohler is one of the custodians of contemporary American Christianity, and as such--no matter how embarrassed he may be by events--it is his job to mitigate the damage with a little spin and to boost the hearts of his following. It is not his job to actually fix anything; it is his job to be hopeful.

Irony again.

It is with some measure of irony that I trust the words of seminary presidents when they speak of seriousness.

As for your own point: God’s providence will accomplish whatever it is he wants to accomplish, and his inscrutable ends are high above your ends and the ends of “unreflective institutions”.

Which, ironically, is the point of the post.

hungry:

I think it is a mystery. I’m pretty sure it’s not a joyful mystery, a sorrowful mystery or a glorious mystery.

Maybe it's an Ironic Mystery!

"You can also get some nice pictures of Al here. http://almohler.com/photos.php"

Amazing! One sockpuppet is able to divine the motivations and loyalties of another sockpuppet. I find it ironic, but the tactic is nothing more than the use of subtle ad hominems. Fundy techniques live on outside of their insensible circles! How ironic! It would have been more impressive if you divined which Puritan writers I am fond of! Have any picture link files?

I love Machen’s writings, but as a staunch libertarian, did he not write as spokesman in the Gray Lady on behalf would now be considered traditional fundamentalism? He certainly considered himself a caretaker of a certain strand of contemporary Christianity during his time. There is no accusation of guilt by association against Machen from this sockpuppet. However, Mohler thought himself a fine boy for being in TIME, so behold! The the old fundy guilt by association games live on! How ironic!

Your exegesis of James is fair; your application, though rhetorically clever, is embarrassing and unserious. Has the Admissions of MBBC, as silly they are, oppressed Dissidens and the band of followers here (James 5:1-6)? Whose wages have they ripped off? Somehow because so and so from this fundy church or organization did me dirt or ruined my Christians sanctification for years, and I am now the humiliated brother of James 1:9 who is to glory in my exalted position behind my screen when I see MBBC drift further in their unseriousness. Irony: the self-serving “exegesis” of the fundies lives, particularly in the application of the text.

By the way, you missed the point of Mohler's quote. “Saint Al” (wink, wink) was commenting on Ezekiel’s Vision of the Dry Bones (37:1-14). Actually, he was comparing the American “Conservative” Church in the application step to the dry bones and noting that he doesn’t know if the bones will be brought back to life. In other words, revival is not inevitable, but God’s messenger must be faithful. The "Don't worry, be hopeful" interpretation totally misses what he is saying, but keep it on your "list" if you like. This sockpuppet will stop for now.

Sam: [correction: Amos]

“This sockpuppet will stop for now.”

I think that’s best, don’t you? You’re straining to make a point and I’m afraid you may do yourself a harm. Our insurance policy covers staff only.

Your prose is even breaking up, and for your sake I hate to see that happen. When you have a point, we’d like to see it.

I’m often amused by people who accuse someone else of judging motives.

My whole purpose, both in the post and in my reply to you, was not to judge anyone’s motives but to simply show what is being done. I didn’t say a word about Maranatha’s “motivations” and I said nothing about why Mohler does what he does. I’m merely pointing readers to what it is they are doing.

The Maranatha folks are not just writing and acting badly, they are copying and mimicking badly. They are telling us—“admitting”, as I say—what they think is entertaining, what is amusing, and what it is they judge worthy of repeating. And, oddly enough, in the context of recruiting students! They lack humor, they lack imagination and they lack skill, yet they publish this stuff. If fundamentalists want to be thought “serious”, they need to stop this nonsense yesterday.

As for Mohler, again I don’t care why he’s happy that Time likes him, and I don’t care how many pictures he distributes. The point is the rôle he sees himself in. He himself wants us to know he is “a reigning intellectual” and his own blog provides us pictures. Why he does that our readers can guess.


P. S. Your exegesis of “Mohler’s point” succeeded only in moving it higher on the list.

Hey, do you think Amos is just Austin on speed?

But, dissidens called him Sam . . . I guess that with IP look up, and the mandatory email address, he knows who this meth monster is.

Oh wait, he is a burp cloth to tame that drool on Amos' chin.

My mistake.

The "Sam" bled over from another exchange.

I doubted from the beginning that "Amos" was really an Amos, but our rules allow for nicks so don't infer anything from my error.

(I can't remember now if I have Alzheimer's or not.)

So Amos is a completely new villain sprung, as it were, from the woodwork and not an old one masquerading.

Why do they all sound the same?

What options do they have?

How they see this reflecting "the praise of His glory" or the seriousness of their mission I do not understand. This is profoundly sad!

I'll vouchsafe that some really great preachers and serious-minded Christians will come out of Maranathema (that's funny, my browser underlined that in red...) who will choose the school based on that admissions page. Among the first things I would look for in a Bible college recruit is fluency in current sitcoms!

Those certainly are some nice pictures of Al Mohler: suitable for framing and placing in my Christian Men of Their Age shrine!

