Maranatha's clever "I'm Gunna Apply" video

Tags 

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since 5/3/10 10:36:03
814 posts
That is not a matter of

That is not a matter of dispute in this thread.

Offline
Since 3/7/11 11:58:55
330 posts
which parts were humorous and made you laugh?

Is this video like one of those inside jokes or "you had to be there" to appreciate the humor type of thing? Maybe I missed the humor and didn't laugh at the video simply because I don't know any of the people in it.

So, what parts are funny? Is it the men in suits imitating The Village People? Is it the jobless/homeless looking guy with the handmade cardboard sign? (BTW, if you've ever seen a person standing on a street corner holding a "work wanted" sign, it's not funny. Being without a job and/or a home isn't laughable -- at least not where I live.)

I've got no beef against Maranatha. I have no doubt that many of their graduates are faithfully serving the Lord and that many of their current students and employees genuinely love and serve the Lord. But, I don't "get" the video. That's all. And, just telling me that it's "funny, light-hearted, or clever" doesn't help me "get" it either. I guess I'm not their target audience.

Offline
Since 6/2/09 08:15:17
1035 posts
Incomprehensible

Sometimes I really don't understand SI, particularly why certain topics generate the attention they do, and why others do not.

My Blog: www.sacredpage.wordpress.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Jim's picture
Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:47:03
6856 posts
Answered

Charlie wrote:
Sometimes I really don't understand SI, particularly why certain topics generate the attention they do, and why others do not.

A quirk of Fundamentalism is that it excites passion over the fringes of what is really important

Offline
Since 6/16/09 22:06:11
94 posts
Like Ships Passing in the Night

We are not connecting.

No one is arguing that fun and humor are inherently wrong, so the multiple posts generally defending, even lauding, fun and humor are missing the point. Similarly, references to professors with senses of humor who do not take themselves too seriously are missing the point. How is this not a straw man?

Pastor Joe Roof wrote:
Quote:
A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.
- Proverbs 17:22
It's o.k. to have some humor and some laughing.

Is this humor and laughing what the Scriptures, and especially this Scripture, mean by joy? Don't we need to interpret before we apply? And unless we are prepared to argue that all humor and laughing is acceptable and appropriate--and I will credit everyone here with recognizing that as utter nonsense--then we need to distinguish between what is acceptable and appropriate and what is not. How does this Scripture reference help us do so? How is this not dangerous hermeneutics?

Greg Long wrote:
JG wrote:
The appeal was all wrong. And even my son could see it, but most of SI apparently couldn't (though they are supposedly older and wiser).

Sorry for not seeing what "even your son" could see. Sorry for not being wiser.

If this were the only promotional material available and the only method of appeal MBBC has made, I could see your point. But it is not, and so I do not.


But, Greg, in thinking this you have implicitly presumed that this method of appeal is inherently acceptable, which is a key issue here. You seem to have left no room for the possibility of inherent problems with the methodology. Rather, you seem have room for a problem only if the methodology is overused.

SamH wrote:
But, what of: God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, slavehood, Lordship, grace, faith, the “Commission,” sunathleo, agonizomai,, to live is Christ, to die is gain—what of “the Faith?”

It is missing.


Indeed, Sam. In that vein the contrast between the sentiment of this video and of the institution's http://www.mbbc.edu/about/mission ]mission statement is striking.

Things That Matter

As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
Brent Marshall wrote: We are

Brent Marshall wrote:
We are not connecting.

No one is arguing that fun and humor are inherently wrong, so the multiple posts generally defending, even lauding, fun and humor are missing the point. Similarly, references to professors with senses of humor who do not take themselves too seriously are missing the point. How is this not a straw man?

Pastor Joe Roof wrote:
Quote:
A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.
- Proverbs 17:22
It's o.k. to have some humor and some laughing.

Is this humor and laughing what the Scriptures, and especially this Scripture, mean by joy? Don't we need to interpret before we apply? And unless we are prepared to argue that all humor and laughing is acceptable and appropriate--and I will credit everyone here with recognizing that as utter nonsense--then we need to distinguish between what is acceptable and appropriate and what is not. How does this Scripture reference help us do so? How is this not dangerous hermeneutics?

Greg Long wrote:
JG wrote:
The appeal was all wrong. And even my son could see it, but most of SI apparently couldn't (though they are supposedly older and wiser).

Sorry for not seeing what "even your son" could see. Sorry for not being wiser.

If this were the only promotional material available and the only method of appeal MBBC has made, I could see your point. But it is not, and so I do not.


But, Greg, in thinking this you have implicitly presumed that this method of appeal is inherently acceptable, which is a key issue here. You seem to have left no room for the possibility of inherent problems with the methodology. Rather, you seem have room for a problem only if the methodology is overused.
No, I always leave room for inherent problems with methodology. I just don't think there are inherent problems with people singing and acting out a fun song about college life on a video.

I traveled for two summers on a "Summer Ministry Team" for Faith Baptist Bible College. We ministered at camps and sang in churches. Most of our ministry in churches involved singing and preaching. At camps we sang, preached, and counseled. But you know what? We also did some fun skits. I even wrote a skit for us called "A Day in the Life of a College Student." It was pure fun (although it did talk about sitting in class, sitting in chapel, etc.). Sometimes teens want to see that they can go to a Christian college (especially a conversative one like Faith) and actually have fun. Sometimes we even did that skit (shhh...don't tell anyone!) for teens at a church, say in a Sunday School class. We also did some skits/dramas during church services that were more spiritually focused but did include some humor.

Now, I'm certainly not one who sees drama playing a central role (get it?) in church worship. Preaching must always be central. The skits that we did were like 5-10% of our total ministry; the vast majority of it was singing and preaching.

So maybe I see this video in the context of my background on summer ministry teams.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Joel Shaffer's picture
Offline
Since 6/16/09 18:46:01
408 posts
Quote:So, what parts are

Quote:
So, what parts are funny? Is it the men in suits imitating The Village People? Is it the jobless/homeless looking guy with the handmade cardboard sign? (BTW, if you've ever seen a person standing on a street corner holding a "work wanted" sign, it's not funny. Being without a job and/or a home isn't laughable -- at least not where I live.)

I actually liked it and saw these parts as funny. I've ministered in the inner-city among the poor for 20 years and so from time to time I actually deal with folks that hold a jobless/homeless sign on a street corner, most of which have addictions. I spend alot of time trying to educate "guilty-feeling" Christians from giving to panhandlers because they are doing more harm than good. Here is my mentor and former boss speaking about giving to panhandlers. http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/grand_rapids/Tack-ArtPrize-draws-pa...

Back to the topic.... Even though I am quite sensitive to the plight of the poor and homeless and it can be a life and death situation, I really had no problem with the video making light of the situation that had nothing to do with people that are the real homeless and hungry. It lightheartedly exaggerated the point that those who come out of a fundy institution with a degree that is not accredited are going to struggle with getting a job in their field of study (unless you are a pastor or Christian school teacher at an IFB church or school) In truth, I have had several friends who felt led to a fundy college that was not accredited and they came out with a degree that was useless in the real world. They had spent several thousands of $ on it and then realized they were hoodwinked.

As for being sober-minded and serious about our faith and the gospel (which I believe is very important), this does not cause me to wonder if they lack these qualities at MBBC, especially if it as Greg mentions, as only one aspect of their marketing and who they are. In fact, I would not be able to send my kids to a college or to a church that takes itself too seriously where they feel they couldn't risk doing a video like this. Laughter is very much a big part of our family because we constantly have to deal with serious issues in relationship with my ministry. I constantly have to deal with issues of gang violence that often leads to death, teen pregnancies and STD's, single-moms that lose their jobs-and are constantly one step away from becoming homeless, drug and alcohol addicted parents, and the list goes on and on. If at times we were not able to laugh through a few of these serious things, we would always be crying about them. One of my favorite comics Bob Newhart once said "Laughter gives us distance. It allows us to step back from an event, deal with it, and move on."

In fact, this video broke some stereotypes for me. My Michigan/Indiana GARBC fundy background is not as culturally conservative as others within fundamentalism so I had some biases against a school like MBBC thinking it was too conservative. However, the music was very well done, they can wear real, but modest clothes, they don't cut corners on the food (Steak on Fridays), they are accredited, they aren't afraid to take a cultural risk.... in the eyes of some fundamentalists at least (as long as it does not violate scripture) and even face unwarranted criticism.

Of course, if my kids or if any of my inner-city students were to take an interest in MBBC, we would visit the campus to meet the professors and sit in on their classes, we would connect with other students and observe the atmosphere on campus. I think we'd get a good idea if the faculty and students are also sober-minded and serious about Jesus and the gospel. But from the video, we'd know that they are image-bearers of God and because of that they can have a little fun and laugh.

_____________________________

http://www.utmgr.org/blog_index.html

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since 5/3/10 10:36:03
814 posts
Someone I consider wise and

Someone I consider wise and who has had a very large impact on me regarding things of this nature once said something I will never forget.

Quote:
Silly people are silly about even those things they think they take seriously.

This does not mean there is never a time for a joke or humor. To so assert is to build a straw man. It implies the legitimate question of how affect is developed, how sensibilities are educated, both of which are rarely given much thought by evangelicals/fundamentalists.

Just because objections are not on our radar screens or our personal experience biases us toward acceptance of a given action does not mean we ought to let it go unexamined, or summarily dismiss those who would ask us to examine it.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Offline
Since 6/4/09 13:10:12
1726 posts
DavidO wrote: Quote: Silly

DavidO wrote:
Quote:
Silly people are silly about even those things they think they take seriously.

This does not mean there is never a time for a joke or humor.

David,

You contradict yourself here. How do you determine which time this is - the one that's ok or the one that's not ok?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Offline
Since 12/13/10 22:14:21
94 posts
Well,

Guys, I’m bettered by essential real, intelligent natural genius.

Piled high, it’s like, I see their intelligence now easily, so…

Unless nothing's clarified, look elsewhere...

SamH

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since 5/3/10 10:36:03
814 posts
Chip Van Emmerik wrote:You

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
You contradict yourself here. How do you determine which time this is - the one that's ok or the one that's not ok?

For starters, I wouldn't say I've made much of an express judgement about the video itself here.

As for discerning whether this is the way one would want to communicate really good reasons to go to a place where you will receive a serious, theological education, though, look at the reactions it received (which were likely anticipated).

-I think it's cool
-this is serious?
-what you get when you cross Glee with Walmart
-Sounds like something from Oklahoma! or Music Man
-it's...like "Broadway meets Walmart"...
-Aww it was cute and catchy ..
-I give it a 90 .. fun to listen to .. but you shouldn't dance to it.. (a reference to the cliched American Bandstand new song reaction)
-why the wide and long shot of the puppeteer in the last "marching up the street" scene show him with the Wierd Al Yankovic wig (actual hair?)

and from elswhere:

-This was pretty awesome for a fundyU promo video. Cute, talented, and (relatively) cool guys? I’d so apply.
-I was talking with a friend about this and he pointed out that the current generation of teens are growing up with High School Musical and Glee and suchlike. Somebody there has a pretty keen sense of that ethos — in fact, it’s almost too good. Somebody has been watching modern TV and movies.
-Glee was actually my first association!
-Funny to see Dr. Oats’ mug in a “Glee”-style video.
-Has anyone checked the graves of Dr. and Mrs. Cedarholm which are on the front lawn of the campus? The ground must have heaved from the two rolling over in their graves.

I don't think its entirely fair to hold whoever made and approved the video responsible for every last reaction. However, the form in which they placed their "message" certainly had an impact on how that message was viewed.

Was this the time and subject about which to be silly?

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Offline
Since 6/4/09 13:10:12
1726 posts
David, If it's ok to be silly

David,

If it's ok to be silly sometimes, I'm having a hard time understanding why this couldn't be one of those times. It's a video about registration. It's certainly not the only enrollment tool they use; there's even an ad here on SI. Nothing silly about that one.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Rob Fall's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 22:22:22
899 posts
Concur

Concur.

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
David,

If it's ok to be silly sometimes, I'm having a hard time understanding why this couldn't be one of those times. It's a video about registration. It's certainly not the only enrollment tool they use; there's even an ad here on SI. Nothing silly about that one.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since 5/3/10 10:36:03
814 posts
fair enough

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
If it's ok to be silly sometimes, I'm having a hard time understanding why this couldn't be one of those times. It's a video about registration.

I'm having a hard time understanding what the puppet-wielding longhair in the phalanx of Sharks and Jets or the chorus line of seminary profs has to do with registration. Might be a failure of taste on my part, though.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since 6/1/09 19:00:00
7433 posts
LOL

Charlie wrote:
Sometimes I really don't understand SI, particularly why certain topics generate the attention they do, and why others do not.

I have plenty of days like that, too.

In this case, the thread is very similar to lots of previous ones on the topics of CCM and consuming alcohol. Easier to see the pattern w/the CCM debates.
1) Topic involves many highly subjective factors
2) Topic presents many opportunities for disagreement
3) Because of the highly subjective/personal taste element, a high percentage of comments carry a lot of personal emotional investment & sensitivity (people often feel more loyal to their feelings than they do to their ideas, oddly enough)
4) Topic is difficult to analyze (for all the reasons above)
5) Fear and anger are not far from the surface because topic involves change
6) Because of #1, #3 etc., there's a huge personality element and people are often not aware of how their personality shapes their "analysis" of things (in this case, you have your very somber, duty-focused personalities clashing with more sangiune, joy-focused personalities... One is not better than the other. We need both. But it's important for people to recognize how their "default outlook" shapes their view of things and to understand that their personality is not the ultimate standard of righteousness to which all must conform.)

