16 Responses to “god-blog flame war?”

1. 1 Sherm  on Sep 2nd, 2005 at 9:23 am

   That’s sick. The guy who designed and wrote it need a dose of reality, like a few weeks in New Orleans or Iraq or Afghanistan or Africa.

2. 2 The Dane  on Sep 2nd, 2005 at 11:38 am

   “Parody has the ability to help us [look inward] and often sails right over some people’s heads.”

   I think “That’s sick” is a gross overreaction to parody meant to point out a flaw in the manner in which discussion can sometimes take place over at BHT. I think the fault, perhaps, this particular piece of satire lies in that it seems too have been volatile to allow the targets to realize that this is the lens through which many view their site and its escapades.

   What they, and we, should do with such a piece is look inward to see what grains of truth correlate with the disturbing image presented. Are we guilty of what is being portrayed - putting the smackdown on someone simply because they believe differently than we do? Are we filled with so great an abundance of hubris that dialogue is replaced by simple, self-righteous reaction? Do we simplify perspectives to the point of exageration, making them to be something they never were, and then render terse judgment upon them (e.g., “That’s sick”)?

   If we have, then we have learned nothing.

   NOTES:
   * Despite their contributions to the online Christian community (esp. Johnson’s going back to the start of the internet and long before blogs), neither the Pyromaniac nor Boar’s Head Tavern sites are of any particular interest to me. They seem to be more rabble-rousing than anything.

   * Here is the original art that Johnson altered to craft his parody.

   * It was interesting to read Johnson’s justification of his brand of humour - and to read Spencer’s (iMonk and of BHT) reactions to it. Further evidence that the internet (the limitations it places on communication and the liberation it seems to perform upon people’s consciences) contributes to more misunderstandings than it resolves, I think.

3. 3 The Dane  on Sep 2nd, 2005 at 11:40 am

   Oh. Links don’t work so Here’s that original art:

   http://crimeboss.com/covers/CrimeDoesNotPay058.jpg

4. 4 Laura  on Sep 2nd, 2005 at 2:16 pm

   Haha! It’s hallarious and I love it. Why? Because in 2002 I got mouthy in the Boars Head Tavern (but no cussing), my words were deleted, lied about, and I was banned from posting. Do we worry about how political cartoons will “hurt” when they convey a truth about the abuse of power? I wouldn’t worry too much about this, either.

5. 5 Tony  on Sep 2nd, 2005 at 10:20 pm

   I agree with the post here. I have been a long-time reader of Phil Johnson and have followed his blog. He is a gifted, industrious, helpful Christian man.

   But almost since the inception of “Pyromanic” there has been an undercurrent of sniping between Phil and his posse and the BHT guys. This is based on theological differences that may or may not be important. I’m no judge because I haven’t followed it all.

   I think Christians, especially pastors and academicians, need to be able to have a little honest debate about issues. It rarely solves anything, but it can help keep them sharp. But there is a tendency I’ve noticed for lines to be crossed into insult-hurling and superiority posturing that goes beyond disputing the facts.

   I found Phil’s article distasteful and the underlying barbs to go beyond the pale of Christian humility. The groupies are, of course, enthused. Those who follow Phil more than listening to God won’t see a problem. They won’t love him enough to reprove him.

   And the tragedy is that people like Laura are encouraged by those they respect as Christian leaders to assume grossly unbiblical attitudes that rejoice in human revenge and nurse old hurts instead of receiving them as from the hand of God, thus finding nothing there that compares in the remotest way to what they have already been forgiven by God in Christ.

   I left a comment on Phil’s blog that has probably offended some, asking him if he had a brain-cramp when he put his particular material out there.

   I hope Phil reflects on the wisdom and Christ-likeness of what he has written and finds a better way. He is at his best when he uses his God-given gifts and talents to present the truth of the gospel, and to confront serious theological errors without recourse to personal insult.

   Until the atmosphere of self-preening theological superiority is addressed I won’t be visiting Pyromanic - or any other blog that fails to lift up others in the name of Christ (especially “enemies”) and to display a humble Christian deference to all who disagree. By all means decry heresy loudly - but learn to let the Word work in those who will not immediately embrace the truth. The sort of divisive snootiness I have witnessed gives the Reformed faith a bad odour - and it’s not what the faith of Christ is supposed to be.

   Blessings,

   Tony

6. 6 Bene Diction  on Sep 2nd, 2005 at 11:13 pm

   Laura:

   You got banned?
   I’ve never seen you be disrespectful to anyone!
   I am very sorry that happened to you.
   Some male leaders or leaders-to-be don’t handle intelligent women well, and you are a very clear, pragmatic and articulate thinker.
   Banning you was their loss.

   I still don’t find this funny or even a mediocre attempt at parody or rebuke.

   Thanks The Dane.
   I figured it was an doctored comic book cover, appreciate the link.

   You raise some excellent points and have given me a clearer perspective, I’m unfamilar with some of the church/cultural insides.
   I see no reason not to remain so.:^)
   I often don’t grasp the peculiarities of American evangelicalism.

   I looked at the comments under Mr. Johnsons post, this appears to be a cheerleading squad.
   It’s hard to tell someone we respect they crossed a line, and you did so with respect.
   I wonder if Mr. Johnson’s wife approves of his doctored comic book cover.
   The rest of us online are wise to just click away and go about our business.

   Thanks for you comment Tony.
   These men are not my leaders.
   I am not of Paul or of Apollo.
   Yes, I agree with you, I believe theologicans need room for healthy debate, and I think degeneration of that debate is not the fault of the limitations of the internet.
   The are just brothers, behaving badly for human reasons about doctrine or personalities or ministires or books, most of us couldn’t care less about or care to know about.

   This is a shame and a waste, but it’s their choice.
   Thanks for what you had to say.

7. 7 Liz  on Sep 3rd, 2005 at 12:22 am

   It is distasteful … gee I’m so glad I was on a blogging vacation!

   I don’t get the humour of the cover. The first thing that I got disgusted about is the picture of a man striking a woman. Is that supposed to be funny? If we have an offence with someone, shouldn’t we approach them personally?

   I’m staying far far away from this - then again, I am, being 1,000km away and all that!

8. 8 joel hunter  on Sep 3rd, 2005 at 12:33 am

   Bene Diction wrote: If this is the church count me out.

   Exactly. As a BHT fellow, this is the most distressing aspect of this episode to me. Truthful criticism should always be welcomed and received graciously. If the Dane and Laura are correct that this was well-deserved comeuppance for things that I and the other men and women at the BHT say or have said, then I’m afraid it’s lost on me. I read philosophy for a living (someone’s got to do it) and so I read and teach the irony of Socrates, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. I have some sense of what the sting is like when your are shown truthfully through humor, irony and satire the sometimes vast difference between the way you appear and what you are in reality. And as long as we’re fallible sinners, there will always be room to point out these differences. In many cases this can be done allusively, suggestively, poignantly, and from an edifying heart. If we’re teachable and honest with ourselves, we will receive it gratefully.

   Laura, I only recently joined the BHT and so I know nothing about your experience there except what you’ve said here about being banned. There was someone banned this year, and you would be shocked to what lengths this person took their animosity (toward Michael). I checked out your blog and I can think of several BHTers who unreservedly would embrace and affirm you in your faith journey. Perhaps politically you are to the left (?) of most BHTers, but not me In my brief experience there, it is political discussion that gets the most heated (with the *possible* exception of sacramentology because of the diverse faith traditions represented). I’m sorry that your experience with the BHT in 2002 did not result in mutual encouragement and affection (Phil 2:1-8). I hope things have changed for the better since then.

   Sorry for this lengthy comment, but thanks for posting this and helping to keep us all accountable to one another and to our Lord. Grace and peace to you all.

9. 9 Bene D  on Sep 3rd, 2005 at 5:14 am

   Bienvenue Joel:
   Newbie philospher at BHT eh?
   Maybe this is an opportunity for you to help to rebuild a bridge to another blogger that didn’t deserve to be hurt in 2002.
   This is the first I’ve heard of Laura being banned and I admire Laura’s courage in speaking up. I admire your attempt to be conciliatory. I hope you find blogging productive.

   Yeah, MC, it’s business as usual;^)
   Hope you get to London in November, sounds like a great opportunity.
   Blog on!

10. 10 Laura  on Sep 3rd, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    Did I mention I was mouthy? ha. I’m not claiming innocent victim here. I’ve been mouthy on my own blog and others as well and had a chance to rectify those situations. (Mmmm! Crow tastes good!) Not so with BHT. It’s “erase, ban, and goodbye little Missy; and never forget that men are in charge.” That’s why the man hitting the woman in the picture seemed so fitting to me. I was the only woman contributor at the time except for one occasional other.

    Honestly, I’m not very educated and maybe I came into this blog thing all puffed up in myself. That’s what I feel nowdays more than ever and why I don’t blog much. But I do miss the connections as a lot of people were encouraging and gentle with my stupid ignorance. I know that’s partly what the person at BHT was reacting to, my ignorance. I think he’d be glad to see that I’ve shut up. I know i am. (now if more people would just… haha.)

11. 11 Bene Diction  on Sep 4th, 2005 at 1:10 am

    Laura, you have ministered to me in ways you’d never dream of the past few years.
    Being the only female commenting at a critical time in your nations history would have brought you slings and arrows from ministers needing to believe they were leading.

    Education has nothing to do with it. I think it’s time the gentlemen at BHT made it right. Even if it is an email discussion so you may move on in peace. It’s their responsibility now.

