Embracing Postmodernism
This is really not about postmodernism at all. Well, except for this brief statement asserting its awesomeness (especially postmodern literature). You should all go out and get some good Vonnegut and Pynchon and DeLillo, as I hope to this summer. Especially Vonnegut.
A few weeks ago, we discussed the Rogerian style of argument in one of my courses. Basically, you briefly and objectively state your argument and your opponent’s argument in as neighbourly and diplomatic a style as possible before summing up the argument with a compromise so that neither party is offended. In some situations, it’s definitely ineffective, but I think it’s an excellent style to use when debating something you or your opponent feels is extremely important or other situations where you wish to be as cordial as possible, like with a close friend or family member. I also think it’s a good approach for Christians to use in all situations, as it seeks to identify similarities and establish a mutual respect.
I really wish the chapel speaker this morning, Dr. Jimmy Allen, had used this approach. Instead, he spent much of his 15-20 minutes screaming at the audience, his “last lecture,” about maintaining the principles of the university. Although this may not be his exact phrase, at one point he blared something like “If left-wing liberals who embrace postmodernism ever emerge upon this campus, I pray it shuts the door and bars the gate!” in the midst of a rant about how teaching bible is detrimental to the university. I and several of my friends could probably be identified as left-wing liberals, and I have never suggested or even thought about a Harding University without bible classes, nor have I ever heard anyone suggest such a thing. It’s amazing that a person could so irritate his audience by contorting a point that they agree on into a hateful rant.
Other key statements implied that anyone who was not baptized was going straight to hell, how not personally evangelizing was also an indication of spiritual weakness, and that boys with long hair look like homosexuals (who are also going straight to hell) and set a horrible example on the campus. He concluded by saying that he did not intend to be a “mean old man,” and was lecturing us as he would his children, a sorry excuse for the verbal stones he cast against all those he deemed unworthy. He also encouraged us to be as liberal as possible – not with our interpretation of the bible, but with our wallets – and continued to make his donation to the university in front of the entire university, dismissing us with an “I love you all.” Except the liberals, homosexuals, and bums, right?
I was astonished at how a highly praised professor of the university could say such hateful things and be applauded for them. In my experience, condemning someone you don’t agree with accomplishes nothing. It makes them feel at best insulted and at worst completely worthless. It seemed that Dr. Allen was taking advantage of his last chance to speak to the university (…for now…) to voice his opinions about arguments that existed 50 years ago and that, with his encouragement, will continue to exist 50 years from now, still unsettled.
The university should embrace those who are not as “church of Christ” as they might like just as it appreciates those who are, because we all have something to offer: new cultural experiences, ideals, thoughts, and love in Christ and in general. Christ cherished the imperfect and those his disciples called “sinners” just as much, if not more, than he did John, Peter, and James. The day when Harding University admits and respects left-wing liberals who embrace postmodernism is the day I pray for constantly, a day when respect, love, and praise is offered to each person on campus equally and not on the basis of souls saved or dollars donated. It is then and only then that Harding can fully reach its potential as a Christian university and respected institution.
Aww, kiddo. Is the picture of the guy who was speaking? Because it’s very illustrative of what you describe.
Have you read ‘Slaughterhouse Five’ yet? If not, that’s a good place to start.
Yes! I did, and loved it. Cat’s Cradle is my all-time favourite, though.
“Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either.
So it goes.”
You might want to check out Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy. It’s a “postmodern” novel written in the age of Enlightenment.
Thanks, I’ll add it to the list. :)
“Disapproving Hobbit” – hahaha
In a lot of ways, Brother Allen (as we were admonished to call him in his Romans class) is right. Harding, as it is, cannot remain if rampant postmodern thought were to take over the campus zeitgeist. That being said, the administration must realize that their current and future students are always already products of a postmodern culture and rejecting postmodernism on its face out of fear for the unknown will even further alienate the students from those who call the shots.
I’m not advocating they overrun the campus; I don’t think anyone running rampant on campus spreading their ideals as Truth and spurning those who disagree is right, no matter whom it is and what they believe. I wouldn’t begrudge a little more acceptance from the current administration, though, as you suggest.