Surely we all know that...
a. The Christian life involves serious responsibilities (1Cor.4.2) and is a call to battle (Matt.10.34, Eph.6:12) --and that prep for ministry is hard work (2Tim. 1.6, 2.15)
b. The Christian life involves enjoying the pure pleasures God has given us in abundance (1Tim.6.17, Neh.8.10, Phil.4.4)

There have been a few solid points in the thread...
One is that a single video can't reasonably be interpreted as defining "the" emphasis/character of a school. Certainly it "says something about them," but that's not much of a claim (the socks I'm wearing say "something" about me). "Something" is clearly not "everything."

OK, sorry for the long, sort of pedantic lecture. It's just interesting to me how folks (including myself) forget things they have long known once they get a bit riled up.

Offline
Since 3/7/11 11:58:55
330 posts
now that's funny

Quote:
OK, sorry for the long, sort of pedantic lecture

Labeling your own lecture as pedantic -- that's funny. :bigsmile:

It probably wasn't your intent to revive this thread with your lecture, but the topic has been an interesting one to observe. However, it's most likely a precarious talking point seeing as the sponsor of the video is one of the main advertisers on this site.

Indeed the video was a marketing/advertising tactic aimed at increasing applications. Advertising tactics make for interesting discussion as is happening elsewhere on this website regarding the propriety of homeless wi-fi hot spots. Just this week in the Wall Street Journal there was an article about the crazy things companies do to attract attention and hopefully customers/revenue. That article even mentioned the initial flak about the homeless wi-fi endeavor. The article was titled "Product Doesn't Speak for Itself? Hit the Street in a Clown Suit."

The conservative/Bible college market is a competitive one and those colleges can't exist without students. Tuition is not a "drop in the bucket" either, so potential students and their families are likely to closely scrutinize their options. People realize that only one thing from a college (such as a video, particular faculty member, article, etc.) does not in and of itself totally define that college. As in the sock analogy: the socks you put on today say something, but not everything about you. However, I'm guessing you did not put on those socks today in order to draw attention to yourself, attract more readers or advertisers to your blog, or increase attendance at your church. If you had done it for any of those reasons, we'd probably be discussing you right now. Smile

The video that has been discussed was published in order to attract attention. And it succeeded -- at least on this website. Unfortunately, in marketing tactics, companies can't know ahead of time what type of attention they will attract. They hope that the positive responses will outnumber the negative ones, but you never know for sure until it's out there. I found it interesting to see the arguments pro and con regarding the video. And, yes, those arguments tell "something" but not "everything" about those people. I'm not so sure at this point that it was enough to make this out to be a somber vs. sanguine "clashing" of "personalities." Some of those who took a more somber approach probably have very good senses of humor, and some of those who demonstrated a more sanguine tone likely have numerous somber moments in their lives.

OK, I'm done. Was my post pedantic, too? H:)

Offline
Since 12/13/10 22:14:21
94 posts
So

far, here are some of the arguments and rebuttals to the critics (there are others, and some of those are worth hearing and engaging):

1. One said: "Personally - I can see the article coming out on several blogs condeming[sic ] the influence of Broadway on MBBC" [BTW, I'll stop with the sics, they make me sic- umm...tired. The spelling errors from this point are not my own, but original to their authors. ]

2. One said: "Um ... have you recently checked out the typical Fundy youth group?" Did this mean, "if we are making comparisons as to the value of this video, let's compare it to the other (possibly) non-sober, non-serious church activities condoned by most fundies--so, lighten up?"

3. One said: "It was a fun video and there is room for ministries to have fun, believe it or not. And, there is room for people to laugh with the them. Too make a judgement that a school's standards are slipping because they produce one clean and humorous is video hyper-judgemental." [PAUSE..let the irony soak in--rich, deep and full...Hint: "only the Sith think in absolutes"... Ok, continue ]

4. One said: "It's o.k. to have some humor and some laughing." (Even though many of the critics of the video said they concurred with that notion.)

5. One said: "A quirk of Fundamentalism is that it excites passion over the fringes of what is really important" in reply to "Sometimes I really don't understand SI, particularly why certain topics generate the attention they do, and why others do not."

6.In regard to those who took issue with the video, or who at least thought one might consider taking issue with the video, one implied the following: (or were these statements made about those who saw it as "fun", etc.?)--that such ones often operate from "personal emotional investment," are "more loyal to their feelings than ... their ideas," are motivated by "fear and anger" in the face of "change", and are lacking in seeing and understanding that "their personality is not the ultimate standard of righteousness".

Some video critics made pronouncements, some asked questions--and above are the responses--there are other, but I selected these for a reason.

The Take Home Idea?
That critics, (some? all? hard to always tell from the responses) in this thread (or preemptively in other blogs!), by direct statement or implication need the following declared to them:

1. The video critics are "condeming" due to: force of habit? or a result of too much ______________? or too little________________? or____? [implied: whatever their motivation, critics would be wrong out-of-the-gate for condemning ] This is a great rhetorical device (although cheap and fallacious), but it works--a method many Fundy preachers have used for years--a method which I had thought was derided here...

2. The video critics are unaware that since other ministries engage in frivolity and fun as a major part of their ministry, then MBBC is excused from examination, critique, or something; or that specific critic's notions are without value. So the "Fundy youth group" reference would likely be perceived as "your argument against the video on frivolity and other bases lacks value because "Fundy youth groups embody exactly what you accuse MBBC of doing?" What if it's wrong or sinful for "typical Fundy youth groups" to major on "fun" to the exclusion of other needful things? Or did I exegete this wrongly?

3. The video critics are unable to comprehend and thus believe that Christians can have fun. Critics who examine this video in light of any possibility of the movement of MBBC's standards are "hyper-judgmental." I'm sure they read that and thought: "great, what a delightful opening for further discussion, dialogue, and dare I say, meaningful argumentation! I shall imbibe of this rich nectar of Christian discussion with relish and ardor! Game on my brother!" [sarcasm alert ] If the one making the "hyper-judgmental" statement responded this way because they thought the video critics were wrong in their approach--well, two wrongs don't end the argument.

4. See three (3).

5. The video critics are engaged in what are clearly the "quirks" of F'ism--with concerns/questions related to "fringes" over against that which is "really important." This remark by its content and the content of the remark that generated it, (see five (5) above) is directed at all critics at this point--unless otherwise fine tuned somewhere. So, whether by pronouncement or question, the critics are thus broad-brushed--quirky and fringy. There you have it.

6. Last, the video critics are in need of a lecture (which six (6) summarizes), including re-education and/or illumination (unable to see and understand their plight), needing to respond from logic, not feelings or "personal emotional investment", among other things. Personally, it read like the POTUS's SOTU addresses. And not a little condescending. Near and outright fallacy--petitio principii, loaded language, false dilemma...