    Any comic book cover depicting a war of words that shows anyone being hit is just a sick part of our culture, it’s egotistical hubris and it has no place in God’s kingdom. The proverbial cheap shot. I wish more people could say stop.

    I understand needing to pull back, but hear me Laura; you are an inspiration, a fellow seeker, and I am grateful for you, your spirit, your words, your journey, your faithfulnesss, gift of great compassion, and your wonderful spunk. You’ve mattered, you minister to the rest of us and don’t ever, ever let anyone with a PhD or almost PhD lead you to believe otherwise. That would be a sin.
    Blog on!

12. 12 The Dane  on Sep 4th, 2005 at 3:30 am

    B, I’m not sure I agree that a political cartoon (which this, essentially, is) is necessarily inappropriate. It might be in this particular case, but it doesn’t have to be. It actually could be rather fitting - if circumstances merited it. In fact, it would be accurate commentary if the BHT fellows honestly did settle disputes in any manner akin to our green-coated friend in the referenced comic; and … this does seem to reflect the anecdotal evidence presented by Laura. There was a disagreement and they shut her up but good.

    Perhaps the real question is should Christians engage in political cartooning and does such a brand of humour violate our standard of Ephesians 5:4 (”Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.”)?

13. 13 Bene D  on Sep 4th, 2005 at 5:17 am

    The Dane:

    The difficulty with policital humour and an international community of god-blogs online is that it is reductionist - goes right to the lowest common denominators.
    Or it mocks on ‘insider’ levels, specific and targeted political opponents.
    I believe that is what this is.
    Less reductionist - more meant to harm.
    I stand to be corrected, but I have read the justification.

    Works great for politics, but whether I like it or not this is directed at fellow christians.
    I think many of us wouldn’t/don’t understand what retaliatory parody has to do with with following Jesus Christ.

    Of course the darker reality comes to light.
    As it should.
    People get hurt.
    No matter what side of an academic/theological debate one falls on, people that do not need to be harmed were, and will be.
    Sides are taken, positions hardened, people harmed.

    I can’t fix it. I can’t understand the fighting, and I can’t stop it.

    In this case I don’t believe two wrongs make a right, The Dane.
    This cartoon uses a depiction of social violence that has nothing to do with political incorrectness/correctness or church academics.

    And I wonder if Phil’s wife is laughing, or if Phil’s sons have wifes, are they laughing?
    I don’t see anyone who has been abused or has work with the abused laughing or standing as apologists for comic political parody in a flame war.
    I see mature believers here saying what they need to say.

    I can listen carefully to my US friends that explain this behaviour and learn to understand.
    I can comfort Laura and encourage Joel, for they have crossed my path.
    I can provide a space for those outside the ‘popness’ of this depiction to speak without fear of smackdown or mockery.

    I hold in high regard and gratitude, diverse commenters here who have spoken and will speak using a higher model than parody. Ephesians 5:4, or I Corinthians 13 or Colossians 4:6 or Titus 3:8-9…or…

    Thanks.:^)

14. 14 Jeri Massi  on Sep 5th, 2005 at 9:00 pm

    The comic cover is comedic simply because it is crass, revolting, and outdated. I realize it will offend some people. but it does not offend people who have a strong grasp of what parody is and how it works. It is not an endorsement of that type of behavior. It is pointing out that such behavior is uncalled for, arrogant, and the result of overblown ego.

    That being said, I couldn’t figure out the animosity (disguised as teasing) between Phil and BHT. I love most of what Phil Johnson writes. His comedy is usually whimsical and hilarious, and his theology is profound and well reasoned. I think BHT is a club for the boring (often mistakenly spelling it as Boor’s Head Tavern), and Phil gets more and more boring every time he deals with them.

    The comic book cover, really, was the end result of a lot of sniping. It’s a witty parody of something most people care absolutely nothing about. Phil’s humor is a lot better when he uses it on topics or targets that actually interest his readers. Better luck next time, and I’m amazed you blogged it.

15. 15 Bene Diction  on Sep 6th, 2005 at 1:46 am

    I don’t know that there is much of anything to be surprised about.
    Parody is also cultural and I was curious to see what my readers and friends in and outside of the US thought and what I could learn. It is done to get reaction, isn’t it?
    I suppose it caught my eye because I was focused on communication this week, don’t really know, I was in the mood to listen.
    Parody is to spoof, in a humourous way, mock, send up, act, represent, imitate, lampoon; to make fun of, ape.
    I think it deserved a mention.

16. 16 The Dane  on Sep 7th, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    Yeah B, I agree with you in a lot of ways and am coming to think that parody or satire isn’t really a helpful way for Christians to interact. We should be beacons of compassion, patience, love, and respect - especially within the Christian community. And these derisive sorts of things, whether funny or not, don’t contribute to our Christian goals. I don’t think the parody was sick, but I do think it was unhelpful.