I’m not going to pretend that I know what the word “postmodernism,” as it is used in the above post, is intended to mean, but…
With regard to the actual subject of the above post, Jimmy Allen (and his associated comments), I’m sure that in a few years’ time, he’ll recant and change his mind on the issues, but will do so in a way to make everyone believe that his thoughts on the matter have always been that way.
Just like he always has….
I’m not convinced that most Christians who lash out at postmodernism have more than a pop understanding of it. And I’m sure Denney would love to talk about this. First of all, postmodernism has many variants. Very few postmodernists believe the same thing. Second, very few people are thoroughly postmodern. Third, postmodernism does not rule out the possibility of truth. In my opinion, postmodernism raises the standard for what is true. And fourth, whether they like it or not, almost every Western person is profoundly affected by postmodernism.
And I am not ignorant of the fact that I just discussed postmodernism using an ordered list.
@ Random Poster: Excellent use of church of Christ practices and theories, that Jimmy Allen has. Your comment reminded me vaguely of this post about religion taking credit for major moral epochs long after they have been established.
@ Chris: I’m sure he would. Dr. Allen didn’t seem to understand what postmodernism was, either, especially because it is by no means a liberal/conservative schism. Lol at the list.
Indeed, I would love to debate the issue. However, most of my intellectual… nay, all of my intellectual energy goes to learning a non-Latin based language. Sentence structure that follows a Subject-Object-Verb pattern and has postpositional markers (instead of prepositional) make my head ache a bit.
Nevertheless, I’ll leave you with this bit of attempted wisdom. In this age, no one can escape postmodernism or say that they’re not postmodern. Why? Because we live in a postmodern age where everyone’s ideology is undeniably affected by the it. Bottom line: you’re postmodern. Get over it. It’s not a bad thing. The problem is people don’t understand, because some people have made postmodernism into something it’s not (i.e. the stupid adage: there is no absolute truth — perhaps, but what a stupid adage).
By the way, excellent post Heather.
I find some parallels in churches between the current postmodern scare and the old communist scare. Essentially the flawed reasoning is that because many postmodernists are atheistic or at least agnostic (as many communists were) that postmodernism is an inherently atheistic philosophy. The same thing happened with communism during the Cold War. Because many of the earliest communists argued for atheism, many church leaders equated the two. Few considered the possibility of being a communist and a Christian.
Christians have a particularly bad habit of clumping ideas based on previous associations and oversimplifying ideas which carry great amounts of complexity, variance, and nuance. Rather than see the good in postmodernism and take advantage of it, they shoot down the whole idea.
Part of this can be attributed to a false interpretation of Jesus’ “I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me,” statement. While I certainly agree that Jesus is the only hope we have in our sins being forgiven, I think it is both foolish and unbiblical to believe that all Christians should believe the same thing (Romans 14). In other words, there are a few things that have to be believed to be a Christian. But there are many things that do not.
The postmodern thinker is more equipped to identify the parts of Christianity that are most essential, while questioning the parts that are not. In my opinion, this is essential is churches are to attain the unity that Paul talks about in the aforementioned passage.
@ Steve:
Thanks for taking some time off from learning that ridiculously difficult language (my friend tried to teach me to speak and write a few basic phrases once, and my brain throbbed) to comment. I don’t have a problem with accepting postmodernism; I’m more confused as to why someone would so vehemently deny it. Chris cleared up that some, though.
@ Chris:
I think you could argue that the church puts a blanket ban over a lot more than just communism and postmodernism. Re: homosexuality, feminism, any religion other than Christianity (or in some cases, coC), liberal beliefs, etc. You made an excellent point. Because some characteristics of these movements might be considered too radical for the church, it just shuns the entire thing, a sort of cutting-off-the-right-arm-should-it-sin-against-you ideology.
A while back, probably on the Divine Jesus post, Becca linked to a C.S. Lewis quote about a follower of Tash being found in whatever Narnia’s heaven is along with all the followers of Aslan. I wish more people who hero-worship Lewis would take this example to heart.
Kind of ironic that you included that passage from Romans. Dr. Burks made a joke about how Dr. Allen had been teaching Romans so long, he liked to believe he wrote it. Maybe he should have focused more on that portion…
Wait, there aren’t supposed to homosexuals at Harding? I guess I totally misunderstood that whole “bursting the Harding bubble” thing. And what, then, are the community showers in Allen for?
Male bonding?
When I was a kid, the Big Bad was secular humanists. I would imagine that most folks could not tell you the difference between a secular humanist and a postmodernist.
When I was at HU, the resident, mustached teacher of premodernism, modernism, and postmodernism used to say that young alumni would leave HU, encounter this stuff and ask him, “why weren’t we prepared for this at Harding?”
Having been away from HU for a good, long while now and having earned degrees from two more universities, I now wonder what on earth were these alumni talking about? I have never – outside of the tender embrace of our beloved alma mater – met anyone who gives a winged, flying shit about postmodernism. It seems to be something that has gone off to Searcy to die.
I also find it strange to hear Jimmy Allen talking about people going to hell again. A Bible prof at HU told me in 2003 that Allen had confided to him privately that he no longer believed in hell. Maybe old age has made him nutty.
http://tinyurl.com/cdznpc
Evidently you can watch Jimmy’s speech here. I can’t confirm because I am at work now. I can’t wait to watch it later, though.
JH: “Maybe(?) old age has made him nutty.”
I just watched that thing. Wow, what a hateful, brutish little man. He’s always been a homophobe/misogynist and a bully, but he really is getting worse in his old age.
This has been the most talked about chapel in a while. Personally, I’m just glad I’m not in his family, given the way he referred to Harding rules and his children. I also think that, thankfully, Dr. Allen’s viewpoint is representative of the old guard, Church of Christ, 1950s-era belief system which, in my experience, no longer dominates the campus.
Great article. I will say I never took any of Brother Allen’s classes, though I’ve experienced my fair share of chapels. I don’t think his age has made him nutty, because that sounds like the same message I would have heard my freshman year.
My only question is to Jimmy would be, when did Harding become Greek Orthodox? If I were to use a postmodern point-of-view to uphold a Christian theme I find valid, how is that any different?
Luke,
I thought the same thing. His website mentions that his kids are all active in their churches of Christ, but not much else about them. I’m curious.
Phillips,
I think chapels are really all you need to see to know and understand who Brother Allen is. I would say I would have liked to experience his classes just to know if this is how he acts on a regular basis, but really, I would NOT have liked that one bit.
Does anyone know if this is typical behaviour, or if Allen was just hyped up on speaking to a larger audience? I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I haven’t heard anyone defending his integrity or especially his ethics. Everything I have heard, especially personal stories, has demonstrated that he is rather haughty, mean, and wretched, no matter how much he might protest he is acting paternally or as a “true Christian” should.
It’s entirely typical, though that was a bit more extreme than I’d ever seen him. It’s certainly not his being hyped up. He used to speak to 50,000 people audiences back in his prime. Big, barnstorming sermons about the horrors of hell described in loving, erotic detail.
He only really respects clean cut, traditional type men. He has only two modes of dealing with women: patronizing and/or condescension. It really says something about how sick the culture is in the CofC in general and HU in particular that someone like him is held up as such an admirable figure. Even at ME’s blog they keep feeling like they need to praise him before they chastise him.
One wonders what sort of fears drive someone who’s still trying so hard to show off his machismo, even at that age. He might as well have swung his dick around in circles for 30 minutes.
“. . . . you briefly and objectively state your argument and your opponent’s argument in as neighbourly and diplomatic a style as possible before summing up the argument with a compromise so that neither party is offended.”
So, Heather, why did you not take this approach with Dr. Allen’s chapel talk? If this is the post-modern method of argumentation, it seems to me you are writing as a modernist in your attempt to refute and rebuke Allen. You don’t seem to really be in a compromising mood here.