Having written all of this, I say and write stupid things--especially on the Internet--go ahead search my name on this site--it's humbling and not a little embarrassing. I wrote some ambiguous statements at the beginning to see where the flow would go, and perhaps I should not have done it. Some may consider my statements or even my questions to be dismissive of MBBC. They are meant to criticize them, their ideas and output, but they are not the result of some cursory examination of this one video. (And I understand that those on the "pro" or "neutral" end of things--if neutral is possible--are not coming to it without some thought. But, some of them, in positions of regency here, treated those who were critical of the video as if they were______________, [read the comments and fill in the blank. ] Too, it is very likely I engaged in fallacious logic in typing this dumb little missive--so, tell me, or dismiss me, or... I cannot speak to what motivated the other critics to write what they did. But, I attempt to use the following remarks from a brilliant, godly man to temper my thoughts--especially on matters of media, culture, and methodology. (Waiver: I do not for a second assume he would be a stalwart with me in my arguments here--but I have tried to learn from him.) Listen if you like:

Three lectures: http://seminary.wcts1030.com/resources/mp3-audio?start=10 especially: "How We Lost Our Good Name"--re: the law of unintended consequences,etc.

Three lectures: http://www.ibfna.org/IBFNA/2007_conference.htm

SamH

Offline
Since 6/4/09 09:00:14
303 posts
I wish I'd thought of this sooner

We'd have a bigger church if I had. We'll put together a video just like this to get people to join our church. Wait. "Apply" doesn't work with a church. You don't apply, you get baptized and join. Ah, I've got it:

"I'm gunna get dunked!" Blum 3

That should do. Fun, cool, cute, energetic, catchy. We can show people diving in the baptistry, hurdling over pews, etc. Appeals to the things people can relate to, the things you want to appeal to when trying to fill up the place. Not appealing to anything WRONG, after all. Of course it will be clean, no offensive music -- we're conservative, after all.

How many others think this would make a good church video? Seems ideal. It won't be our only video, of course.

Offline
Since 12/13/10 22:14:21
94 posts
Wish I had Seen it More This Way...

Brenda T wrote:

The conservative/Bible college market is a competitive one and those colleges can't exist without students. Tuition is not a "drop in the bucket" either, so potential students and their families are likely to closely scrutinize their options. People realize that only one thing from a college (such as a video, particular faculty member, article, etc.) does not in and of itself totally define that college. As in the sock analogy: the socks you put on today say something, but not everything about you. However, I'm guessing you did not put on those socks today in order to draw attention to yourself, attract more readers or advertisers to your blog, or increase attendance at your church. If you had done it for any of those reasons, we'd probably be discussing you right now. Smile

SamH

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
JG wrote: We'd have a bigger

JG wrote:
We'd have a bigger church if I had. We'll put together a video just like this to get people to join our church. Wait. "Apply" doesn't work with a church. You don't apply, you get baptized and join. Ah, I've got it:

"I'm gunna get dunked!" Blum 3

That should do. Fun, cool, cute, energetic, catchy. We can show people diving in the baptistry, hurdling over pews, etc. Appeals to the things people can relate to, the things you want to appeal to when trying to fill up the place. Not appealing to anything WRONG, after all. Of course it will be clean, no offensive music -- we're conservative, after all.

How many others think this would make a good church video? Seems ideal. It won't be our only video, of course.


Yes, and if you were charging thousands of dollars in fees to join your church and marketing to young people who would be leaving home and living at your church to study for four years in order to prepare for a career in order to support their families, it would be exactly the same!

I'm just curious, JG, did you go to college? Did you stay in a dorm?

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Offline
Since 6/4/09 09:00:14
303 posts
Sure, I went to college

Six years in dorms (I changed major from physics / chemistry to Bible half way through, so it took a long time). I never had any fun, though. I led a "military coup" (armed with water pistols) on the Student Union building to overthrow a "dictatorial" student government (made the front page of the student newspaper). Stole my friend's Lincoln, it stalled so I had campus police help me get it started again, and went and parked it in the center of the soccer field. Did a few other things, too. But I was always deadly serious about it all.

It's not about not having fun. We have fun at church, too. A lot of it -- in fact, probably too much sometimes.

So if fun is ok at church as well as at school, why would this not be ok for a church, Greg? Presuming, that is, that it is a school that wants to be known as a ministry, and wants to convince churches to support it and send their students there because it has the same spiritual motivations and Biblical principles as the church....

Of course, if it doesn't want to be known that way, if it merely wants to be an institution of higher learning with Bible as an educational option and with basic morality enforced, then this is great. It all depends on what the school wants to be, I guess.

But I always thought Maranatha wanted to be the former, not the latter.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
JG wrote: Six years in dorms

JG wrote:
Six years in dorms (I changed major from physics / chemistry to Bible half way through, so it took a long time). I never had any fun, though. I led a "military coup" (armed with water pistols) on the Student Union building to overthrow a "dictatorial" student government (made the front page of the student newspaper). Stole my friend's Lincoln, it stalled so I had campus police help me get it started again, and went and parked it in the center of the soccer field. Did a few other things, too. But I was always deadly serious about it all.

It's not about not having fun. We have fun at church, too. A lot of it -- in fact, probably too much sometimes.

So if fun is ok at church as well as at school, why would this not be ok for a church, Greg? Presuming, that is, that it is a school that wants to be known as a ministry, and wants to convince churches to support it and send their students there because it has the same spiritual motivations and Biblical principles as the church....

Of course, if it doesn't want to be known that way, if it merely wants to be an institution of higher learning with Bible as an educational option and with basic morality enforced, then this is great. It all depends on what the school wants to be, I guess.

But I always thought Maranatha wanted to be the former, not the latter.

So this video conclusively proves MBBC is the latter? Wow. I guess we're just miles apart on this one.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Offline
Since 6/4/09 09:00:14
303 posts
frustrating

When you build a straw man, it does tend to move people miles apart. It is also frustrating. I didn't say it "conclusively proves" the school has changed its ethos. But it only takes a sentence to straw-man, and you have to then answer in detail, and someone else will pick at something else. But I'll answer anyway:

Excerpt from http://www.mbbc.edu/about/mission ]Mission statement :

Quote:
The mission of Maranatha Baptist Bible College is to develop leaders for ministry in the local church and the world “To the Praise of His Glory.”

I won't copy the whole thing. If anyone cares to understand my concerns, they can click through and read it. It's pretty solid stuff.

List of things the video gives as reasons for applying, as compiled by SamH above (if I remember correctly, this list is not complete but fairly representative):

Quote:
I seem to recall the following proffered as incentive for attending MBBC: “I’m the type of guy who likes success”(to be the Big Cheese as the desk sign said); “I wanna get a real degree”; “all of the new classes I’ll take”; “all the new friends I’ll make”; “while eating my Friday-night-steak”; “not to feel that I’ve been robbed, ‘cuz when I’m done I’ll get a real job”(and not be homeless by videographical inference); “and I’ll feel so satisfied”; and “maybe you’ll find that one to marry.”

These things are not in the mission statement they claim characterises their ministry.

Quote:
But, what of: God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, slavehood, Lordship, grace, faith, the “Commission,” sunathleo, agonizomai,, to live is Christ, to die is gain—what of “the Faith?”

These things are in their mission statement, and are not in the video.

Someone in a key position at MBBC made a decision to release a video with an ethos significantly different from their mission statement. If you can't see the difference in ethos between the mission statement and the video, then we are indeed miles apart. If you can see the difference in ethos and think it doesn't matter, then we maybe aren't so far apart, but we aren't on the same page. But if you can see the difference, then perhaps dismissive comments about those who express concerns are out of line.

Usually decline begins not with great extreme error, but with small deviations from the stated ministry ethos. When we see those small deviations, that does not "conclusively prove" that the school has gone off the rails. It does raise concerns.

I won't even read this thread anymore unless someone contacts me and asks me something about it. I've expressed my concerns well enough that anyone should be able to understand them, it really doesn't matter that much to my life or my ministry if anyone agrees with them, and I have stuff that is a lot more pressing.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
Agreement

JG wrote:
Someone in a key position at MBBC made a decision to release a video with an ethos significantly different from their mission statement. If you can't see the difference in ethos between the mission statement and the video, then we are indeed miles apart. If you can see the difference in ethos and think it doesn't matter, then we maybe aren't so far apart, but we aren't on the same page. But if you can see the difference, then perhaps dismissive comments about those who express concerns are out of line.
Speaking of dismissive comments, you're the one who said "even your son" could see the problem with the video and who expressed surprise that the rest of us here on SI weren't wise enough to see it your way.

Quote:
I won't even read this thread anymore unless someone contacts me and asks me something about it. I've expressed my concerns well enough that anyone should be able to understand them, it really doesn't matter that much to my life or my ministry if anyone agrees with them, and I have stuff that is a lot more pressing.
On that we can agree.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Offline
Since 6/4/09 13:10:12
1726 posts
I'm curious. When you preach

I'm curious. When you preach JG, do you cover everything you believe in each sermon you present?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Offline
Since 5/6/09 22:36:48
782 posts
And now Davod Cloud has

And now Davod Cloud has declared that Maranatha is "doomed" because of this video.

The only thing I see as "doomed" for the moment is the future of exercising humor in fundamentalism. :cry:

Here is th mentality that exists and even thrives in Fundamentalism - "Maranatha put out this video. They are gone brother." Most people see this mentality and scratch their heads at such over-reactions. And then we wonder why the young ones leave in droves?

Offline
Since 6/2/09 08:08:04
884 posts
I was reminded of this.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Joel Shaffer's picture
Offline
Since 6/16/09 18:46:01
408 posts
Quote: Usually decline begins

Quote:
Usually decline begins not with great extreme error, but with small deviations from the stated ministry ethos. When we see those small deviations, that does not "conclusively prove" that the school has gone off the rails. It does raise concerns.

Ah, of course eventually the slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head.........

Offline
Since 6/16/09 22:06:11
94 posts
Distractions

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
I'm curious. When you preach JG, do you cover everything you believe in each sermon you present?

I am not JG, but covering everything one believes in one sermon is obviously impossible, so how does this contribute to the discussion?

Joel Shaffer wrote:
Quote:
Usually decline begins not with great extreme error, but with small deviations from the stated ministry ethos. When we see those small deviations, that does not "conclusively prove" that the school has gone off the rails. It does raise concerns.

Ah, of course eventually the slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head.........


Ah, but JG is not making a slippery slope argument.

JG wrote:
Someone in a key position at MBBC made a decision to release a video with an ethos significantly different from their mission statement. If you can't see the difference in ethos between the mission statement and the video, then we are indeed miles apart. If you can see the difference in ethos and think it doesn't matter, then we maybe aren't so far apart, but we aren't on the same page. But if you can see the difference, then perhaps dismissive comments about those who express concerns are out of line.
This is well put. Many viewers seem not to be getting past the surface fun/humor to the deeper ethos, however.

Things That Matter

As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton

Offline
Since 12/13/10 22:14:21
94 posts
I hope there are not just crickets on this, but here goes...

Let's agree for the moment that this video is not an indication that something undesirable is going on with the philosophy and practice of this school.

What precisely would be a bellwether of wrongheaded or even sinful change?

What in terms of the issue of worldliness, taste, or any other sign of sin would make you pause and wonder about the leadership and direction at a school?

I have not gone with the "slippery slope" thing at this point. (I already hold my own estimation of their place in relation to any kind of "slope" or a position on a spectrum.)

Delnay addresses this kind of thing in the lectures I posted above. How can we hope to avoid disastrous results in trying to consider "the law of unintended consequences" to use his language?

Maybe there will just be crickets. But, I do think this question should be answered with care.

SamH

Offline
Since 5/6/09 22:36:48
782 posts
In answer to Sam H... 1. Was

In answer to Sam H...

1. Was there anything in the video that was disobedience to God? I do not believe there was.
2. Is this the only kind of video the school puts out? No. It is a simple attempt at having some fun. God allows for that.
3. Is putting out a fun video a sign that a ministry is drifting from God? Unfortunately, in current day fundamentalism, it is, and this is sad. It has not always been so. While I do not believe they produced a video - back in the old days, the kids at BJU sang about Big Juicy Collard Greens when it was Bob Jones College. They did not drift off into apostasy. Unfortunately, in fundamentalism, there is always an "assume the worst mentality" that erupts. Everything somebody does is a major crisis. It's overkill. It's wrong from my viewpoint.

I believe there is plenty of Scripture that would remind me not to think ill of Marantha for putting out this video. I also believe that Scritpure would caution me about assuming the worst of that ministry over putting out a harmless, funny video.

One of the most bothersome things for me in the people writing that the kids in this video are acting like punks. And we wonder why we are losing young people in fundamentalism? Get to know the youth of today and you will begin to understand that there is nothing punky in this video about those young men. While I do not know any of these young men personally, I do know some of the young men at Maranatha, and there seems to be a maturity there that was not present when I was in college. Most of the kids going to a place like Maranatha are going against the grain so to speak and are attending a college like this to prepare to go do something for God. Why would any of them want to graduate and serve God in a movement that calls them punks for having fund with a video?

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since 6/1/09 19:00:00
7433 posts
Church vs. college etc.

One argument above seems to go along the lines of "if you wouldn't do it as part of your church's efforts, you shouldn't do it as part of a college effort"
This is an interesting premise but why would that be true?

On another note, it's true that MBBC advertises here, but FWIW, they've never communicated with me at all other than swapping info related to the ads... which happens once or twice a year.
A stronger factor in my bias (and we all have a bias) is probably that I have an uncle who works there. But nobody connected w/MBBC has ever pressured us one way or another on anything at SI. (People from several other institutions have, but usually not in a self-interested way. They have occasionally felt that we were misstepping in one way or other that caused confusion or hurt ourselves. I'm sure they've been right about that a few times, too.)

About the slippery slope fallacy idea...

It's only a fallacy when the analogy is poor. That is, there really are such things as slippery slopes. But it isn't valid to look at a single data point and project a decline. It isn't even valid to look at two data points, compare the trajectory to an arbitrary standard and declare that a slide is in progress.
To make the "slippery slope" argument valid you need two things:
(a) Enough data to project a course/trajectory
(b) A well supported standard to compare the trajectory to
If either one is lacking, it's slippery slope fallacy.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since 6/1/09 19:00:00
7433 posts
What's probably really happening...

FWIW, here's my guess at what's really going on:

  • Many fundamentalist institutions have been loosening up some for quite a while
  • Some (many?) are not, so we have increasing polarization
  • The main reason for the loosening up is that multiple generations now have been handed very weak cases against many items on the old no-no lists. (If I had a dime for every time a speaker who couldn't make his case said "Don't ask what's wrong with it; ask what's right with it"... )
  • Another strong reason is cross-pollination. Especially in educational institutions, faculty read and study more widely than in the past and this has resulted in the discovery that Those Other Guys are not monsters even though they differ from us on several points.

So changes have been in the wind for decades and some of them are showing up in somewhat intangible but surprising (to some) ways. It's really nothing more than that.
To me the burning question for fundamentalist institutions is this: Will we replace the inadequate ways of thinking about culture, entertainment, dress, language, etc. with better ones or will we replace them with mainstream evangelical sentimentalism/grace-distortions?
(I've met so many evangelicals who think like this:

  • Grace is the opposite of law.
  • Rules and standards are law.
  • Grace is Christian.
  • Therefore rules and standards are unChristian.

... this is as bad or worse than the kind of preaching against blue jeans I heard as a kid.)

Offline
Since 6/4/09 09:00:14
303 posts
Someone emailed and said I'd want to respond to two things

He was correct.

Greg Long wrote:
Speaking of dismissive comments, you're the one who said "even your son" could see the problem with the video and who expressed surprise that the rest of us here on SI weren't wise enough to see it your way.

You are correct, Greg. Though it wasn't the first "dismissive" comment by any means, it added little to the discussion, and would have been better left unsaid. Please forgive me.
Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
I'm curious. When you preach JG, do you cover everything you believe in each sermon you present?

Hi, Chip. I hope that the ethos of what I say when I preach is always consistent with the ethos of all I believe. I hope I don't ever have a sermon that majors on things not included in my doctrinal statement, and never suggest, even lightheartedly, reasons for following the Lord that are built on the world's values.

Finally, though this wasn't mentioned to me, I'll respond to it:
Slippery slope is only a fallacy if A) you "project a decline" as a certainty (which wasn't done here) AND B) there is no strong causal link between the step in question and the perceived end result of that step.

I expressed concern over deviation from the school's mission statement. Here's a theoretical example: what if it were deviation from Scripture? What if a school came out with a statement that "we now believe that the traditional evangelical understanding of inerrancy has to be reconsidered in light of recent scientific discoveries"? We would all (hopefully) immediately say, "That way lies great peril." We wouldn't need more than one data point to be concerned. We wouldn't necessarily say they are going to be completely apostate in three years, but we would be watching for what comes next. It wouldn't be a "slippery slope fallacy" to say that statement is cause for concern. NOTE: I say this NOT to draw equivalence between this video and deviating from inerrancy, but to illustrate that the "slippery slope fallacy" argument has real limitations.

There are really only three points of view here:
1. Those who think this is a deviation from the school's historical position / mission statement and think that is a concern. People with this point of view probably have vastly differing views as to exactly how concerned they are. David Cloud has one level of concern, apparently (haven't read him, won't). I have a much lower level of concern.
2. Those who think it is a deviation but consider it minor and of little consequence, and perhaps even a positive thing.
3. Those who think it isn't a deviation at all.

Perhaps there is a fourth category, those who just think it is fun and so don't care whether or not it is consistent with the school's mission statement. I doubt that applies to SI members generally, but it probably does apply to a non-negligible portion of the video's target audience. And that is one of the most disappointing parts about it, to me. But I won't elaborate on it, because I've got better things to do.

And now, I really will depart this thread.

Offline
Since 12/13/10 22:14:21
94 posts
Your anwers are not related to the questions I asked...

Everyone and every ministry is constantly in a state of drifting from God, and returning to proper (and hopefully) greater obedience to Him. It is conceit to think we are not drifting. That is the "old" fundy conceit, and clearly for some it is the "new"/"young" fundy conceit.

Using your points, I will try again for the answer for which I was looking.

1. What would that disobedience need to look like--in terms of cultural language, style, genre, musical content/form, if at anyone views these categories as being the type that could come under sinful influence?

2. We get that--no one on the "con" side has said this is the only media vehicle they drive. (Although from the vimeo site, in the "promotional" type, it is one of few. So, when would this "fun" be of concern to you? What would be the threshold? Could we have a genre or form with crotch-grabbing and the like from Lib U's vid, and that would be ok? (DO NOT address the crotch-grabbing directly! Please catch my nuance here, and don't miss the point.)

3. As far as I can see, I am not seeing anyone warning of "apostasy" at this point (to paint with that brush is similar to the case in political discussions, and watching to see how fast "Hitler" comes in the conversation. IOW, the use of "Apostasy" on one foil's part at this point could easily be interpreted as a Red Herring.) Apostasy is a long way off God-willing. But let us not be so conceited as to think that MBBC, BJU, or any other educ. institution could not end up apostate. It is always the threat. Doctrinally, Fuller was "fundamental"--but today, not so much--how long did that take? To say that, is not to think unbiblical, but to be cautious.

So, to keep your answers on point, I return to my question: "how many "fun" marketing/selling/recruitment videos would MBBC need to produce percentage-wise to raise a flag in someone's mind?

What is clear--in many (not all) of the "pro" minds, there is really very little room for concern about MBBC and this type of video. In fact for some of the "pro"s, anyquestioning of it, from any aspect has elicited (from some on the "pro" side): very poorly argued condemnations, out and out logically fallacious proclamations and comparisons, and an apparent lack of concern for MBBC direction. COOL! Maybe some here have more in common with those "old" fundamentalists than they knew!

Is critique or asking questions about an institution necessarily "thinking ill" of MBBC, and thus unscriptural. Again, if it rounds up to that, well then, how different is that from some of our forebears who allowed no critique, no questioning, no public statement of dissatisfaction?

Pastor Joe Roof wrote:
In answer to Sam H...

1. Was there anything in the video that was disobedience to God? I do not believe there was.
2. Is this the only kind of video the school puts out? No. It is a simple attempt at having some fun. God allows for that.
3. Is putting out a fun video a sign that a ministry is drifting from God? Unfortunately, in current day fundamentalism, it is, and this is sad. It has not always been so. While I do not believe they produced a video - back in the old days, the kids at BJU sang about Big Juicy Collard Greens when it was Bob Jones College. They did not drift off into apostasy. Unfortunately, in fundamentalism, there is always an "assume the worst mentality" that erupts. Everything somebody does is a major crisis. It's overkill. It's wrong from my viewpoint.

I believe there is plenty of Scripture that would remind me not to think ill of Marantha for putting out this video. I also believe that Scritpure would caution me about assuming the worst of that ministry over putting out a harmless, funny video.

One of the most bothersome things for me in the people writing that the kids in this video are acting like punks. And we wonder why we are losing young people in fundamentalism? Get to know the youth of today and you will begin to understand that there is nothing punky in this video about those young men. While I do not know any of these young men personally, I do know some of the young men at Maranatha, and there seems to be a maturity there that was not present when I was in college. Most of the kids going to a place like Maranatha are going against the grain so to speak and are attending a college like this to prepare to go do something for God. Why would any of them want to graduate and serve God in a movement that calls them punks for having fund with a video?

SamH

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
JG wrote: Greg Long

JG wrote:
Greg Long wrote:
Speaking of dismissive comments, you're the one who said "even your son" could see the problem with the video and who expressed surprise that the rest of us here on SI weren't wise enough to see it your way.

You are correct, Greg. Though it wasn't the first "dismissive" comment by any means, it added little to the discussion, and would have been better left unsaid. Please forgive me.
I didn't take it as a offensive against me personally, but I do accept your apology. And you are correct that my comment that we are miles apart was dismissive and for that I apologize.

I respect your desire to see schools stay true to their mission and to the Word of God.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Offline
Since 6/4/09 09:00:14
303 posts
Thanks, Greg

Lord bless.

Offline
Since 11/5/10 07:49:26
93 posts
An Old Problem?

Just because it seems like the horse is still being kicked, I was reminded of this tidbit from John Piper's http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/evangelist-bill-... ]bio of his father:

Quote:
Does it not seem like a strange incongruity—perhaps not a real one—that the most fundamentalistic, separatistic, worldliness-renouncing school in America, Bob Jones University, where my father graduated in 1942, should have as part of the commencement celebration in those days a performance of “As You Like It” (1939) and “Romeo and Juliet” (1940) both written by William Shakespeare, who in his own day ridiculed the Puritans, and whose Globe Theater was demolished by the Puritans in 1644? Isn’t it a strange irony how three centuries can turn worldliness into “a delightful comedy”—as the BJU program said in 1939?

DMD

Offline
Since 6/5/09 14:45:31
190 posts
amen

post #53!

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since 6/1/09 19:00:00
7433 posts
Wrong then or wrong now

About the Bard... were the Puritans wrong then or is BJU wrong now? "... that is the question."
I'm inclined to think the Puritans were wrong (at the least ones who went after the Globe... were they really unified on this point?), but on the other hand, given that performances of artistic creations happen in a particular cultural context, and given that these contexts change, is it impossible that the Puritans were right and also BJU is right?

To connect it to the OP, is it impossible that those who say the MBBC vid doesn't communicate the right impression of the school are right but those who say it should not be taken very seriously are also right? (Not really realted to my "changing contexts" angle though since this is all in one context)

Offline
Since 12/13/10 22:14:21
94 posts
Many of

the fundamentalists I have met over the years, who are MBBC alums, spoke of BJU and their arts-related output (plays, etc.) as somehow more worldly than what MBBC would ever produce. There is a consistency to the inconsistencies over the years. I am reminded of what Ben W wrote regarding accreditation http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/2011/12/voices-from-past-provocativ... here and http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/2011/12/voices-from-past-provocativ... here .

SamH

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since 5/3/10 10:36:03
814 posts
Quote: And then we wonder why

Quote:
And then we wonder why the young ones leave in droves?

Interesting. I know more than one person who has left fundamentalism because of pervasive silliness. I know at least one other who is thinking about it.

Quote:
Is putting out a fun video a sign that a ministry is drifting from God?

I must repeat I have not said and do not think that Maranatha is drifting. I could offer as evidence the entertainments (skits cribbed from SNL and Cheers, a video segment of the then president mockingly participating in a minor vandalism an Academy student was kicked out for, etc) that I saw/participated in/produced when I attended 20 years ago. So a sanitized Glee video is more of the same.

Quote:
Indeed the video was a marketing/advertising tactic aimed at increasing applications.

I'd like to hear that testimony. "Yeah, it was between Maranatha and one other school. They both had pretty good academics and were both accredited, but then I saw this doo-wop video with a dreamy guy and a funny puppet, and I was like, forget you New Saint Andrews, I'm goin' to Watertown!"

Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:45:47
3666 posts
To Be or Not To Be...

isn't really my question. Sorry, Aaron ;)

I've been thinking about earlier posts about the standards of MBBC going downhill, and what that means for Fundamentalism in general. I'd agree with the question, but I have a different take on it.

I spent the first ten or fifteen years of my Christian life thinking that keeping the standards of Fundamentalism would make me right with God, since it automatically made me 'right' in the eyes of the Fundamentalist community. I would caution those of you who think that MBBC's alleged decline is revealed (or reinforced) because of this film to take a few minutes to consider why that 'violation' of the 'standards' bothers you. Is it because MBBC does something that is clearly against Scripture? Or is it because your personal standards (or the standards that are forced on you by the Christians you choose to associate with) don't match up with what's portrayed in the video? If it's the latter, then are you living by the Bible, or by the standards? In short - are you living to please God or are you living to earn your own salvation and standing in the Christian community by upholding taboos?

I know I'm going to get jumped on for this, but living in a way to uphold standards can keep a person from living in a way that would be pleasing to God because the standards are more important, adding 'works' to 'faith'. We'd all agree that we need to live in a way to please the Lord in all we say and do (I Cor. 10:31), but then we get our feathers ruffled because someone 'in the camp' looks like they have stepped out of line and our praxis has been violated. Discernment, separation and standards are all important - don't get me wrong on that - but it seems like 95% of the talk on this is far more concerned with whether or not MBBC is 'safe enough' to send our children to than it is about the video.

I have not seen the video, nor do I have any real desire to. My judgment of whether or not MBBC is a 'good school' will not rest on the kinds of slick promo materials that they can produce; it should rest on whether or not they are training Christians that are going to be useful for God. They can have a whole city full of people that uphold our standards and "live for God", but who have no heart for God or any interest in doing what he says - read the OT prophets and Jesus' interactions with Israel in the Gospel.

I've said enough now on the subject, but I just wanted to note that the preoccupation with whether or not MBBC's standards are slipping seems to indicate that we're far more concerned with the standards than we are with living in a way to please the Lord.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since 5/3/10 10:36:03
814 posts
oh, the "L-word," sigh . . .

Jay, I don't see that the Bible says anything about judging the ethos of a college promo video. Are you enforcing a man-made standard?

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:48:52
4366 posts
Frustrated purpose

I think we can safely conclude that the overall impact of the video has not been what was most likely intended. Therefore it is a legitimate question to ask, if, when we use humor of any stripe, does it enhance or detract from one's designed purpose?

We should always carefully scrutinize our methods and weigh them with our audience and message. Both consciously and unconsciously, we deem some things as appropriate and inappropriate, often based on cultural norms. But cultural norms are NOT our primary standard. If we don't occasionally stop and ponder what it is we are actually doing, in every situation and at every level, we have stopped exercising discernment.

I'm the first to want to inject levity into just about every situation. First, because I react to stress with humor, regardless of the source- from funerals to broken bones. Second, because I have a highly evolved funny bone. Third, I am a hillbilly at heart and have a lot of 'dirt between my toes'. This is a lethal combination, so I have been rebuked on more than one occasion (here and elsewhere) for injecting humor in an inappropriate manner or at an improper time. At some point, I began to listen to what people were telling me, especially when I realized that sometimes people paid more attention to how I said something instead of the points I was trying to make. This happens especially when there is no personal relationship to provide context and therefore understanding. I took those rebukes and encouragements under advisement, and have taken steps to change some of my communication habits, especially online.

There is a point at which hilarity, however hilarious, becomes unproductive and distracting, and IMO this is often the result of the humor not 'matching' the message. Is that the case with this video? If its intention was just to be a spoof of Christian college- which is what I thought about it- then okeydokey, I think it hit its mark. But as a recruitment tool? Not so much.

Blogging at Susan Raber Online

Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:45:47
3666 posts
Crosstalk

DavidO wrote:
Jay, I don't see that the Bible says anything about judging the ethos of a college promo video. Are you enforcing a man-made standard?

David, I think you're missing my point. My point is that the reaction to the video is betraying a preoccupation with keeping the "cultural" norms; For all the discussion about the video and it's effects, it's pretty obvious that very, very few (if any) of the comments aren't comparing the content with Scripture, but are concerned with whether or not it's acceptable in the commenter's eyes. If it's in violation of the "ethos", then tell me where the Scriptural commands and principles are violated; that's where we should be discerning the value of what is and isn't acceptable. Blanket references to 'being worldly' don't work and bog down the discussion because one man's definition of 'worldliness' may not be the same as another's, which is why almost all of these discussions about culture (both ours and the secular world's) that begin on SI end up with both sides talking past each other.

I could care less about what the video says or contains; I'm interested in what the motives are for the criticism or praise. There are two different discussions occurring on this thread - one about the film, and one about the standards portrayed in the film, and it's been fascinating to watch the disconnect.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jim's picture
Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:47:03
6856 posts
Not so sure!

Susan R wrote:
I think we can safely conclude that the overall impact of the video has not been what was most likely intended. Therefore it is a legitimate question to ask, if, when we use humor of any stripe, does it enhance or detract from one's designed purpose?

Perhaps it is accomplishing exactly like it was intended!

  • Who's "the audience"?

    • Not me. I'm 62. I'm not likely to apply!
    • Parents who wouldn't have sent their kids to MBBC anyway? (BJU leaners, etc). Nope!
    • Pastors? (The sharp-eyed critics who are looking to see if a school has slipped.) Perhaps. But in reality they don't send other peoples' kids to college (they may think they do but they don't). They can function as a type of "gatekeeper" - "will I let the MBBC Praisemen present the MBBC ministry this year?" I doubt that the Pastors who already have a predisposition to "open the gate" to MBBC will close it. Some who have an anti-MBBC predisposition will use this as an excuse to keep them out
  • I suggest that the audience is the 15-18 year old church kid. And to those who view it (probably on-line) it will make them think!

My conclusion: It is a well-produced video that is and will be used to promote MBBC

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since 5/3/10 10:36:03
814 posts
Quote: I could care less

Quote:
I could care less about what the video says or contains; I'm interested in what the motives are for the criticism or praise.

Not sure you can discern/judge the latter without knowing the former.

However, a loose consensus (from all over the ecclesiastical map) says the video is Glee-ish. Seminary faculty members perform a chorus line type choreography.

Among the principles I would cite are (admittedly mild) conformity to a notable TV show promoting the spirit of the age and the sobriety of elder Christian men.

Beyond that, what is Maranatha selling? My son can go to the state university up the road and get a superior academic education. (And I seriously doubt any of the faculty that I've met at that state U would take time out of their schedule to lampoon themselves.) All Maranatha has to offer is a Christian culture in which to receive a decent education (which, again, one can get anywhere). They're telling us what to expect from them (whether or not the video matches the prevailing culture on campus is another thing entirely).

Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:45:47
3666 posts
Not Judging

David, I'm not *judging* anyone. I'm asking people to consider what's going on in their own heads and hearts. Have I said that the people who are criticizing the video are wrong, or that the MBBC defenders are right?

All I'm saying is that if people are saying the video is bad because the standards that they hold to are not being met by another organization, then is the concern really about the video or about the standards?

I've never seen Glee and have no real desire to see it, so to say that the video is wrong because it's 'glee-ish' isn't helpful. Is there some kind of Scriptural standard that Glee violates? I can't tell without either assuming that you're right to say that Glee is wrong or watching the show and learning about it. That's the problem - the reaction to X (in this case, the video) is based on your standard, not on what the Bible says. Since I don't know your standard, I can't discern whether or not the video is good. Even if I did know your standard, how do I know that it's a right standard? Because you say it is?

Do you see what I'm talking about now?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since 5/3/10 10:36:03
814 posts
Jay C. wrote: David, I'm not

Jay C. wrote:
David, I'm not *judging* anyone.

The following is a judgment. Of comments, not commenters, eh, thin.

Quote:
very, very few (if any) of the comments are[n't ] comparing the content with Scripture, but are concerned with whether or not it's acceptable in the commenter's eyes.

Quote:
I've never seen Glee and have no real desire to see it, so to say that the video is wrong because it's 'glee-ish' isn't helpful. Is there some kind of Scriptural standard that Glee violates? I can't tell without either assuming that you're right to say that Glee is wrong or watching the show and learning about it. That's the problem - the reaction to X (in this case, the video) is based on your standard, not on what the Bible says. Since I don't know your standard, I can't discern whether or not the video is good. Even if I did know your standard, how do I know that it's a right standard? Because you say it is?

Do you see what I'm talking about now?

I've never seen Glee either. And I hope you're not serious about the rest of this. I haven't seen tons of movies or shows that ought not be models for Christian entertainments/advertisements. Don't need to. Do I?

Pages