Tyler Durden & the Truth about SBC Voices

by Tony K on August 16, 2011 · 51 comments

In light of the most recent controversy surrounding SBC Voices, the editorial staff convened an emergency meeting to revise our policies. As this meeting progressed, some deeper issues came to light.

We must now disclose a painful truth to our readers. Matt Svoboda and Dave Miller are not real people. They are merely projections of Tony Kummer’s subconscious. They were invented as an outlet for his personal disappointment and feeling of powerlessness in regard to his once beloved denomination. The entire situation closely mirrors the situation in Fight Club and the character of Tyler Durden, except Tony admits he is a little overweight.

(The narrator) is confused and enraged, so he responds to his environment by creating Tyler Durden, a NietzscheanÜbermensch, in his mind. While Tyler is who the narrator would want to be, he is not empathetic and does not help the narrator face decisions in his life “that are complicated and have moral and ethical implications”. Fincher explained, “[Tyler] can deal with the concepts of our lives in an idealistic fashion, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the compromises of real life as modern man knows it. Which is: You’re not really necessary to a lot of what’s going on. It’s built, it just needs to run now.”

1 Dave Durden August 16, 2011 at 3:23 pm

(SBC Voices) Fight Club was the beginning, now it’s moved out of the basement, it’s called Project Mayhem.

2 Christiane August 16, 2011 at 3:38 pm

this is getting better and better !

3 Jeff August 16, 2011 at 5:10 pm

I guess the name SBC “Voices” makes a little more sense in this context.

4 Jeremy Parks August 16, 2011 at 5:18 pm

I must be missing the joke because I’ve never seen Fight Club.

5 Doug Hibbard August 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm

The advertising for the film kind of collapsed, since the first rule of Fight Club is that you can’t talk about Fight Club.

So, it was nigh unto impossible to advertise Fight Club.

6 Mike Bergman August 16, 2011 at 5:18 pm

So I want to return the new sbcvoices brand soap I just bought from k-mart?

7 bill August 16, 2011 at 5:21 pm

Put it in your Netflix queue, totally worth it.

But do pay attention to the ratings…

8 pkrevbro August 16, 2011 at 5:20 pm

Oh, so we’re taking Peter seriously now? I missed that memo.

I hope everyone remembers that this is the guy that managed to knock Wiley Drake out of the collective consciousness of the entire Southern Baptist Convention with his own antics and supposed gonzo journalistic endeavors with Al Mohler.

9 Matt Svoboda August 16, 2011 at 7:05 pm

No one over here takes Peter seriously… Hence, the sarcasm and joking manner of this post.

10 Dave Miller August 16, 2011 at 7:23 pm

Alright, let’s not go there. I did not think that it was appropriate for them to have an SBC Voices bashing comment stream, but that is their business.

Let’s not make this a Lumpkins/SBC Tomorrow bashing session.

We don’t fight fire with fire. We honor the Lord and take the high road, okay?

11 Matt Svoboda August 16, 2011 at 10:42 pm

Okay, big daddy Dave… Okay.

12 Dave Miller August 16, 2011 at 10:51 pm

Big Daddy Dave? Oh, no he didn’t.

13 Matt Svoboda August 16, 2011 at 10:57 pm

That was my way of honoring you… For your stellar golf game.

14 Dave Miller August 16, 2011 at 11:19 pm
15 Marshall Peters August 16, 2011 at 5:37 pm

Tony broke the first rule: Never talk about SBCVoices.

16 Dave Miller August 16, 2011 at 7:03 pm

Tony likes to break rules.

17 Matt Svoboda August 16, 2011 at 7:05 pm

Yeah I do…

18 Dave Miller August 16, 2011 at 7:23 pm

No, I do…

19 Tony K August 16, 2011 at 8:03 pm

Would you two keep quiet, I’m trying to read the comments

20 Dave Miller August 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm

*whispering* Sorry, boss.

21 Jared Moore August 16, 2011 at 5:46 pm

I wasn’t sure what Fight Club was whenever it came out at the theaters. I hadn’t even seen the previews, but I thought Edward Norton was a good actor. I took my mom to see Fight Club at the movie theater. It was just my mom, me, and a thoroughly R-rated flick. I hope she doesn’t remember.

22 Dan Barnes August 17, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Didn’t you tell us how to watch stuff like this to the Glory of God?

23 Jared Moore August 17, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Dan, yup. But, I’m not convinced everyone is up to the task. At the time, I don’t think my mother’s or my conscience were ready to dissect fight club unto the glory of God.