(Sigh). It seems that inglorious dramatizations never end. Frankly, this video was excruciating to watch. It was like watching an enemy pluck a man's beard one strand at a time. It was, for those who recall it (even in history class), just as capable of making me flinch as a couple of now infamous photos from the Vietnam era. One was titled, "On a Saigon street, summary execution for a Viet Cong", in which the photo was taken just as the gun aimed point blank went off. The other one, unnamed, was a photo of naked little girl running down the street where napalm had just been dropped.

To the completely dense person reading this, let me rephrase my reaction. I kept wanting to say, "Don't do it. Don't be insensible, childish, foolish, and irreverent. Get a hold of yourselves." But the band played on.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Scene in Watertown's Cafe Americain:

"I am shocked--shocked that there is TV watching going on amongst our student body!"

Your "just-secular-enough-to-be-hip-but-because-it-is-produced-by-fundamentalists-it-'checks'-and-isn't-really-Willow-Creekesque" promotion video sir...

Sounds like MBBC engaging in bunberrying maybe?

P.S.
I'm wondering now if this line gets cut from the latest stage production?
"Harold Hill: I rant and I rave for the virtue I'm too late to save / I smile, I grin when the gal with a touch of sin walks in / I hope and I pray for Hester to win just one more "A" / The sadder but wiser girl's the girl for me / The sadder but wiser girl for me"...

Ok, ok, I know it will be cut, or changed--but, vectors have velocity and direction--how fast? is the Pole-star in view...AT ALL?

Feelin' snarky, but sad too...
Sam Hendrickson (not the Sam Diss was referring to--at least I don't think so)

Quite right. Sam H is not implicated by my booboo.

There probably never was a Sam among those who didn't get it but still strongly disapproved. There have been many and one looses track (I remember dgus, capdoc, blackmambaprof, regulative; Austin and, of course, Dave used straightforward names).

Vietnam? Lucifer? Seriously?

Perhaps my failure to see the aptness of the allusions makes me "the completely dense person reading this." Probably so.

One note, it is not my usual practice to bring in names in my public critiques, but to attack ideas. I have to admit it was ad hominem--and that is not my goal. It is there in the public record, and remains, but if I could redact it, I would remove "Phelps" and "Mann." To have the names distracts from the skewering of ideas, and makes it personal. For that I am sorry. Their video production is still inconsistent though, and that inconsistency is somewhat saddening.

Hmmm, I wonder if someone is reacting to the criticism this video has generated. "The Admissions Office" is not on the webpage any longer. (I did find it on you tube.)

I can't speak to that, but you can find three "episodes" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7acmPbglOs8

http://www.vimeo.com/1775724
http://www.vimeo.com/1775909

To Chris Anderson: leave aside for the moment whether you allusions mentioned were apt or not. Do you see a problem with the video(s)?

Okay, let's try this again. To Chris Anderson: leave aside for the moment whether the allusions you mentioned were apt or not. Do you see a problem with the video(s)?

I think they were silly. The people who made them probably think they were silly. They were supposed to be silly. And thus, they probably didn't need to be on a college website. Apart from that, I'm not offended by them, if that's your question.

I don't think the videos were as silly as comparing them to images of Vietnam or the fall of Lucifer--comparisons which (unlike the videos) were apparently supposed to be taken seriously.

Fire when ready.

Chris,
do you not think that there is an issue of inconsistency with MBBC's stance & standards?

I.e., just from the commercials (which is my experience) it is not hard to see the TV show trades on crude sexual humor, and profane ideas; and does it not seem inconsistent that the writers and producers of MBBC's little video seem to know the Office genre & formula well enough to copy it?

Does it not seem odd that a school so focused on personal separation, especially as regards the media, should produce something like this that would require knowing the show well? I mean, someone had to watch it--did they get a "carnal" Christian to watch it for them, and have him inform the "spiritual" Christians what the show was about? :) (There is a lot of Keswick influence at MBBC...)

That's mostly my beef--if anyone else produced this, the sense is this could easily become MBBC chapel fodder. But, when fundies do it, it's cute...(What if Hybels, Warren, et.al. had done this?)

Sam Hendrickson

BTW, I wrote a note to Bro. Phelps, apologizing for ad hominem, and asking if he could explain how this is consistent.

To Chris Anderson: Is it possible that your analysis is faulty here? First of all, Scott did not compare the Maranatha video to images of Vietnam. He said "it [referring to 'this video' two sentences previously] was . . . just as capable of making me flinch as" images of Vietnam. His was not a comparison of the Maranatha video to images from Vietnam; he compared the IMPACT of the two on HIS reaction ("capable of making me flinch"). (I'm not responding to the Lucifer quotation. I have no idea what Sofros meant by it.)

I agree with you that the video is silly. Why is that not more troubling to you? What is silly about an employee lying to his superior? What is silly about a boss bullying his employees? What is silly about engaging in dishonest recruitment practices? For that matter, what does Scripture teach about portraying evil in a good (or silly) way?

Silliness is something I expect from a child. It is not something I expect from an adult who makes his living in higher education.

Hungry soul: Exactly.

Sure. It's possible.

That was not a "gotcha," by the way, but an honest question.

And here's a related embarrassment I had forwarded to me this morning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ot2iyEdzy4&feature=channel_page

Paragraphs 2&3 from a A Hungry Soul #28 say it well.
What are we to make of an institution that claims to be training the next generation of christian leaders while producing and utilizing such drivel to promote itself ? What kind of "christian leaders" will they produce; silly or sober minded? It would seem that we already have an over abundance of the former.
Silliness abounds in immaturity and while it may have its occasional place beyond that period in life, at what stage in the process do we say "Enough is enough!"? At what point in the life of our young people do we set high expectations for their thought process, affections, words and actions, towards a serious and God honoring end ?
At what point do we say "It's time to grow up and be sober minded, putting away childish things" ? Might I be so bold as to suggest that we ought to begin saying that when our children are quite young so that by the time they are in college ( if not well before ) they are engaged in the serious discussion of important matters.
I for one wasted far too much time in my younger years being silly towards an invaluable end and struggle with it still at times. Should I let that pattern continue, or should I not desire something far better, higher, and nobler for myself and progeny and be encouraging my children to develop a more sober outlook? Does not our God deserve such an
effort because of who he is (not to mention all that he has done for us)?
If the goals we have for our christian walk are based on "relevance" and our goals for evangelism rest heavily on numbers (which would seem to be the case) then we will likely continue in this
silly exercise. If, however our goal is to reach some level of sanctified maturity for ourselves as well as those to whom we witness and the Lords calls to repentance, it would seem that we need to think on, strive for and produce both conversation and material of a serious nature.
For what it's worth, especially for those of you that are still rearing young children, high expectations along with serious reading and conversation can produce rich rewards in the spiritual arena. By God's grace we have seen our children far surpass us in terms of maturity and thoughtfulness at comparable ages and now see the beginning of another generation doing better still.
Can we say as did Joshua of old, "...As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24:15

Nadab and Abihu were silly fellows then. Then again, they didn't work in the admissions office (marketing wing?) of a Fundamentalist college, so perhaps there is no correlation other than the one in my fevered imagination. I certainly wouldn't call Maranatha a tabernacle.

However, Chris Anderson (and all others observing this exchange), how much sitcom-aping levity (perhaps my wording reveals my bias) do you think is too much for an institution of higher learning devoted to "the praise of His glory" and NCAA Division 3 sports? You must have a line somewhere, informed by something. At some point, you would say "that's too far."

diss:

Regarding comment #32, is that video a graphic portrayal of post-millennialism? They used to frown on that from what I'm told.

I would be disinclined to look for theological meanings in Northland International University's promotional materials.

Are you inclined to look for other kinds of meanings in whoever they are today's promotional materials?

Oh, absotively posilutely! Beyond making me look like a 9 year-old girl, the venerated laws of punctuation forbid my using twenty exclamation points.

We had a professor who told us “everything you do is a picture of yourself”. It’s true. One of the reasons we study rhetoric is not just to know how to do the good but how to avoid the unintentional bad. Poor speakers don’t know why their words are ineffective.

These people are giving us important information; they just don’t know what it is.

Take a look at their 15 explanatory videos (http://www.ni.edu/about/news/) and ask yourself what sort of thought went into making this series of dull-as-a-marble Q&A exchanges. (Wherein a moderator reads off canned questions from a laptop and five suits give corporate press-conference responses.)

Are fixed movie cameras nailed to the wall the best way to convey information dispensed like Pez from five petrified spokesblokes? Here are some people telling us that Northland is a forward-looking, globally-oriented, technology-savvy organization.

Is this the impression their videos convey? What sort of audience will find that persuasive?

*sheepishly*

I thought it was just self-aggrandizement of the worst stripe packaged in the best wrapper people who live in a Baptist Bible Bubble could afford. You're right, there is a lesson in these videos.

This is certainly a different marketing strategy from that of Maranatha, but it would take a lot of Kool-Aid consumption to ease all those vapid slogans past an even remotely alert mind. Plus they're all radiating discomfort, probably amplified by the format.

Exactly.

This is what corporate types look like right after they've been indicted.

Regarding the Maranatha component of this discussion, my concern is not so much about the fact that the school used pop culture as a vehicle for self promotion. It's a valid concern. It's the fruit of a culture shaped over decades. What else should we expect?

Personally, what I find more indefensible and distasteful is the attitude that adopts this approach, all the while claiming to possess insight into the uniquely precarious influence of Calvinistic, Reformed thought. But then, perhaps that sort of attitude is also is the fruit of a culture shaped over decades. What else should we expect?