06 July 2006

Back to our roots

by J. Frank Norris



(A TRIBUTE TO YESTERDAY'S COMMENT-THREAD)


44 comments:

Even So... said...

Now that is going to keep me from going to sleep, I can't stop laughing! BTW, just got done reading "dead right" from 2005 again, then came here, I can't stand it...rofllllll

Even So... said...

I just saw J Frank Norris, no, no, stop it! It hurts!

Broken Messenger said...

Is the old guy Frank supposed to be Frank in about 20 years or so?

Brad

LeeC said...

I don't appreciate your condoning the abuse of octogenarians.

C. T. Lillies said...

Two chuckles and a belly laugh!

Good one!

Josh

Greg Linscott said...

My head hurts...

Greg Linscott said...

"Is the old guy Frank supposed to be Frank in about 20 years or so?"

I was thinking more 20 years ago. :D

Mike Y said...

Oh, that's too funny! I'm just glad I had nothing to do with that mess. I'm a virgo; I don't believe in confrontation.

Mathew Sims said...

That's pretty hilarious.

I read Dan's post and thought it was great, but never read the thread so afterwards read the thread and think the comic is even funnier.

Can't please 'um all I guess! They don't call 'um Fightin' Fundies for nothing.

Keep up the Good Work!

MBS
Soli Deo Gloria

Steve said...

We've been long overdue for a comic cover. It's the perfect tribute to yesterday's blogpost!

And I can't help but speculate that the creative director had enough fodder on hand to create multiple covers...

Impacted Wisdom Truth said...

Having graduated from a Fundamentalist Bible College, I felt strange reading the comments from both sides of the controversy over "being offended" by the punkster girl's picture. Why?

The Fundamentalists I knew in school threw around phrases like, "that offends me" or "that is offensive" as if those phrases were beaded necklaces at Mardi Gras.

It was as if "being offended" was some sort of sacred, holy state of being that could not be overridden, not even questioned; it was absolute. In reality it was just a verbal device Fundamentalists employed to maintain their version of social order--and keep others "in line."

Since moving into the Evangelical camp, so to speak, I have come to appreciate the emphasis on Biblical reasons for accepting or rejecting things, not just taking umbrage at whatever does not fit one's view of social worthiness.

Ironically, to adopt many of the "standards" of the Fundamentalists I have known, one does not even need to know the Bible. One just has to hang around with the Fundamentalists and adopt the same attitude toward whatever they are "offended" by, and one becomes a member of the club in good standing. And of course, the standards are unquestionable because, in their minds, they are certifiably Biblical.

If something makes me uncomfortable, I tend to ignore it or go elsewhere. Something about forbearance and not wanting to strain out gnats motivates me. Oh, and having been a fellow student among Fundamentalist kids for those four years in Bible College, I saw that all the extra-Biblical "standards" did nothing to prevent fleshly indulgence.

Taliesin said...

impacted wisdom truth wrote:
"It was as if "being offended" was some sort of sacred, holy state of being that could not be overridden, not even questioned; it was absolute. In reality it was just a verbal device Fundamentalists employed to maintain their version of social order--and keep others "in line.""

I've been there too. They say they are offended then quote Scripture saying not to offend a brother. What they don't realize is what the Bible means by not offending a brother. Offend in the Biblical sense does not mean "shock" or "dismay," as they take it. It means to lead another Christian to sin against their conscience (to "stumble"). What the Fundamentalists are "offended" by does not tempt them to sin at all and doesn't fall into the Biblical category.

So, to paraphrase Luther, "Offend [in the Biblical sense] boldly, but boldly still love." I think the comic book cover qualifies.

Mister Larry said...

That was waaaay too funny! And, I am a regular over at SharperIron. Great job, Phil! :)

Brian said...

I had not read the thread on Dan's post--wow! Even Antonio, with the Absolutely Free avitar, showed up to throw in something that did have anything to do with the post. Funny, funny, funny comicbook parody.

Ben said...

"Go away! Go away! We don't want you."

Sure you don't. Whatever. You know good and well that Shepherds Conference would have like 38 people if the fundamentalists decided to boycott.

marc said...

Heheheheh

Al said...

Frank,
Don't you think mid calf is a bit high for that ladies skirt? Oh, and the anti-vegan prisoner's suit it torn provocatively. Needless to say I am offended.

al sends

Sam H. said...

fightin' fundie: "I am shocked..., SHOCKED there is labeling and ogling going on..."

phil: "you're winnings sir..."

fightin' fundie: "oh...thanks"

Having said this, I would "label" myself a Christian fundamentalist--and as such, I usually only take offense to pharisaism, poor exegesis, faulty application, lousy worship, and trite religious music...and, I've seen all those things outside fundy circles too...oh, and I have a secret desire to take marksman lessons from j.frank norris...

phil, in national review, there used to be a feature called "the gimlet eye"--a column which no longer appears. I miss it. I also miss the same "gimlet eye" effect of the corrupted comic book covers you have produced in the past...more of them would be nice...

LeeC said...

*Looks at Sams' icon*

AH!
The dog! He's got THE Dog!!!!!

Ack!

DJP said...

Ladies and gentlemen, Phil Johnson has picked up the stick and he is approaching the nest of angry hornets... he's moving the stick... moving the stick towards the nest, and... yes! He has poked the stick into the nest, and is shaking it! He's shaking it hard, and he's laughing!....

Paul Doutell said...

The framed picture of Chiquita in the background was a nice touch. Goes to show that at heart, she's really just a sensitive family gal.

Trinian said...

I'm pleased that you didn't take any of that to heart, Phil. They were throwing some pretty serious and disgusting accusations at you in that thread. It's an excellent testimony that you've kept a good humor though it all when your average blogger would have exploded in anger.

Keep doin' what you do! We'll keep being challenged and equipped by it.
~Trinian

Mister Larry said...

The angry hornet's nest has already been stirred by the administrator of SI. The post has already been started there at: http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2627

centuri0n said...

I was going to say, "I'm offended", but somebody already got that joke, then somebody else got that joke, and now it would be beating the joke to death to say "I'm offended."

I thank my lucky stars, however, that Phil did not pick a cover in which the offense was also related to alcohol. Or dancin'. Or cussin'. Or girls that do.

Dan: it's funny how he laughs when he does stuff like this, no?

Phil Johnson said...

Mister Larry,

I've been needling fundamentalists for several years, and they almost always respond with grace and good humor. There are some wackos in their midst who are exceptions to the rule, of course, but most of the regulars at SharperIron.org have my utmost respect.

Few longtime Pyro readers will miss the stark contrast between the fundies' response to being lampooned, and the response (not so long ago) from a certain group of tipplers who are well known for dishing out more than they can take.

Note, too, that the teeming hordes of postmodernized innocent bystanders who were absolutely traumatized when an image depicting violence was employed as satire against a group of iconoclasts have not raised a peep of protest when the exact same joke is made against the fundies.

I said at the time that most of those protests were mere posturing and that no one really believed I was promoting (or even downplaying) domestic violence.

I rest my case.

Al said...

Oh, That was Mr. Johnson not Mr. Turk who posted that anti-vegan comic. I redirect my outrage at the larger target. Metaphorically speaking...

Al sends

PreachermanMCBC said...

OK. I guess I should be seething, belligerent, seeing red, angry, overheating, overwheening, ticked-off, freaking out, foaming at the mouth, . . .

But, that guy that is saying "Who's the weaker brother now?" O man, that has absolutely cracked me up. "I've got your label . . ."

I'll be in California next week. You'd better be watching for two guys wearing stripes. JOKE, JOKE, JOKE. Don't call Jack Bauer or anything. I'm just kidding.

Like I said on SI to some of the nervous "young fundamentalists":
One side says the other side is legalistic, nuts, pharisaical, overwheening, etc. We say they are loose, left-leaning, new-evangelical, worldly, etc.

Try reading a little church history and you'll find that a whole lot of men have argued a whole lot of things and its certainly been a whole lot rougher at times. I will even admit that a lot that was written about me at Pyromaniacs actually "cracked me up." Kent and I have talked and had some laughs about it.

That is not to say we are not serious about these things. But, in the end life goes on. We preach, love our wives, play with our kids, give out the Gospel, serve our respective churches and the Lord, and enjoy the Lord.

SolaMeanie said...

Frank, I am offended that you were offended before I was offended. I'm telling Ma.

Phil, I am offended that you would post not only a comic book showing a prisoner's rippling biceps, thereby probably causing impure thoughts among Internet savvy inmates at San Quentin, but also that you would trivialize an important issue as being offended in a comic book. Are you surreptitously on the take from Marvel or Warner Brothers? The use of the word "tippler" was also highly inappropriate. If someone heads out now for too much gin and tonic, you will be personally responsible.

Besides, I am the only one here permitted to use archaic language. I feel like I am surrounded by a bunch of jackanapes.

Gummby said...

And, in fairness to the Fundies, they aren't the ones leading the SBC charge into Prohibition 2.0, right?

Matthew LaPine said...

LOL
I'm trying to decide who's who...

centuri0n said...

Somehow I missed the Linscott shot, and now I really am offended. perturbed even.

C. T. Lillies said...

Well about that Prohib 2.0 thing...in any merger there's an eater and an eatee. Somtimes its not always the biggest critter that does the eating.

I completely missed Chiquita in the background and just about spit-checked the monitor.

HA!
Josh

Jonathan Moorhead said...

Good show, Phil. We need a comic cover at least once a month. What do you say?

Doug said...

Oh, man! When I saw the title (Back to our roots), I thought this was going to be a post about pterodactyls.

Good comic cover though!

4given said...

I am still wondering when you great theologians are going to talk about the important stuff... like whether or not Eve had a bellybutton.

Oh... and don't make me mad. Apparently it is a scary thing to make a homeschool mother mad. Way scarier than making a group of breastfeeding women angry... according to Challies.

I'm sorry... did I just type breast? I hope that doesn't cause the weaker brother to stumble. Sorry... no really.

centuri0n said...

Holy Smokes! Lisa made a FUNNY!

I ... I think I'm scandalized.

Rich Ryan said...

Did preacherman just tell Phil Johnson to, "Try reading a little church history?" WOW!

We have officially jumped the shark.

Taliesin said...

Ya know, pictures keep changing around here. I'm sure this morning the one in the comic book cover said "Home Sweet Home." Now it has some tart and her mongrel dog.

Is this site haunted?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Phil,

You're both Pyro and a gas. Infinite laughs, I win, you can't beat infinite.

From a worldly point of view, you ought to be very proud of yourself. Really, masterful. Textbook dismissal and ostracization; no one can mess with your genius. Kudos. Bravo. Three thumbs up. Your touch with opposition, maestro, the Bernstein of blogging. And the way you have kept the momentum going (stunned silence; choked...)

I've not read this kind of adoration of a person (you) since a Jack Hyles lovefest. Believe your paper clippings, your headlines. Believe your fortune cookies. Just believe in Phil. Move over Rudyard Kipling!!!

One warning though: Watch for the paparazzi.

PreachermanMCBC said...

Rich Ryan,

You might want to read my post again. Try paying a little more attention to what I wrote this time. Smiles. I wasn't writing to Phil. I was responding to some nervous YF's at SI.

BTW, what if I was writing to Phil? Does he have the "corner" on reading church history?

Taliesin said...

Doh!

Taliesin wrote: Offend [in the Biblical sense] when he should have written: Offend [not in the Biblical sense]

I shouldn't post that early in the morning. Further evidence is that I just now got "impacted wisdom truth."

Rich Ryan said...

p-mcbc,

My mistake, I missed the connection between the SI note and the CH comment.

Does Phil have the corner? Probably not. He's approaching the whole room.

Most of the guys I know did not ask Phil to do CH on their ordination council because he's read more than most of us could even hope to and the really challenging part is that he remembers most if not ALL of it.

I'll go back to, "Nothing to see here, move on" now.

Dan Miller said...

"Look who's the Weaker Brother NOW!"

Classic. Thanks for the laugh!

Mister Larry said...

Phil,

Thanks for your personal comments to my post. The thread over at SharperIron was closed due to a few who seem to be eager in taking offense over anything that isn't 'in line' with their thinking, and wanted to gripe even more about the supposedly immodest content of your original posting of a picture of a punked out young woman and a dog. Worse than that, Mr. Brandenburg got the ad-hominem comment of the year ("and Phil is in spin mode, instant revisionism, which is accepted by the mind-numbed kool-aid drinkers who want an admiring glance.") and ended up getting that thread closed over at SharperIron (thank you, Greg Linscott). So much for the spiritually-minded fundamentalists who want to maintain, even enforce, the 'standard' of what's right and what's not, yet they cannot control the tone of their own language.