Wesley Gant

Since my last post supporting a possible name change for Houston Baptist University, a number of arguments have surfaced to which I have yet to see a thorough public response. To some extent they were addressed in last week’s “town hall” meeting, but I wanted to offer a few follow-up comments of my own.

1. We’ve already put 50 years into our name, why start from scratch?
The frank reality of HBU’s situation is that, even after 50 years, it has very little reputation among the general public. Moreover, what most people assume—that it is a school for Baptists in Houston—is inaccurate. Part of this is because HBU has done very little advertising and has been content with its small size and relative insignificance in academia or even its own community. That statement is bound to offend, but an honest evaluation is sometimes painful. It was, at one time, touted as “Houston’s best kept secret.” Thankfully, those days are over and HBU is looking toward national prominence. With an effective advertising campaign and a more welcoming brand name—not to mention improvements across the board—the University can do more for its reputation in five years than it has in 50. Certain programs, like nursing, that have enjoyed a good reputation should be able to retain this as the University grows and improves.

2. Shouldn’t we have a name that lets people know we are at least Christians?
There is no correlation between whether a university’s name sounds Christian and whether it has an actual reputation of being so. Compare Wheaton with Southern Methodist University, for example. People will know HBU by its fruit, and if those matriculating from it do not represent Christian values, having “Christian” in the name isn’t going to help. Besides, the idea is to eliminate unnecessary barriers, not lower them. If it is a University for all people, the name should not imply otherwise.

3. If we name it something like “Morris University” no one will know what that means!
According to the Board of Trustees, no person in HBU’s history is more deserving of such an honor than Dr. Stewart Morris, so the idea is being floated as a possibility. But, it’s true, most people have no idea who he is. But how much do people need to know about Mr. Pepperdine, Mr. Baylor, Mr. Wheaton or Mr. Brigham Young? A name is what you make of it, provided that you have some control over the “brand” of that name, which is impossible with words like “Houston” and “Baptist.”

4. If we want more worldly approval, what is to keep HBU from following the path of so many other universities and moving away from Christianity altogether?
First, approval is not the point. The ultimate goal is impacting more lives and making a bigger difference, but that necessarily requires a certain degree of credibility and amiability with those we are trying to reach. To be “in the world and not of it” is not to live in a bubble, it means we should hold strong to our values while making every possible effort to engage in meaningful dialogue with the world. So how do we remain strong in our values? Only two things will keep HBU on track: 1) the preamble of the school’s by-laws, which can only be changed with a unanimous vote of the Board of Trustees, and 2) leaders who have strong convictions in line with the University’s values. In short, there are no promises, but the future leaders of the University are far more important than its name.

5. We should not be ashamed of our religious heritage!
See my last post. Those who say the University is running away from Christianity should spend more time listening and less time reacting. Perhaps fulfilling the University’s mission by taking “Baptist” out of the name sounds paradoxical to some, but shouldn’t the point be whatever works? I liked HBU senior Andrew Richardson’s comment from the last town hall: do you think Brigham Young would have been as successful if they had insisted on Provo Mormon University?

6. I came to HBU in spite of—or because of—the name, so what’s to stop others?
You’re not the one the University is concerned about. The question is whether HBU, in the long run, can better situate itself for maximum support.

“Houston Baptist University” does represent what HBU is in terms of its geography, values and institutional association. None of those will change. What it does not tell the world is what the school does and who it is for. HBU is for anyone seeking an education in which issues of moral or theological significance are part of the dialogue, and where one’s professors understand not just their academic field, but Christian faith as well. True, HBU is not for everyone—some prefer a purely secular environment—but too many potential students and supporters never take the steps to learn why HBU is right for them.

The fact that HBU’s name has constricted its growth and success is indisputable. While in some cases the name has attracted support, the opposite appears to be the most common. So the question is not whether HBU will be able to grow and build a positive reputation without the change; what we will be left wondering in 50 years is just how much potential we missed.

No doubt, those who have read the books are going to get much more out of the Hunger Games films, but having watched the first installment last night, I think the franchise will do quite well among the non-readers of all ages and social groups.

Unlike Harry Potter, which targeted children early on, and Twilight, which is almost entirely geared toward young women, The Hunger Games has something for everyone. I’ve read criticisms that its themes have been seen before over and over, but I say there is a good reason for that—we like them. The Hunger Games blends them all quite well—think Gladiator meets Lord of the Flies with a bow-clenching teen heroine.

While the film is great in its own right, I was particularly impressed with how well the writers and director were able to adapt the story to the big screen. The film not only brings to life all of the major events and characters, it also manages to capture many subtleties and details that fans of the book will be delighted to see. And they do so without compromising the movie experience. Of course, there is no way to translate a first-person novel into a sensible two-hour flick, but they nailed the biggest challenges.

I have only a few critiques, particularly regarding the beginning. It opens with a few lines about the history of Panem, which I think cheapened the intro and wasn’t even necessary since it is restated several times afterward. And while it may just be the designer in me, I thought the font choices for the intro and the district identifiers were awful.

Secondly, while the relationship between Katniss and Prim is developed nicely, her mother and Gale seem like peripheral characters that Katniss forgets about the moment she boards the train. The sequence of events in District 12 feels quick and mechanical, lacking the substance that should make me care about the people back home. Is it evident to anyone who didn’t read the book what the three-fingers sign is all about? I will cut the director some slack though, since pacing the District scenes would have pushed the movie toward the 3 hour mark.

Lastly, the score could have been much better. There were good moments, but for such an intense and epic story, the music should have carried a more robust, dramatic tone—like the trailer.

In all, they did a stellar job. My assumption is that Lionsgate had no idea quite what a gold mine they were standing on until the last few months, so the budget was more modest than it deserves. After a record breaking opening weekend, expect the next installment to rock a lot harder.

The first film in the Hunger Games trilogy is hitting theaters at midnight and is already looking like a huge success. If you haven’t read at least the first book I would recommend doing so this weekend.

In honor of the event, ValuesAndCapitalism.com is publishing a series of posts regarding the trilogy’s ending. Yours truly was asked to make a contribution, which you can read here, but you’ll want to read V&C program director Eric Teetsel’s explanation of the blog series first. Note: given that these talk about the last book, here’s a major spoiler alert.

For those of you who have only read the first book (or if you’re reading this after seeing the movie), check out my January post in which I discuss some of the lessons of the Hunger Games.

[Click here for a complete round up of Values & Capitalism's recent and future HG related posts]

Houston Baptist University has invited its various constituents to a town hall meeting to “discuss the name of the University.” The notion of a possible change is now the hot topic du jour. As both a loyal alumnus and a member of the marketing staff (University Communications) I wanted to offer my perspective, and perhaps address a few of the fears and misconceptions that have surfaced.

First, let me state my support for a name change. Even though a new one has not been proposed, I think the move will mark a positive turning point in the history of the institution by allowing it to be more effective in its mission while—despite rumors—maintaining its Baptist identity in the ways that matter.

THE SAME MISSION, A BETTER EXECUTION

Some alums have expressed anger that the University is abandoning its values for money or higher application rates. While these things are an expected and welcome side-effect, the accusation is simply unfounded.

Anyone who knows Dr. Robert Sloan or has read the Ten Pillars vision—authored with the assistance of Dr. Hunter Baker—should know that the centrality of Christ in higher education is the guiding principle of the University’s leadership. Every change that has been made in the last six years—enhancing student life, restructuring the curriculum, constructing buildings, adding/subtracting programs, etc.—has been done with the long term effectiveness of the University in mind. Effectiveness is what translates a written “mission” into realized impact. 

Dr. Sloan is widely recognized as a bold visionary precisely because he is unafraid to lift faith to its rightful place in academia. Moreover, he rejects the notion that this should be relegated to meager, secluded liberal arts colleges. This is what made Sloan so effective at Baylor, which now enjoys a stellar reputation. Yet, he was criticized there for taking the school in a more conservative direction. To say he is “selling out” reveals an ignorance of Sloan’s character and the University’s true mission. HBU is undergoing incredible changes because of an aggressive vision for transformative growth and influence. While change is often bittersweet—moving forward requires leaving some cherished things behind—I encourage alumni to consider the untapped potential of HBU and open themselves to new possibilities.

Of course, this is not simply about Dr. Sloan or the Ten Pillars vision. Discussions of changing the name have been buzzing around for many years. Early in the school’s history there was always the possibility of a major donor, and as Sloan was being invited to take the helm in 2006, new considerations were being taken very seriously. The only reason the idea is finally going public is because the University is reaching a new horizon and attempting to develop a national reputation. The big question is whether “Houston Baptist” is the brand we ought to build on.

The problem is that, while the mission of the University holds just as fast to its Baptist heritage and its own historical roots as ever, the current name does not reflect the true nature of the institution. “Houston Baptist University” implies three inaccuracies: (1) that it is a school for, of and by Baptists, (2) that it is primarily a school for Houston residents, and (3) that its curriculum may be oriented toward vocational ministry. In fact, the University has a very ecumenical approach that is welcoming to ethnic, cultural and theological diversity; it desires to “recruit for national influence”; and its curriculum and program offerings are quite broad. The false impressions created by the name make it more difficult for HBU to reach and engage its target audiences. One of the several reasons for this is…

LIKE IT OR NOT, “BAPTIST” HAS BAGGAGE

In order for the University to improve its quality, reputation and influence—which I assume most supporters of HBU want—it must have a “brand” that is inclusive and free of baggage. Though many do not want to admit it, the word “Baptist” raises hurdles.

Such an explicit denominational display turns away many potential students, donors, sponsors, faculty and staff—many of whom, like me, are faithful Christians. This fact has been backed up by both experience and empirical research. A perfect example is the high school student who walks up to the admissions table at a college fair and says “Oh, that’s what HBU stands for… well, I’m not Baptist, but do you know where the Baylor table is?”

The data shows that while most Houstonians can recognize the name, they know nothing else about it. HBU is associated with Baptist education, not quality education. Thus, the University’s ability to attract non-Baptist involvement is severely deficient. But this isn’t just about making non-Baptists feel more welcome; future students of all denominations would be well-served by a University that is gaining greater recognition for excellence.

I can share a personal anecdote. In my junior and senior year I attended several of out-of-state seminars and conferences, and applied to a number of graduate schools. In each case I faced an obstacle in the name of my alma mater. With “Houston Baptist University” on my name tag, people were immediately skeptical, supposing that I might be an undereducated fundamentalist with a biased and narrow perspective. Of course, these stereotypes can be overcome, but they are an impediment, and in some cases the first impression is all one gets. As someone heavily steeped in the discourse of politics and economics, it is important that people view my education as credible and unbiased. A name change will allow students like me to introduce themselves on neutral ground, giving them a better shot at their top-choice fellowships, internships and graduate programs.

LOOKING FORWARD

I think HBU has incredible potential to offer something that is truly one-of-a-kind in the world. The University will soon be the only Christian institution of higher learning in a major metropolitan location, offering a liberal arts core, a broad set of majors, Masters and Doctoral programs and NCAA Div 1 athletics. On top of that, new developments are underway to expand and revitalize the campus and community. Great things are in store for all who support the mission of HBU, but we must be forward-looking enough to see the great blessings that lie not just behind us, but on the road ahead.

Jefferson Bethke’s “Jesus hates religion” video has gained enormous popularity among the Facebook walls and Twitter feeds of America’s young evangelicals. This slick production features Bethke reciting a poem about Jesus and his teachings being the antithesis of “religion,” (to which he applies a peculiar definition). More to the point, it is a critique of hypocrisy, though his message is distorted by extraneous and frequently inaccurate attacks on Christianity and America.

The politically charged opening lines set the tone—perhaps the inspiration—for the rest of Bethke’s prose. It is clearly his view that many Republicans are fake Christians who are judgmental and heartless, yet have claimed moral superiority and hijacked the church. He continues on, recklessly blasting the church for starting wars, not feeding the poor, excommunicating divorcees and generally not representing the gospel. Thus, he concludes, the church—and, of course, Republicans—are following “religion,” but true Christians follow Jesus.

Unfortunately, while there is an important message to be shared here, the video is littered with theological inaccuracies, erroneous assumptions and, yes, its very own glaring hypocrisies (jump to the bottom to see what others have said). Bethke has been thoroughly critiqued, and has taken it with respect and humility, but what I really want to ask is this: How is it that a video with so many wrongheaded statements is so widely praised among my peers? I can think of at least three reasons.

1. The popularization of church

Most Christians do not study theology. That is understandable just as much as the fact that most people do not read philosophy literature. But we should expect pastors and preachers to uphold a high level of intellectual discipline. Furthermore, it is their responsibility to find ways to bring all people to a greater understanding of the history and theology of their faith. In too many churches, substance in teaching has been replaced with opinions, based on the whims of passion, with a supporting act by jumbotrons and coffee shops.

More and more people are rejecting traditions and congregations in favor of independent study and transient attendance at flavor-of-the-month churches. This disconnection from the larger Church body, and its theological and historical context, has left younger Christians with a blank slate and unsteady foundation.

2. Politically and historically biased education

Our public education system has a markedly left-wing bias. It is not uncommon to characterize our Founding Fathers as power-hungry racists, our foreign policy as imperialist, and our economic system as an instrument of oppression and destruction. American successes are counted as steps toward a progressive vision of equality and opportunity, led by protests and presidents, against conservative power structures.

Thus, many young people have been trained to see themselves as part of this ongoing political movement. Their enemies are tradition and wealth, and the party that protects them. Christianity is ordinarily a part of the tradition to be rejected, but Christians themselves call instead for a revolution in the church. Left-wing Christian populism emerged in opposition to the “American Dream,” wrongly interpreted as the acquisition of material success and status.

3. The MTV generation’s reaction to TBN

We live in a media-driven world. Television—especially cable—brought with it new values and ways of communicating. Appearance and production became extremely important for attracting an audience. In the late 1980s, Music Television did to a whole generation what Elvis did in the 1950s: it energized America’s youth and changed the industry. Indeed, the “reality tv” phenomenon first began with MTV’s “real world.” Amidst news anchors and soap operas, MTV made television cool.

Image via Wikipedia

In an attempt to utilize television as a ministry tool, along came Trinity Broadcasting Network, featuring gaudy furniture, big hair, fanciful clothing and very uncool entertainment. To my peers, the face of Christian America was outdated and kitschy, while the secular entertainment industry was electrifying. Then came the scandals with Jim Bakker, the angry rhetoric of Rev. Jerry Falwell, and the controversial statements of Pat Robertson and his “Christian Coalition.”  The Church, it seemed, was becoming a voice of division.

All of this left young Christians without public role models. In a battle of words, people like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton could compete. But in a battle of popular entertainment, Christianity failed to supply a counterweight. Despite trying to keep up with changing trends, Christianity seemed out of touch, out of date, and seriously in danger of collapse. Enter the emergent church, which is on a tacit mission to inject cool back into Christianity and make Jesus “relevant” to modern culture. One outcome is an explosion of new churches that have effectively exiled the over-40 crowd.

Without roots, Christianity is a slave to the winds.

I wrote a blog post last July called Postmodernism and the Great Protestant Exodus, in which I argued that postmodern philosophy had caused Christians to distance themselves from traditions and denominations. In their place is an idea that each individual is on a personal search for God and truth—relationship, not religion. But while the essence of the idea is true, according to Protestant claim, they swing the pendulum too far. By failing to recognize the role of liturgy, order, accountability, tradition and historical context, they are stepping out of the ship and into a life raft, then cutting the tether in the middle of a vast ocean.

In America, we grow up admiring revolutionaries, but we must also learn when to be loyalists. Of course we are each called to seek Christ on a personal level. But to interpret this as a call to do away with “religion” is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

OTHER RESPONSES TO THE VIDEO:

- Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really, by Kevin DeYoung

- Video: Jesus=Religion, by Worldview Everlasting

The impressive near-victory by Rick Santorum in last night’s Iowa caucus is making headlines today, but his star will fall soon enough. As I argued in my last post, Mitt Romney is the inevitable candidate, and for two reasons: he can beat Barack Obama, and he would be a pretty good president.

Santorum is simply the latest in the never-ending train of “anti-establishment” candidates, a fact evinced by his complete inability to earn serious consideration by Republicans until all other options imploded. Mitt Romney is not the guy conservatives wanted this time around, but they will soon have to admit what we really knew all along: that guy isn’t in the race.

I rooted for Mitch Daniels early on. He declined to run. Others rooted for Chris Christie, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio, but it simply isn’t their time. What we ultimately ended up with is a field of candidates who are each impressive in their own way, but come with at least one massive handicap. Perry’s home-state success can’t outweigh his debate gaffes; Paul’s conviction for individual liberty can’t outweigh his wacky foreign policy; Gingrich’s excellent debate skills can’t outweigh his personal baggage; Cain has his sketchy past and Bachmann has this.

Santorum cannot be the nominee because he is completely mismatched to the concerns of the electorate. He is a hard social conservative running at a time when jobs, the economy and international instability are key concerns. I like that faith and family are important to him (just as they are with Romney) but sometimes you need a chaplain and sometimes you need a mechanic.

The 2016 and 2020 cycles will provide a bevy of seasoned conservatives from which to elect a national standard-bearer. But for 2012 we have two possible choices: Romney or Obama.

This is sad news for fiscal conservatives who felt they were abandoned in 2008 with a McCain nomination (include me among them). This, not Obama, is what kick-started the Tea Party movement. They have spent four years anticipating 2012, and they are working hard to show that they will not be pushed around, which has resulted in one of the most bizarre nominating processes in recent history. But again, Santorum’s social focus will not enthuse this crowd for long.

I am willing to acknowledge the good fight and go with the candidate most likely to result in a better America, even if he’s not ideal. But there are plenty of martyrs left to continue the resistance. Those who think America is ready for a hard-lined conservative are ignoring the realities of the country they live in.

Our best chance is nominating Romney and making sure that the Congress he must work with is solidly conservative. He might not win. And he wouldn’t be as conservative a president as one of the other guys. But let’s not forget that what brought our nation leftward was not presidents but culture. If we want to reverse course, it’s got to happen outside of the voting booth.

Despite Newt Gingrich’s lead in nearly every poll, the GOP should get solidly behind Mitt Romney.

Romney’s weaknesses are in full view, and have been for several years; there are no surprises with Mitt. His primary faults are that he seems unprincipled and unable to relate to the “average” American, because of his changing positions and life-long wealth, respectively. But that’s pretty much it—no adulterous relationships, no political scandals and no problem with hyper-partisanship or inexperience. He’s a relatively uncontroversial figure.

What Republicans fear the most—Mitt’s moderate past—will probably be his greatest asset in the general election. Obama ran as The Uniter, but in reality has been one of the most divisive presidents of the last cent