Maranatha's clever "I'm Gunna Apply" video
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?
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?
I was reminded of http://candorville.com/2012/03/04/preaching-to-the-reverend/ this.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
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………
[Chip Van Emmerik] 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]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] 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.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
FWIW, here’s my guess at what’s really going on:
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:
- 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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
He was correct.
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.
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.
[Greg Long] 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] 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.
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?
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] 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
[JG]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.[Greg Long] 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 respect your desire to see schools stay true to their mission and to the Word of God.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Lord bless.
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:
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
post #53!
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)
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)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion