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

[Chip Van Emmerik] 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?

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.

Concur.

[Chip Van Emmerik] 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.

[Chip Van Emmerik] 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.

[Charlie] 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.

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. :)

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:)

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

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!” :p

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.

[JG] 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!” :p

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?

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.

[JG] 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.

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 :

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):

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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