I thought about the ironies of that as I was typing this article. However, it was extremely difficult for me to remain cool-headed about this issue, even though I am typically pretty easygoing and definitely don’t get angry or offended easily (especially at Harding’s chapel speakers; after a while, you learn to just let those slide).
I also think it is not entirely correct to assume that the postmodern argument seeks to hash everything out in a compromise. Some people are simply unwilling to do that, and I think Dr. Allen is an example. If someone unabashedly judges an entire audience and culture of people in such a harsh manner, it would just be silly to try and conduct a civil exchange with him or her.
Also, I never said the Rogerian argument was a postmodern argument (although it well might be; quite frankly, I am not an expert in postmodernism, and never professed to be one). I simply stated a style of argument that I wish Dr. Allen had used when he was speaking to a group of 4,000 students. If I had been interacting with Dr. Allen on a personal level, I might have been a bit more diplomatic. However, this is a public forum. I am offended by it. I see no reason to hide that with an unbiased article.
Heather McIntosh:
I think that Jimmy Allen has a completely different style in his classes. I actually quite enjoyed taking Romans, and learned a great deal in the class (although my grade does not reflect that). Granted, when I took Romans, Jimmy was nearing the end of his career, so perhaps he had softened up a bit, but there was (and, I suspect, still is) a huge difference between the “evanglist” Jimmy Allen and the “classroom teacher” Jimmy Allen.
In that regard, it is a bit like Neale Pryor: his public speaking abilities are amazing; his one-on-one skills…ummm…not so much. The difference between the two is amazing, even though you are clearly dealing with the same person.
* * * *
JH:
I’m not entirely sure I agree with your assessment of Jimmy Allen, insofar as it relates as to the men that he respects and how he treats women. I strongly believe (based upon my understanding of his comments, his books, and conversations that I have had with those who have known him for decades) that he is far more liberal, in private, than he comes across in public.
That all being said, I suspect that a great deal of the admiration that people have for him is due, in large part, to his speaking ability and to the number of people that he has converted (whether for life or otherwise) as result of his numerous meetings. Just a hunch here, but I suspect that strong, charismatic, and evangalistic individuals (say, like Paul, the actual author of Romans) are often respected and admired, but that doesn’t mean that they are loved.
Lastly, regarding your question about “what sort of fears drive someone who’s still trying so hard to show off his machismo,” perhaps it is worth recalling that Jimmy Allen has never been one to shy away from discussing, however obliquely, his past. Thus, to use a phrase I’ve heard before, the farther one has traveled down the road to hell, the louder they are likely to be upon and after their conversion.
“If someone unabashedly judges an entire audience and culture of people in such a harsh manner, it would just be silly to try and conduct a civil exchange with him or her.”
Are you referring to the unabashedly judgmental, mocking, and harsh statements consistently made on this blog about Christians or are you referring to something else?
@ Jim:
There is a HUGE difference between someone speaking to an entire audience of people who really cannot speak back to him and writing your personal opinions on a blog. If you don’t like what I or anyone else writes on this blog, I suggest you don’t read it, especially if you have nothing to contribute to the discussion but snide comments. It’s quite simple. We’re not here to cater to someone’s else’s opinions, or at least I’m not.
I would also like to remind you that no matter what we say, we are all Christians and have experienced the things we are so “unabashedly judg[ing], mocking,” and “making harsh statements” about. It’s possible Jimmy Allen has discussed postmodernism with a left-wing liberal and then come to his conclusion that such people are completely against the morality of Harding University (and thus, God), but I doubt it.
@ Random Poster:
Thank you very much for that comment. It’s one of the first I’ve heard that respects Jimmy Allen as a professor and a person. I expect that’s largely due to the fact that many of the people I have been discussing him with on campus have never interacted with him in any regard other than large gospel meetings or chapel speeches, other than my friend, Adria, to whom he was extremely rude on one occasion. So I appreciate a different perspective of him.
Jim, first of all, were you in chapel or did you watch the video?
Shame on me and any other PC contributor if they wrote things on this blog equivalent to Jimmy Allen’s. If we ever unabashedly judge entire cultures and sweep them aside just with labels, then we haven’t done what we created this blog to do.
If, on the other hand, we take issue with specific tenants, practices, or aspects of a particular culture (evangelical Christianity or anything else), then that is a different matter altogether. I don’t think I would write something equivalent to sweeping aside anyone in the Republican Party as bums, or pretend like “conservative modernist” is a derisive term all by itself.
You do illustrate the frustration that comes with trying to discuss or use the Rogerian style. It becomes a discussion of who is the nicest person, not who has the best ideas. It’s sort of like the hilarious Democratic primary debates about “who played the gender card first” or “who played the race card first?”
SHAME!
It’s hard to know what to make of your reply to me, Random Poster. It just sort of misses the point(s), where it doesn’t lack any real content entirely.
I can’t really do anything with your own experience with Allen, especially since you don’t describe it. I’ll say this: I’ve had face-to-face dealings with him where he was very kind and helpful. That’s not really the point, though. Everyone on earth has some group of people whom they’re nice and respectful to, and it’s no moral credit to behave that way. It’s just baseline mammalian behavior. I find it a bit strange too that you seem to think it redeems him somewhat that he’s more liberal in private than in public. Makes me think even less of him, personally.
And I would say that it’s just a hunch that people respect him because he can speak and because he baptized a ton of people. That’s definitely the reason. If you think baptizing people is a wonderful thing to do, than I guess you’ll have a good opinion of Allen. But to most people in the world, me included, it means no more than, say, selling a bunch of Amway. Good for Amway, and good for the salesman, but it doesn’t mean he’s not an asshole. Ditto for speaking ability. It all just misses the point. If you’ll elevate a brute solely because he can speak well, raise money, and scare people into baptistries, than you’re morally bankrupt. That’s partly what I meant about the sick culture at HU.
Your final paragraph, at least, is a good point, though it’s one that just makes me so glad, for the millionth time, to be out of the church. Christians will take in any common thug and celebrate him. He doesn’t even have to stop being a thug. He can go on being the same little prick, as long as he’s a prick for Jesus. Good for him, and good for all of you who have to live with him and applaud his sermons and call him brother, but I don’t like being around pricks, personally. Have at it.
would s/b wouldn’t in 2nd paragraph
“If you think baptizing people is a wonderful thing to do, than I guess you’ll have a good opinion of Allen. But to most people in the world, me included, it means no more than, say, selling a bunch of Amway. Good for Amway, and good for the salesman, but it doesn’t mean he’s not an asshole.”
Haha!
“There is a HUGE difference between someone speaking to an entire audience of people who really cannot speak back to him and writing your personal opinions on a blog. If you don’t like what I or anyone else writes on this blog, I suggest you don’t read it, especially if you have nothing to contribute to the discussion but snide comments. It’s quite simple. We’re not here to cater to someone’s else’s opinions, or at least I’m not.”
Would this be kinda like, “If you don’t like what Harding University stands for, I suggest you go somewhere else. No one forced you to come here and after all, if this is all you have to contribute, why not leave? After all, Harding is not here to cater to your opinions about how things ought to be.” ???
Yeah, I think I see your point (this IS a snide remark).
Other than that, I haven’t made a snide comment as much as I have just turned your own logic back upon you and you think it is snide.
My own logic? I never said I intended to use a Rogerian argument, so that’s not really proof against me. It is also not turning my own logic against me to attack my and the other authors’ beliefs about our experiences. As David said, we aren’t painting the entire culture of Christianity or conservatism red. We are extracting specific instances where these cultures might have failed to achieve the goals they set or should reach, like Dr. Allen’s speech.
I do like what Harding University stands for. It is a good school and I very much appreciate my professors and the education I am receiving here, as well as the relationships I have formed with others. However, it is not reaching its full potential. As I said, that can only be attained when the university accepts and loves all its students equally, even illogical liberal feminists like me.
I do believe in what Harding University stands for: integrating faith and learning. However, I do not always agree with the faith of some speaking for Harding. I have never condemned someone to hell for being as they are, and I hope that day will never come. Christian ethics, as I know them, are love, charity, service, faithfulness, peace, etc., not beating someone about with a bible and shouting “SHAME!”, hoping to convert them to your version of salvation. If, in my time here, I can convince anyone of that, then I have succeeded.
Is the ridicule posted on Youtube, that has obviously come either from the creators of this blog or their admirers, part of an effort at establishing a “mutual respect?” Is that what you mean when you say you believe in integrating faith and learning and express the admiration you have for Christian ethics of love, charity, service, faithfulness, peace, etc.?
I just wonder.
Would you like to take the opportunity to condemn such hateful ridicule in the name of these Christian ethics you say you espouse or do you believe there is no contradiction?
What ridicule is on YouTube? If someone finds it, please link it so we know what this is about.
That challenge to condemn sounds sooo much like a presidential campaign ploy.
This is hilarious!!!
I’m glad I can finally ignore such people. I realized how internally frustrated I was being around such condemning people. The same people who say it’s wrong to condemn. Odd that is.
WG,
Does the above video intend to mock Jimmy Allen? Perhaps.
Is that the best example of Christian ethics? Probably not.
However, setting the words that Jimmy Allen already said to a catchy techno beat is not nearly as bad as condemning a large percentage of the student body at Harding.
That being said, it is extremely harsh to say that the above video is hateful ridicule. I would say more that it is taking a situation that has stirred much opposition and discussion and making it humourous, a good way to ease the tension (for people like me; obviously, you did not find that it eased the tension at all). I would also like to state that almost all of the students in Harding’s chapel that day were going about campus yelling “SHAME!”, another action you might interpret at hateful ridicule, not just the authors on this blog and their so-called admirers.
I have rarely met a person who responds with dignity and grace to someone else disparaging his or her way of life in such a harsh manner as did Jimmy Allen at chapel on Wednesday. Is it something I am working on? Yes. But keep in mind that I and probably the person who made the above video are college students, and like to have some fun every once in a while.
Steven wrote, “I’m glad I can finally ignore such people. I realized how internally frustrated I was being around such condemning people.”
So, S. C., you condemn Jimmy Allen?
Heather, your consistency on this was exactly what I thought it would be. “Christian ethics, as I know them, are love, charity, service, faithfulness, peace, etc., not beating someone about” . . . . with a Youtube video or a blog. After all, college students “like to have some fun every once in a while.”
Thank God you guys can only theorize about running the world or running Harding and are not actually in charge of any of it.
Yes, because that is the ultimate goal of this blog – world domination, baby!
WG, I still think you’re being incredibly harsh. I admitted that the youtube video was not the best example of Christian ethics. To be fair, some of my responses have not been as well, but as stated before, I was (and am) appalled that such an esteemed figure could get away with such words.
Again, there is a huge difference between an elderly gentleman who has been praised within the church and Harding’s atmosphere for 50 years at least completely painting over an entire movement and the authors on this blog pointing out that he did so and responding to it.
You are being harsh in both your condemnation of the blog and whoever made the video, fitting nicely into Allen’s perspective of “condemn ‘em if you can’t save ‘em!” No, we are not perfect. Thank you for pointing that out.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go perfect my laser-beam sharks’ aim.
JH:
Clearly, we are never going to agree on this matter. My experience with Jimmy Allen was during the mid to late 1990s. And given that this is a semi-public blog, that is about all I’m going to say about that.
However, your comments regarding why you are glad to “be out of the church” are perplexing. I’m not aware of any church that accepts thugs and doesn’t expect–if not demand–that they no longer remain a thug (whether for Jesus or otherwise). But perhaps you merely see what you want to see.
* * * *
S. C. Denney:
Your comment regarding “I realized how internally frustrated I was being around such condemning people. The same people who say it’s wrong to condemn.” reminds me of the saying:
“When will those who profess tolerance actually become tolerant?”
* * * *
After watching Jimmy Allen’s chapel speech, I feel compelled to the say the following:
Aside from his implication that classes/majors other than Bible are of limited (or no) importance, I saw nothing offensive or terribly troubling about Allen’s speech.
Indeed, I suspect that some (or perhaps most?) of those who find Allen’s speech to be offensive are either easily offended or were simply looking to be offended. Or perhaps both.
I’m not aware of any church that accepts thugs and doesn’t expect–if not demand–that they no longer remain a thug (whether for Jesus or otherwise).
It should have been pretty clear from the context that I meant Allen is a sort of thug. I could point out any number of things from that speech, or things I heard him say when I was a student at HU, or his angry gorilla tone, but for convenience, I will note his proud declaration that everything was on his agenda back in the day except homosexuality and murder.
Now think about that choice of words for a moment. Everything was permissable except that. So Allen doesn’t particularly mind you thinking he might have robbed people, or beat people up for fun, or put roofies in girls’ drinks to take advantage of them later, but don’t think he ever had a gay experience, oh no!
That’s they way thugs talk. And in normal, polite society this sort of stuff gets you shunned. The room would get quiet, and people would change the subject, and you probably wouldn’t get invited back again. But you have this weird sort of morality in fundamentalist culture that sort of lionizes this type of behavior as long as you join their church.
Indeed, I suspect that some (or perhaps most?) of those who find Allen’s speech to be offensive are either easily offended or were simply looking to be offended. Or perhaps both.
That indicates to me that you’re a person who hasn’t seen much of the world outside of the culture you were raised in. The vast majority of people who saw this speech would think it either offensive or just comically old fashioned. Or perhaps both.
JH writes:
“That indicates to me that you’re a person who hasn’t seen much of the world outside of the culture you were raised in.”
You couldn’t possibly be more incorrect.
You couldn’t possibly be more incorrect.
Whether I’m correct or not, it seems hard to believe that I couldn’t possibly be more incorrect. Certainly you aren’t the most culturally experienced person who has ever existed? Maybe you are, and have thus reached a level of such wisdom that you’ve seen some deep truth about Jimmy Allen that no one else can grasp.
Random Poster,
You said “Aside from his implication that classes/majors other than Bible are of limited (or no) importance, I saw nothing offensive or terribly troubling about Allen’s speech.”
I probably agree with you about the offensiveness. But this isn’t about being offended, I don’t think. My reaction to the speech was to just shake my head at how out of touch and irrelevant he came across. From what I hear, that is how the Harding campus is reacting as well. It was so awfully irrelevant that it was funny. Everything that used to be a big deal in the Church of Christ just seems trivial to the current generation: long hair, clothes, instrumental worship, and obsession with baptism. The remix video makes the whole thing even funnier.
Speaking of the remix video, I think it is absurd how Christians can be so anti-funny sometimes. The video is funny. Being a Christian doesn’t mean you can never laugh and never make fun of something ridiculous. There is also a big difference between making fun of a normal person in real life to belittle them (bullying) and making fun of a public figure who represents an ideology in order to make a bigger point (critique).
JH:
You couldn’t possibly be more incorrect in your statement that I am a person “who hasn’t seen much of the world outside of the culture” that I was raised in.
I suspect that you knew that, but no matter.
Um, no. I said ignore.
… and, are there levels of incorrectness? I thought someone was just incorrect. e.g. 2+2 doesn’t equal 5; it really doesn’t equal 5!
Jimmy Allen just isn’t a very rational, sense-making person to me. Whatever. I don’t really care. I didn’t condemn him. I just said figures like him can be frustrating. If you think he delivers a good, logical message, then fine. I think you’re a bit off, but that’s your call.
“Big, barnstorming sermons about the horrors of hell described in loving, erotic detail.”
Very apt description.
“… how sick the culture is in the CofC in general and HU in particular that someone like him is held up as such an admirable figure.”
Again, a good observation. It is disturbing how well respected he is, even among the younger generation at Harding. Maybe this chapel speech will do something do change that, though I doubt it, b/c I believe most Harding students disagree with Allen more on style than on substance. Too bad both are deeply flawed.
Also, one of the best things about having graduated from Harding and moved away is that one almost never hears the word “postmodernism” out here… I just get to occasionally read about how things are back home when I want to appreciate the fact that I’m no longer there.
I never get tired of watching this video. I like to think of it popping up as a related video when prospective students are checking out Harding.
Hmmm! I know I’m reading this blog a little late – that’s the way I do things most of the time anymore! So no one may ever read this, but I will have said what I wanted to say!
I am nearly 50 years old and have sat under the preaching and teaching of Dr. Jimmy Allen since I was a young child. I heard him in his “hayday” in the 70′s when thousands were coming to Jesus under his preaching. As a young college student at Harding University, I studied under him and took his (in)famous Romans class. On one occasion at a Gospel Meeting, Dr. Allen scolded some of us for talking while he was speaking. I have heard Jimmy Allen speak on the subjects of grace, hell, worship, discipleship, heaven, the resurrection, and many others. In all of those messages, he was both convicted and convinced and he did everything he could to convey such to his hearers.
I couldn’t get the video to play on here, but I found it on another site and watched it from start to finish. I will tell you this – his speaking style in that chapel service pales in comparison to the way he put forth the Word of God 30 and 40 years ago! I enjoyed the video immensely. And, he is right about postmodernists (whoever they are – postmodernism has never been defined to well) and liberals. If they ever are tolerated/embraced at Christian institutions like Harding, they may as well close the doors. I say that for this reason:
I obtained a BA in Bible from Harding in the 80′s. Several years later I attended a private, religious school in North Carolina and received a Master’s in Education from that institution. Now, the school in North Carolina is associated with a very old protestant denomination. However, they have sought to be more broadminded in their selection of professors to the point that there are aganostics and atheists on the faculty. There is absolutely NO semblance of anything religious in that school anymore. Christianity is condemned or at best made fun of in the classes there and Christians are openly ridiculed as small minded, judgmental biggots. That’s what the post-moderns and liberals have done to a college that once taught and respected biblical principals.
NO, I pray that Harding University NEVER embraces post modernism/liberals. Dr. Allen is right in what he says, and those of you who posted so negatively on here about him obviously do not realize that you sat at the feet of a great prophet of God in that chapel service, and a man who would give his right arm for Harding University and, more importantly, would give his own life for the Lord he loves. I pray that your eyes will be opened and you will see Jimmy Allen for the great servant of the Lord that he is.
Heather,
I am fifty-seven years old. My parents brought me up among the Lord’s people – the church of Christ of which we read in the New Testament. I did not always follow the wishes of my parents and Bible teachers, but what I got from them and the church was fundamental Bible truth. I left the Lord in my early twenties and remained unfaithful for about five years. Due to a phone call from my father, I returned and was restored at age 26. One thing I learned in the world is that worldly people look at Christians with a critical eye. And when we claim to be God’s people, they look for godly character. While it may not be fair, we are viewed differently from everyone else. Jesus says we are the light of the world. We are not a dim lamp or smoldering ember. We are the world’s light! We must dress, speak, act and express a Christ-like attitude! Not one of disdain for good men in the church or valid rebuke! I listened to brother Allen’s speech, carefully. It was good. He did not say the things you accused him of. What he said abut an evangelistic spirit is biblical. What he said about baptism is biblical. What he said about a man’s hair is biblical. What he said about the way we should dress is biblical. And I totally understand and agree with what he said about Bible class and postmodernism. I am certain that brother Allen knows things that are potential problems with postmodernism at Harding of which you may not be aware. And if you don’t, then maybe you have unwittingly fallen prey to it. And when brother Allen gave his check, he was not boasting (nor was the amount disclosed) but simply being an example of good works (Matt. 5:16). Brother Allan has been a Christian for a long time. Please consider his knowledge, experience and wisdom gained over time before being so quick to criticize (as I also myself have done in the past). The board of directors of Harding would do well to listen closely to this message.