If movies like this cannot be watched unto the glory of God, then it’s sinful for Christians to watch them; since we’re told to do all things unto the glory of God.

24 pkrevbro August 16, 2011 at 8:26 pm

Question: If there are SBC blogsites that have this view and regularly disparage SBC Voices, then why are you all giving them the publicity and traffic through your links?

Just cut the ties…

25 Dave Miller August 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm

Because our goal is to be a place that facilitates all SBC Voices. Just because someone disagrees with me, or with the majority of commenters here, or because they criticize or ridicule us, does not mean that they will lose their voice.

Plus, the criticism really builds traffic, so…

26 pkrevbro August 16, 2011 at 9:10 pm

Nice editing… :)

27 Dave Miller August 16, 2011 at 9:12 pm

What? Er..huh? I have no recollection…

28 pkrevbro August 16, 2011 at 9:24 pm

The first rule of comment moderation is one does not talk about comment moderation.

It just remains “unpublished” in the internets…

29 Doug Hibbard August 16, 2011 at 10:07 pm

I think this is part of what some of the critics are missing. Voices isn’t just a site where some people post, but there are also the links. The links provide some of the viewpoints that posters here don’t have. So, in all, the idea of balance is a little closer than you’ve gotten credit for.

30 Tony K August 17, 2011 at 12:32 pm

SBC Voices, despite it’s multiple personas, has no real sense of ego. I think those who disagree, or even disparage, our blog are still people. In the end it won’t really matter, we just want to promote conversation about these important questions.

31 Jeff Musgrave August 16, 2011 at 9:59 pm

A question and an observation. I suppose I didn’t get included as a doppleganger for Tony primarily because I have been able to lay lower then you other yahoos have (or maybe I am just an extension/foil for the Dave Miller character). Now for the question: does “fight club” have a cage-phase?

32 Doug Hibbard August 16, 2011 at 10:06 pm

Can’t answer that. First rule is….well, see above.

33 Smuschany August 17, 2011 at 1:16 am

My question is how is Tony going to get rid of (if he wants to) his alter-egos? I dont think the movie way would work very well. Anyone got ideas?

34 Dave Miller August 17, 2011 at 11:29 am

I’m not sure that I will like where this might go.

35 Jeff Musgrave August 17, 2011 at 5:23 pm

I haven’t seen the movie, but I figure I am relatively safe given that no one would want to come here to the Canadian border to get me. It would be far too much hassle.

36 Josh M. August 17, 2011 at 10:33 am

The nay-sayers are just polishing the brass on the Titanic. I am Jack’s total lack of interest.

Maybe we should all get together and make a support group?

37 Dr. James Willingham August 17, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Wow! A real case of paranoid-schizophrenic…sort of like one of whom I heard that talked to the wall and it talked back. He, I understand, recovered somewhat from that affliction. Will Tony? I mean to have voices like Dave Miller and Matt Svoboda floating around in one’s head, serving as mere projections, surely is evidence of PTSD and needs a EMD therapeutic intervention. It is enough give Freud agonies of ecstasy.

38 Tony K August 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm

I tried shock treatment when I was a kid, it never really worked but helped me grow a lot of hair on my chest.

39 Jared Moore August 17, 2011 at 12:51 pm

Will it work for my head then? I’m follicly challenged.

40 Tim Rogers August 17, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Tony, Dave, Matt, et al,

Just wanted to make sure I get these facts right. According the the last comment on Dr. Pearce’s post there are 213. According to the comment count on Peter Lumpkins post there are 27. In Dr. Pearce’s post even Dave agreed with Trevin Wax that is did nothing to move the conversation forward and as such was a divisive piece. (Satire on)However, Dave also agreed with Dr. Pearce which is par for the course. He is good at agreeing with those he disagrees with even though he doesn’t disagree. (Satire off) When one counts the comments on the piece that Peter Lumpkins wrote one will find, at most 10 comments that mention SBC Voices in a negative light. When one counts the comments on Dr. Pearce’s piece one will find the overwhelming (80%) majority of comments either defend Dr. Pearce in his put down of Dr. Whitt, or they personally attack Peter Lumpkins or myself. You will find where I came after the author and also Dave, but those are miniscule in comparison to the comment stream. Even people who usually disagree with me were in agreement with my points and they were being attacked by the establishment commentators here at SBC Voices.

This leads me to my question. With the miniscule importance of Peter Lumpkins and myself, you see a need to publish this satirical post to pint out our lack of importance, why? Or was it to just show that after Dr. Pearce failed so miserably at satire concerning Dr. Whitt this was a rebuttal to show SBC Voices knows how to do satire?

I mean, if you are going to compare SBC Voices to SBC Tomorrow would you not be remiss in pointing out that the voices at SBC Tomorrow are more balanced? It isn’t like one person comments and 35 acidic tongued devils spew vitriol all over the one disagreeing. At least the merits of the argument is weighed.

Blessings,
Tim

41 Dave Miller August 17, 2011 at 1:03 pm

I believe, Tim, that Tony meant this thing as a joke. In that light, I requested both publicly and privately that those who disparaged Peter or anyone else on this blog cease and desist.

However, since I am not real, but only a projection of Tony’s subconscious, I will bow out of this discussion.

42 pkrevbro August 17, 2011 at 5:46 pm

Did Tim Rogers really just say that SBC Tomorrow is balanced?

Wow.

Baghdad Bob has nothing on this guy.

43 Tim Rogers August 18, 2011 at 6:21 am

Because I have now been told this post is not real but was intended for humor, I guess I need to laugh at the “Baghdad Bob” reference toward me. Irregardless of how much it looks like and seems to be intended as a slur.

Okie dokie,

Tim

44 Tom Parker August 18, 2011 at 7:05 am

I certainly would not say that SBC Tomorrow is balanced.

45 Tim Rogers August 18, 2011 at 7:46 am

Tom,

Romans 16:17

Tim

46 Tim Rogers August 18, 2011 at 6:16 am

Dave,

Sorry for not catching that. I wasn’t at the meeting and did not get the memo. Neither did I see the “humor” tag on the post. So, I beg your forgiveness for….well whatever you want me to beg forgiveness.

Blessings,
Tim

47 Dr. James Willingham August 17, 2011 at 10:40 pm

The extended discussion left my head in a whirl. It is almost enough to drive me to drink…water, that is. I got drunk once in my life and practically upchucked my socks…like Billy Graham. so liquor has no attraction for me. Admittedly, these kinds of esoteric and exotic mental trip the fantastics does make me wonder about the advantages of inebriation. However, loving preaching as I do, I never could understand how any one would prefer drinking, money, chasing women, or anything of the nature of a departure from the way of Christ. Next year, May 20th, I will have been an ordained Southern Baptist minister for 50 years…and, if I last until Dec.7, 2017, I will have been a professing Christian for 60 years. I am still a sinner in my old nature whose only hope is the same as it was at the beginning, namely, God’s mercy and grace as it is revealed in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. While there are depths of solemnity to the Christian life, there are also moments of joy and just plain fun. God willing, I will bring a message in the prayer meeting of the church where I am a member on August 31. My subject, deo volente, will be Gratitude. I thank God for the silliness of this column, a moment of fun. I thank God for a son in the ministry. I thank God for home, family, church, community, nation, for all the people with whom we hold our discussions..even those who get carried away and forget the common courtesy tht our Lord would have us exercise toward others. I thank God for the future that lies before me, a future of eternity with Christ, not a bit of it deserved, earned or merited on my part. All of it due to His Amazing Grace. The list of people for whom I feel a sense of gratitude to God who brought them into my life would be too long to record here. I mentioned our nation. Let me add that I am thankful to find out I had family here from the beginning, some of them were here when the others arrived. I am thankful for the fact that the gentlemen who produce SBC Voices stopped to have a moment of laughter. I think you are God’s answers to my prayers for 38 years for a Third Great Awakening…and, if some one thinks I don’t include those who might not be Sovereign Grace in their beliefs, let me add that I thank God for those who do not yet agree with me. One of these days we will all be in full agreement and accord in that glorious realm to come, and, whatever might be wrong with our beliefs and practices, we will then know the whole truth and be at peace. For now lets us love and laugh and treat one another with that courtesy and tact and joy and solemnity that is a part and parcel of Christian Agape Love.

48 volfan007 August 18, 2011 at 7:16 am

SBC Tomorrow is just as balanced as SBC Voices, or the Founders, or Southeastern Seminary blog are.

David

49 Tom Parker August 18, 2011 at 8:39 am

007:

No it is not.

50 Tom Parker August 18, 2011 at 8:46 am

Tim Rogers:

Please do not quote scriptures to me. My thanks in advance.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: