A New Covenant College Slogan

I always wonder if colleges and universitys look to their students when they are coming up with these imaging/mktg solutions. I say this bc there is TONS of talent w/in the student body. I mean, there better be, or the admissions office is doing something wrong.

So, His World. Your Calling. is replacing In All Things Christ Preeminent?

What's the price tag on a new slogan like this?

Wow... how did I miss the old WA discussion? ... oh yeah, I was bouncing back and forth cross-country. Hmmm, interesting that you chose to resurrect this discussion, Josiah. All that arguing back and forth, and you didn't catch Ed on his biggest flaw... the original correct usage of "Niel", and the subsequent "correction" to the incorrect "Neil".

As stated on the Covenant College website Welcome Message, he signs himself as "Dr. Niel Nielson, President".
--
RDS

Mike, the College in recent months has burned a number of bridges with competent alumni who work in marketing, advertising, graphic design, etc. I've got a story on that I'll get around to eventually.

I do know that the budget for Stamats in terms of the work done for the Capital Campaign exceeds $100,000 but that includes a lot of work other than just developing a tagline. What exactly they were paid for their work on the Admissions department we wont know until the College releases it's numbers at the close of this fiscal year.

whoa. so when are you going to get on the freaking Board and change some of this stuff?

Wallace's Slogan. Me Vomit

I mean what the hell does that mean? His world your calling? So... what. I felt that a school teaching Christ's Preimence was a little more inspiring. I mean it held the whole ethos of the school. Something you could really see in each and every class room, a christ cenetered education.

His world your calling what kind of ethos is that? If that's the moto, if the school is going to focus more on calling than teaching Christ then maybe the school should be more trade based. Maybe have a few wood shop classes, underwriting classes, or ditch digging classes... basically become ITT Tech or some other random trade school.

Covenant in didn't teach me my calling, it taught me how to see Christ's prescence in all facets of my life and how to live that way. My calling... heck I still don't know what that is. The best I can come up with is I'm called to be doing whatever I'm doing at this very moment...

This is the worst idea the schools has had since well, they've had a lot of bad ideas lately...

Before this gets too far along it would be good to know whether this slogan does in fact replace "In all things..." or if it's a campaign theme. That's an important distinction. The former would bother me, the latter not so much.

As to burning bridges with alumni designers, etc., so far I am still designing The View, and have been asked for quotes on other projects. But then again, am I what you'd call competent? :-P

You've got to be kidding! How does this watered down slogan in any way portray Covenant? More importantly are we telling people if they don't come to CC that they are not in "His World", and not living up to their "Calling". I'm emailing a board member!

It is the new, official school moto/slogan/tagline whatever. What I don't know is how it will influence the new Capital Campaign.

Schools use taglines all the time without replacing their motto. Do you know that "His World. Your Calling." replaces "In All Things Christ Preeminent"?

Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'm doubtful. And checking my sources...

Hmmm...

"Rejected Covenant College Slogans"

...I smell a List coming on.

The slogan actually has an appealing "Army of One" vibe. It's true that it's completely unintelligible; the meaning becomes more slippery and elusive the more you analyze it. But it does a good job of throwing a sop to the old "Christ pre-eminent" concept while foregrounding the experience of the individual student. What going to Covenant is going to do to enhance one's "calling" remains obscure. But if twinned with a series of posters showing a famous alum, say Ian Work, overcoming imposing challenges, e.g., the ropes course, it could be damned effective.

I'm curious as to what fanfare the College will announce the official change. Will Davis work it into his commencement speach (with outline)? Or were they planning on just slipping it in with all the new admissions material?

There's all sorts of other questions: why the change? what this slogan? what were the other motto's proposed? Should a man with predominantly restaurant management experience be making a decision of this kind?

The slogan fits, IMO, with the current Administration precedent of having as broad an appeal as possible for attracting as many students as possible. It's understandable, for financial reasons, but it's no less sad.

I love the new motto.

First they want to take the hyphen out and now they want the whole thing. If this is in fact replacing the beloved "pre-eminent" motto and gets inscribed on the front sign, I smell a series of alumni pranks coming on...

At first I thought you had to be joking. Only after the slew of comments did I get that you aren't.

Regarding competence - Matt, I do not know if you are competent, but the View is competent, so, sure you are. I do know that I have been visiting the various art, photography, and web design websites of many alumns and have been seeing amazing stuff! I mean, stuff that is above competent.

To me, that's what you pay money for. A slogan that is worth paying for knocks your socks off. It makes you say, "Holy crap, who came up with that?" I need them to work for me!"

As much as I think the slogan is fine, I do not think it is amazing. "In all things..." has a very traditional ring to it and REALLY does a great job of wrapping up the mission of the college and the Chrisitan life.

If you are going to break with tradition, you better be freakin' amazing.

I have developed an immediate affection for the new motto. Three reasons spring to mind:

1. It has the unmistakable flavor of a branding meeting attended by desperate, sweat-stained suits. "We want this tagline to express two concepts -- the sovereignty of the Protestant God and the personal mission of students. All while remaining maddeningly vague. If we can't do this in six words or less, we're out on our asses, Wally. We're lunch. Also, we're being paid by the period."

2. There's a hint of Bolshevik propaganda art in the clipped sentence fragments. This nicely paves the road for the eventual display of red banners in Carter lobby, all bearing a picture of the Beloved Leader Anderson.

3. The opportunities for parody are inexhaustible. "His World. Your Mom." Etc.

I think tag lines and mottos are so lame. In fact that's my new motto: Motto and Tag lines are Lame.

I realize that with time things change. And for a lot of us that the college experience was best at the time that we each attended. For people who were there in the 80s it was a amazing, for those in the 90s it was amazing... and so on and so on. And in a lot of ways you can't go back and when changes come you feel like they're changing what made your memories great.

So that being said some changes you just have to accept as a changing of the times... new people, new professors, new staff, new rules, new whatever...

But the Christ being Preimenent is a key aspect of the college over its 50 year history and to change that is to change the college's goals as well its entire purpose. Covenant is about teaching Christ's preimence in our lives not about calling. A college about calling is fine, its not a bad ethos to have but its not really what covenant at its core is about.

Say they don't replace the sign up front, to even have another motto seems pointless. So say they have two Mottos going forward. Christ's preimence and His world your calling. Which one sounds better? Which one is truly what the school is about? Which one has been a hallmark of the school for years? ETC.

This new motto is like New Coke... the original is better, and its not broke don't fix it.

Lots of speculation and conclusion-jumping in here. Anybody got the facts?

While I await word from my (or any of your) sources, I doubt:

-That this tagline (if reported accurately) is intended to replace the college's motto of "In All Things Christ Preeminent".

-That this tagline is intended to encompass everything about the college, for every audience, or to "fix" the historic motto.

-That this represents any break with tradition, other than a "tradition" of having no coherent marketing theme.

-That any tagline would "knock the socks off" everyone.

In fact, it doesn't knock my socks off. But I don't think I'm the primary audience. It'll resonate with my 16-year-old. It's solid enough to use as a tag for recruitment of new students, etc. for a period of time. In 3-4 years, it'll probably be revisited and a new tagline will be put in its place, again, to extend and apply the philosophy expressed in the motto to a new wave of prospective students.

Ok, an emailer just reminded me that some time ago, Covenant used the tagline "More than just a pretty place" as their marketing theme. How's "His World. Your Calling." as a replacement for that?

I really don't think the original motto is in any danger.

Matt, the new tagline is replacing the "All Things..." moto, straight from Wallace.

The rest of your concerns over "speculation" have more to do with a philosophy of branding than the actual facts. A College tagline that isn't intending to express the soul of the institution? I suppose you could do that, but it'd be dumb.

The lack of a coherent marketing scheme doesn't have anything to do with the "In All Things..." moto. The slogan may be a product of that lack, but there's a long conversation to be had there.

The biggest problem is that the College lacks the funds (or refuses to allocate the funds) for a marketing and communications Director, so things end up being dealt with piecemeal, or fall on the shoulders of the person with the biggest administrative muscle and/or appetite. Which in this case is Wallace Anderson.

Replacement of "All things.." with "His world.." aside, there is a difference between a tagline and a motto.

Q: Taglines are all well and good for large corporations with big ad budgets, but how do they apply to small businesses?

A: Even a small business needs to extend its brand, make it more relevant and more valuable. A good tagline can do that.

And a tagline doesn't have to be just for the company as a whole, it can serve as branding for a division or a product line. You can use a tagline internally, to get employees excited about a new program or product. Anytime a business needs to differentiate itself from its competitors, a tagline can go a long way toward doing that.

Q: What separates a good tagline from a bad one?

A: A good tagline is not just a motto or a proverb or a saying or a long-winded mission statement. It's got to be fairly succinct -- usually seven or fewer words.

And it should reflect how your company is positioning itself vs. your competitors. It's taking the brand that you know really well and communicating its value to the world. A great tagline is like the exclamation point at the end of a 30-second elevator pitch.

From an article in Businessweek last August.

Well that sounds disconcerting. What did Wallace say, exactly?

My point above re: philosophy of branding was to separate the definitions of motto and tagline. The motto being defined as expressing "the soul of the institution" in the broadest sense, and a tagline applying that more narrowly to a particular audience or need. That's what I think could/should be done with the two phrases in question here.

As far as allocating funds, bringing in Stamats looks like an attempt to not be so piecemeal. If that also means relegating "In All Things..." to the archives, I'd call that a serious misstep that is likely to be ill-received by the college community at large.

Is there anything official from the college yet, or are you passing along phone/email communication?

Scott,

Thanks for the info re: taglines.

To put my take another way, "In All Things Christ Preeminent" is part of Covenant's brand. If Stamats and whomever else is viewing it simply as a long-running tagline to update, then they've misread the situation pretty badly, imho.

Sound less Biblical and more dependent on a theology of vocation. Are we going to start changing the slogan every time we have some new fad of theology, like this one of "vocation" and "calling". Not that those are wrong or even incorrect, but our school is about Christ always. Its sort of a backslide in my opinion. Anyway I say let's BURN IT!

I've been thinking about a few more variations of this new moto:

"His World. Your Parent's $30K A Year."
"His World. Your $500+ A Month in School Loans."
"His World. Your Calling If Wallace Likes Your Parents."
"His World. Your Calling (for four years that is, just don't expect us to help you in the job market)"
"His World. Your Calling Except if You Smoke or Drink Because Your Calling is Subject To The Approval of Wallace."
"His World. Your Calling. No Gays."

Tagline--which is for admissions use--is NOT replacing motto. I repeat, NOT replacing motto. Josiah, do you hear me? NOT REPLACING MOTTO.

And your characterization of the capital campaign as "imploded" is false. Over half-way to the campaign goal before the public launch hardly qualifies as imploded.

Lively discussion of new admissions marketing tagline good and healthy; ill-informed sarcastic critique of college not. (Nor is making snide comments in a blog post, so I apologize in advance.) Seriously, you know enough folks up here; why not call someone and get the facts straight?

You keep polishing the brass D. I do respect you for it. And you should let the "imploded" comment lie, unless you want me to be open about the entire affair.

You should also stop playing semantics, though I respect the maneuver politically. Replace the old motto in every measurable and meaningful aspect with the new one, but claim that the old one is still the official motto of the College.

Total Queen of England style, rolled out and dusted off for the occasional commencement speach and/or homecoming event, not actually having a thing to do with the content and substance of how Covenant portrays itself to potential students, alumni, and donors. You know, all the ways that actually matter.

OOOH Josiah got Served by the Halverson. Nice!

In general if Christ remains preimenent then I'll be happy. Otherwise we're all screwed.

Also the sarcasm is great, it makes a long Friday afternoon go by so much faster.

...unless you want me to be open about the entire affair.

....Replace the old motto in every measurable and meaningful aspect.

Without any official news release from the college on this, or any evidence that the motto has been usurped by the tagline, I think this entire post and thread is a little premature (and obviously based on something you've been involved with that isn't public in nature). Why don't you yank it before it gets indexed permanently?

Yeah, Josiah, you're sounding a little imploded yourself there.

Not semantics, my friend. You know enough about marketing (at least, I think you do) to know that there is a difference between a motto--which is permanent--and a tagline--which accompanies a campaign. Employing a tagline doesn't mean that the motto won't ever show up (it's still on letterhead, business cards, and will be on campaign materials), not does it have to mean that it doesn't still embody the spirit of the institution. A tagline is an effort to translate that motto/the institution's brand in a new way. [BTW, I'm not in any way arguing in favor of this particular tagline.]

As for the "implosion", I won't let it lie, because it isn't true. The campaign has not imploded; in fact, it's healthy. Do I think that everything went down the way it should have with campaign communications? No. But why would I ever expect that things would go as they should, given Covenant's lofty ambitions and limited resources? So, you could certainly argue that campaign communications didn't go down the way some of us might have liked, and I wouldn't be the only person to agree with you. However, Rough going in one aspect of a campaign does not a campaign implosion make, especially if you judge a campaign by its near-term goal ($) and its long-term goal (sustaining the mission of the institution, most concisely articulated in the College's long-time and still functional motto, "In all things Christ pre-eminent"). [And yes, I did include the hyphen, because it belongs there according to the New Fowler's Modern English Usage.]

this is so strange. makes me proud to have graduated from ol' king college, where smoking and drinking (off campus--if you're of age) is a-ok!

in other news, check out king's impressive list of sporting teams:

http://www.king.edu/athletics/db/index.asp

and yes, they even have bowling!

As I was reading through this, I was concerned if this was going to replace the college motto. I do think that would be a mistake. I was glad to get to Derek's response and see that it was not. I agree with Matt that it's much better that "More than just a pretty place." Whatever that means....

Josiah, why so cynical about the motto thing? Derek clearly stated it was for "admissions use" and Matt clearly said that his 16 year old daughter would think it was great. Hey, I think it's pretty good myself, and I can understand it very well. It's not about a vocation or "calling" in the world's sense--obviously. His World. Your Calling. His World is ALL of our calling. It's the Kingdom Mandate put succinctly. It's exactly what Jesus told us to do as he rose to leave this world and be with His Father. I don't think I would question the last command of Jesus. And I feel that this is exactly what this motto represents.

A number of issues here:

As to the nature of what this new Moto is replacing: right now it's known for certain that the new Motto is going to replace the old Motto for all Admissions materials, or at least for any part of the College that falls underneath Wallace Anderson, which includes at least Admissions and Student Development.

We can have fun all day arguing over whether or not it's a tagline or a motto, but the actual results of this change (which is what actually matters) is that how Covenant is being portrayed to potential students is through this Motto/tagline/whatever, not the old "In All Things..." moto/tagline/whatever.

The alumni & fundraising communication materials are two entirely different animals, and I'm not sure to the extent this new tagline/moto is going to be used there. I do know that Stamats is now responsible for the Capital Campaign materials (more on that later), but I'm not sure if that means the Campaign is going to use this tagline/moto, or if it's going to go with something else.

Derek, are you happy with the design quality of Stamats, particularly as it's going to be expressed in the Capital Campaign? Or would you have been happier with a certain alumni graphic designer friend of ours?

But again Derek, I appreciate your justification of how things have occurred on the Capital Campaign as a simple matter of the ends justifying the means. It's all about results, baby.

Josiah,

To the best of my knowledge, "In All Things..." has not been used as a tagline or marketing theme. It is the motto that is paired with the logo in many, though not all, circumstances. It's the underlying brand.

Various taglines have been used over the years. Sometimes one gets heavy emphasis (eg. "More than just a pretty place"), other times there are a number of taglines floating around (eg. "Experience our view" to promote campus visits). The taglines and copy are intended to flow from and promore the philosophy of the college, as expressed in the motto.

You appear to see a conflict between the latest tagline and the motto which will (usually) accompany it. What's wrong with an ad that says "His World. Your Calling." at the top, with the logo and motto at the bottom? In some cases, the logo and/or motto may not be present, but that's no different than how it's been done in the past.

"And I feel that this is exactly what this motto represents."

That's what so great about this motto/tagline/catchphrase/axiom. It's like a Rorschach test; you can pick the meaning that best suits your theology and mood. I could say, for example, that I feel this motto represents the fact that this is Wallace Anderson's world and we're just living in it. Or I could say that I feel this motto represents how we are personally called to join the military to support George W. Bush as he attempts to make the world his own. Maybe I feel this motto represents the plight of homeless lesbians denied their calling in a phallocentric society. I can divine any interpretation I like, because this motto doesn't mean anything. It contains not a single contestable proposition. It doesn't include an actual sentence. It's refreshingly vacuous. I for one welcome our new postmodern overlords.

mesh--thanks for keeping it real.

postmodern for all!

The campaign has a name already. No "His World. Your Calling." for the campaign (because that really wouldn't make sense in communications to donors or alumni now, would it? it really is a prospective-student-oriented tagline).

I don't have any idea how widely the tagline will be used in admissions materials, and the question of how widely to deploy it is always going to be a matter of debate. Using it too much might obscure the motto. One might also argue, though, that overuse of the motto can render it trite. I think that's happened sometimes in Covenant's past--we slap the motto on everything, and use that as a substitute for actually producing materials that embody the truth of the motto.

Josiah, I haven't seen any campaign-related materials from Stamats. I don't like any of the campaign-related material that they've done for other institutions (at least what I've seen). I think that's probably because they're an admissions marketing firm first. I'll just have to wait and see what they concept. Whatever they do is going to have to be consistent with the College's ID Standards and with the campaign wordmark and stationery package that have already been developed by an extremely gifted alum designer.

Regarding your final paragraph, thanks (sarcastically) for your (sarcastic) appreciation. I never sought to justify everything that's occurred within the campaign on the basis of results. The fact that you're suggesting that tells me that you're more interested in trying to score some juvenile argument points than you are in having an intelligent conversation. What I said, in sum, was that stumbles in one aspect of a campaign do not constitute campaign "implosion". That's just a simple, English vocabulary lesson.

Matt, I agree with your first statement. This removal of the old moto from the Admissions dept. fits with a general moving of the College away from that slogan.

Remember the Covenant rebranding that happened a few years back? You know, the new logo which looks like a plus sized woman's bathing suit? Derek Halvorson was part of the team that spearheaded that effort, and he isn't a fan of the old motto (his words, to me, on a number of occasions), which is part of why the "In All Things..." plays so little, if any, role in the redesign of the College brand & logo or in it's current marketing & promotional efforts: the current Administration of the College does not want it.

My interpretation of "His World. My Calling." is that God's World, in it's entirety, is Covenant College, and that for four or so years I was part of His World, which was My Calling, but I'm no longer at Covenant, which is no longer My Calling (I guess), and I'm no longer in His World. That's my literal reading of the new slogan, since the only referent for the slogan is "Covenant College".

Again, the new moto is silly and vapid. Taglines are understood as functioning as small adjectival / descriptive phrases of the Institution or Brand they are attached to. It makes no dang sense to say: "Covenant College: His World. Your Calling."

It's a very not good tagline. Taglines are really not very good.

I'm really rather stunned. It's a snack chip-level effort.

Dang it, that's good stuff, Mesh.

Now see, Josiah, there's real, substantive criticism of the admissions tagline? Ain't nothing wrong with that.

mesh--thanks for keeping it real.

postmodern for all!

Hey Josiah, your comparison of going to an "outside vendor" versus employing "the good ole boy network" makes me very nervous. When I first got to Covenant I had the sense there was such a network, and I didn't get the impression it best suited the college. (Stories about various "physical plant" problems abound if you need to know what I'm referring to.) If anything *this* is the premier accomplishment of "the new administration" -- breaking that stranglehold. I'd hate to see that network just get replaced by a "good new boy" network.

(And yes, I'm so paranoid I just popped over to Stamats.com and quickly scanned their executive bios... not a Wheaton in the bunch. Phew!)
--
RDS

Josiah, I can't believe that you said that I'm not a fan of the College's motto. That is an absolute load of bullsh*t.

I think the College's motto encapsulates a mission that is distinctive if not unique in higher ed, and I love it. If you don't believe me, please read the following--excerpted from the College's ID Standards. It incorporates both rationale behind the motto and instructions for widespread use of the motto in current marketing/communications/PR efforts. I wrote it:

"Covenant’s motto, 'In all things Christ preeminent,' is based on the apostle Paul’s letter to the Colossian church, in which he reminds young believers of Jesus Christ’s central and exalted role in relationship to the created order: 'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.' Jesus Christ’s status as the firstborn of all creation is the foundation of Covenant’s educational mission, as the College seeks as a community of learning to know and celebrate his preeminence in all dimensions of existence.

D E P L O Y M E N T : The College motto should be displayed prominently on all external publications, and should be displayed broadly but with discretion on internal print publications. It is not, however, a tagline or a catchphrase, and is never to be used in a manner that would detract from its significance."

I'm sorry that you're upset that I pointed out the factual errors in your post. I'm also sorry that while you had time to respond to my comments on your post with comments of your own, you were unwilling to take my phone call. It seems as if winning your little blog battle is more important to you than speaking the truth or engaging in a constructively critical dialogue. It grieves me, because I believe you could be an asset to the College....

They should rename the school while their at it. Covenant College is pretty ambigous... I mean what does it mean? A Promise School? I mean that's so rediculous. We need something more obvious so kids know what we're all about. A College name that tells people what Covenant is really about, and is maybe inspired by the hit movie Snakes on Plane... like
School on Hill
Bubble in Clouds
College for White Kids From the PCA
Baptists Need Not Apply
A College Almost As Expensive as Harvard Without All the Hype

Well said, Holton.

What could be better than the scripture that used to be the motto/tag line for Covenant? Sound bites because they do "not return void."

Maybe Covenant in another 100 years will be the current Princeton?

Motto not being changed or abandoned. See above.

As for Princetonization, I certainly hope not. I, like many others, am praying and working to see that it doesn't happen.

Josiah,

Your claim that the administration is distancing itself from the motto--or doesn't want it at all--doesn't square with my experience of being asked to add it in a number of places where I had used the logo alone in The View and other pieces. And the motto has a prominent place in the identity manual and logo program, as Derek has pointed out.

Your wilfully obtuse interpretation of the tagline is weak stuff. So you don't like the theme for the new admissions campaign. This is news? As far as I can tell, that's all you really have here.

Derek, if you're looking for yes men I'm sure Marshall can hook you up. It's all cool though, I know who signs your paychecks.

But on a less sarcastic note: again, it's a nice rhetorical move (the assertion that), but I'm not upset over your "pointing out of factual errors" or whatever that means.

I don't even know what you mean by winning a blog war. What would that even look like? Would I get a cookie? Would you? Would Matt Barker? What are you talking about?

So Derek, again, do you consider the creative & design quality of Stamats to be good and/or to the level the College deserves? Don't beat around the bush, it's a simple question. You can be honest. If you tick off Wallace & lose your job I'll give you one.

Randy, there's a difference between a good ol' boy network and actual talent, which Covenant has been known to produce on occasion. It'd be one thing of the College was chosing to use talent outside of its alumni that were actually more talented than its alumni, but in this situation that isn't the case.

Finally, Derek, aside from the entire new College Moto's employment in the Admissions department, thus far on the creative materials for the Capital Campaign the old moto hasn't been used.

It's ok to admit you don't find the old moto all that useful. There's no shame in being upfront about things.

Josiah, this is getting old. Your initial post contained two assertions that are false (motto being replaced; campaign imploding). I find it silly that you don't want to concede the errors and correct them. It's arrogant. You claim to love Covenant, and to post about it as a consequence, yet you write something in a public venue that is easily harmful to the college, and that is demonstrably false. I think your "love for Covenant" is just a shill for your self-important desire to show how you can manipulate public perception, and I think your reluctance to retract false assertions is indicative of arrogance and some sort of weird need to defend a position at all costs.

I'm not sure how pointing out factual errors is a "rhetorical move". (Did a clause get left out of that sentence?) Are we playing by some fancy, new, Czar-of-the-Blogosphere rules of debate?

I do know that allowing yourself the freedom of metaphor but then denying it to your opponent is a good rhetorical maneuver. And while I'm not going to play dumb and say, "Polishing brass? I don't know what you mean by that, Josiah?", I will say that it's pretty clear that by 'blog war' I'm talking about the debate that's taking place here in the comments on your post. I don't know if anyone is going to get a cookie, but I do know that there must be some sort of prize, otherwise I don't think you'd be clinging so desperately to your false assertions. Maybe the prize is your integrity in the eyes of your readers?

I already answered your question on Stamats above. Please read my comments before you respond. [Hint: It is generally considered good form and proper technique to actually listen to what your debate opponent is saying.] I'm not quite sure how I could be any more clear than, "I don't like what I've seen." And since I don't work for Wallace, I'm not sure what that comment is about ... other than being a red herring.

Josiah, re: the motto on campaign materials, again you are wrong. False assertion. You haven't seen all of the campaign materials, so you're speaking from ignorance.

Your final sentence is stupid. You're grasping at straws. Again, please read my comment on the motto above (remembering that when I state a position, it's generally not the best tactic for you to say, "nuh-uh, that's not what you think, THIS is what you think" ... although certainly it's easier for you to debate someone who takes on the positions you want them to take on). Let me know when (if?) you're ready to have an intelligent conversation about this whole thing.

As someone who works for the admissions office I feel like I should at least point out two undisputable facts concerning this debate:

1) As Derek pointed out, the new advertising slogan "His Word. Your Calling." is not in any way replacing the college motto "In All Things Christ Pre-eminent."

2) Wallace Anderson really does love the college motto. He actually kind of gushes over the college motto. So any statement that suggests the college is self-consciously distancing itself from the beloved college motto is erroneous.

Derek you're in denial (at least publically).

It's brillant to suggest I'm not actually responding to your questions and/or assertions (while not granting the same). I'll try to do a better job of that.

You never gave your opinion on the design & creative quality of Stamats work; you simply stated you had seen any of the work they'd done for Covenant. Which isn't what I asked. How about your opinion on Stamats body of work?

I think if you actually thouht they didn't suck, you would have left a comment here. But you wanted to let that one lie, didn't you?

Again, the new moto is replacing the old moto in any meaningful and practical form in the Admissions dept. Or, if you're not comfortable with the word "replacing" how about "taking the place of"? Is that more to your liking?

As of a few weeks all of the Capital Campaign material lacked any reference to the "In All Things..." moto. You know this. Feel free to say if you or Stamats has change this in the last few weeks.

Derek, I'm just going off a handful of conversations we've had regarding the branding of the College wherein you asserted you didn't care for the slogan. But whatever...

You know what I meant by the Capital Campaign imploding.

Finally, yes Derek, long protracted debates like this are a wonderful source of sustanance for my ever burgeoning ego. I tellya, there's no feeling of relevance like knowing that a simple blogpost will bring down the ire of J. Derek Halvorson and Matt Barker, designer for "The View" (Covenant College magazine, not women's morning talk show).

Finally, I had no idea that the substance of our relationship was dealing with some bizarre character quality of mine where I defend a position at all cost? If that's been a problem, and you're actually, substantively think that's an actually pathology of mine, I'll own it. Damn man, this would have been helpful into years ago.

Or were you just scoring rhetorical points?

Todd, thanks for the important points of clarification.

Josiah, my observation on your stubborn refusal to admit that you're promulgating falsehoods has nothing to do with the substance of our relationship. I, of course, wonder why you wouldn't listen to a friend who seeks to correct your errors, but that's an issue for us to hash out one-on-one sometime (perhaps the day when you return my phone calls).

Once again, I will ask you to read my comments re: Stamats. No wait; rather than burden you so, I'll quote them here: "I don't like any of the campaign-related material that they've done for other institutions (at least what I've seen)." [This is about halfway up the page above.] Is that not enough for you? Do I need to accuse them of more egregious sins?

Obviously, you've been out of the loop on campaign materials. As of a few weeks ago, campaign materials did not lack the motto. In fact, I have beside me right now the one piece of campaign marketing collateral that has been publicly distributed--a save-the-date postcard for the campaign kick-off event in October--and (what do you know!) the motto is there. Right where it's supposed to be, according to the college's style guide.

As for admissions materials, I don't know how the motto will be used in them, because I haven't seen them. Neither have you, so I suggest you suspend judgment. All materials, whether from admissions or other departments, are still subject to the dictates of the college's identity standards. As you can see from the portion of those standards I quoted above, the motto goes on every piece of publicly distributed communications collateral.

And again--and I do hope this is the last time I have to say this--I have never said that I don't care for the college's motto. If you've read my comments above, and if you'll remember what was said in our conversations (as opposed to what would best suit your smear campaign), I do not care for overuse of the motto. I don't want the motto to become trite. I don't want it to become the WWJD of Covenant College, where all of our students and alumni have it tattooed on their foreheads, but don't manifest it in their lives. I'll never deny that I've bemoaned the confusion of applying-the-motto with embodying-the-motto, but that's certainly different than not caring for the motto. I'm sure you'd agree.

I think I know what you meant regarding the capital campaign "imploding", but what you meant and what you said are two different things. And what you said isn't true. And I don't want you saying untrue things about Covenant College (or about anything, for that matter). The other folks reading your blog (and you've told me before about the thousands of unique hits that you get every day) don't know what you "meant"; they know what you said.

Which gets me back to my main point, and one that it a whole lot more important than rhetorical maneuvers, the question of whether or not Stamats is of a caliber on the creative side (they certainly are on the marketing science side) to be working for Covenant, or our relationship (which certainly isn't of interest to the other folks who read your blog). Why the refusal to retract false assertions that you've made about the college? What do you stand to gain? Does it undermine your status as clever, young-alum gadfly to have to admit that you misspoke? And what good does it do you, or the college you claim to love, or the church or the kingdom of Christ for you to spread these kinds of falsehoods?

If the college were truly abandoning its motto and what it stands for, you know that I would be beside you in rallying the troops. I think Matt and a lot of the other folks who have commented here would, too. (And if the capital campaign were imploding, I'd probably be talking to you about a job.) But it's not, and I don't understand how it's wise to spend capital standing in opposition to a shadow opponent. I think it's likely that there will come a day when the college needs its alumni to stand up and keep it from going over a precipice, and I suspect that you'll want to be at the forefront of that alumni effort. Thankfully, this isn't it.

To answer your first, I don't believe I'm promulgating falsehoods, at all. I've stated that the College has a new moto/tagline/whatever that's going to replace the role the old College motto played previously in other Admissions materials. Which leads into...

How will the new motto be used in other College Communications, including the Capital Campaign? You're right about the mailer that went out in October, so I was wrong to say all Capital Campaign materials do not include the old motto. That being said...

The latest build of the Capital Campaign Materials (at least the latest I have, Build 4) has absolutely no mention of the old motto "In All Things...". This includes letterhead, envelopes, invitations, postcards, fundraising cards, etc. None of these foundational materials make any mention of the old motto. I will try to post them here later.

Derek, there's a 2nd part of my question concerning the creative & design quality of Stamats that you did not answer, which is, do you feel like the quality of their design is apropos to Covenant (or what Covenant deserves)?

Ah, so you don't like the overuse of the Old Motto. Of course, there's the entire issue over how you would define "overuse". But thanks for conceeding at least that much.

Finally, I'm of the opinion, and I've stated this elsewhere, that what made Covenant so great has been systematically removed over the course of the last few years. It used to be driven by a vision beyond mere economics & financial results. But it's not that place anymore. It's already over the precipice, and in your gut you know it.

I haven't yet stopped caring about Covenant, though I'm told I should. In terms of my social capital and its expenditure, at least that much I'm not sweating.

Your initial post doesn't say anything about this tagline being an admissions marketing campaign tagline. Your initial post says that the college (one must assume whole, since you don't restrict your statement otherwise--has a new slogan, which you seem to equate with the motto. This is not true.

You also state in your initial post that the capital campaign has imploded. This also is not true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't saying things that aren't true the same as promulgating falsehoods? I'm tempted to call it outright lying, but I don't think your intent was to deceive. I just think you spoke too quickly, without thinking about what you were actually saying. (You do do that sometimes, don't you?)

As far as I know--and I have limited information, though not as limited as yours--there are no plans to use the new admissions tagline anywhere outside of admissions marketing materials. Perhaps you've got a secret source at the vice-presidential level or higher who'd providing better information? If so, do tell.

You are incorrect in stating that the most recent working version of the campaign stationery package has, in your words, "absolutely no mention" the college's motto (which, I must remind you, is still the college's motto). Apparently you haven't looked closely enough. So now, again, you are promulgating a falsehood.

Nor, apparently, have you given consideration to where it might and might not be important to put the college's motto. Does it need to go on every t-shirt? Every mug? Every BIC pen? Every business reply envelope? Every Nalgene bottle? Every ticket stub? If we put it on EVERYTHING, will that make you think that the college still believes in the motto? Let's not forget that the motto is "In all things..." not "On all things...." It's OK for the motto not to go on some things; what's important is that it go on the right things, and that the truth it embodies is made manifest in the materials on which it is placed and in the lives of Covenant College's people. It's asinine to suggest that because the motto doesn't show up on a ticket stub or on an envelope, that this means that the college doesn't believe in the motto (especially given the fact that at many points in its history, the college hasn't used the motto on these sorts of things; I won't even delve into the founders' deployment of the motto in Latin).

I'd say that my previous answer re: Stamats pretty well sums up how I feel about the quality of their creative work. Furthermore, what I think about the quality of Stamats' creative work has nothing to do at all with the root issue here: THE COLLEGE IS NOT CHANGING OR ABANDONING ITS MOTTO. I find it disconcerting that you, who supposedly work with marketing folks on a regular basis, can't seem to establish a conceptual distiction between a motto and a tagline. Mottos are permanent; taglines are for individual campaigns. Even the folks at Stamats understand that. [I'll reiterate here that I'm not a fan of taglines in general, and don't know what I think about this one in particular. But what I think about taglines isn't germane to the discussion.]

Finally, it would really be a shame if you posted an internal working document from the campaign communications committee in a public space. The stationery system hasn't been finalized yet, nor have we determined which of the proposed pieces will actually go into production. It's beautiful stuff, done by a very talented alum, and I'm looking forward to using it. Now, however, isn't the appropriate time. It would be nice if you would respect the integrity of the campaign communications committee on which you once served.

I think what we have here is a desperate need for Don Graham's patented conflict resolution. Come on hug each other!

I'm all for the hugs (Josiah gives particularly warm and bearish ones), especially if they're followed by a beverage and some thoughtful conversation. Josiah, are you in?

Seem to equate? Makes no mention of? Read the post again. Closely.

I think the campaign has imploded. The jettisoning of the committee (for all practical intents and purposes) and the hiring of Stamats is, in my opinion, an implosion.

Again, I'm looking at Build #4 of the Capital Campaign materials, which does makes make mention of the old motto on two of the stationary variations. So I was incorrect to state that it does not appear on all of the materials, just 90% or so of them.

BTW, Build #4 was given to me after I resigned from the Committee.

If you don't like me being open and honest about things, don't put me in a position to do so.

Josiah, our acquaintence is fairly limited and I would not be surprised if you just shrugged your shoulders at what I am saying, or even told me to eff off, but I think that you put yourself in this position (not Derek) by bringing it to a public forum.

Please tell me how this post and subsequent conversation has been good for the school that you so dearly love?

The question begs itself: What long-term disability insurance policy would Jesus buy while attending an institution found to be in "significant non-compliance with the core requirements" of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools?

RTN, you finally made me laugh.

Glad to hear it. I am (mostly) in it for laughs these days, notwithstanding the public perception of my intentions. I'm also working toward taking myself much less seriously. Or so my publicist says.

Don't worry RTN, I wont belive the hype!

News flash:

"Cövenant Cöllege Toughens Image with Umlauts"

As a tagline, it's a great one. I can picture myself back as a high school Junior being inundated with college pamphlets. And a brochure that simply read "His World. Your Calling." would be so much more attractive than "In All Things Christ Pre(-)eminent."

I don't believe the college is changing the motto - not after all the comments I waded through. I certainly don't think it should either. But it is His world, and I did go to Covenant College because at the time, I believed it was my calling. Now that I'm better indoctrinated, I know it was.

As a tagline, it's a great one. I can picture myself back as a high school Junior being inundated with college pamphlets. And a brochure that simply read "His World. Your Calling." would be so much more attractive than "In All Things Christ Pre(-)eminent."

I don't believe the college is changing the motto - not after all the comments I waded through. I certainly don't think it should either. But it is His world, and I did go to Covenant College because at the time, I believed it was where I was supposed to be. Now that I'm better indoctrinated, I know that it was.

1: Derek, you're an ass. See, I can tell that what you're doing is really just a glorified exercise in name-calling, but I'm not afraid to go cut to the chase and actually call you names. So there. Advancing factual and empirical claims without providing any kind of data to support them does not credibilty make. Also! Learn to write a coherent paragraph. You ramble.

2: A motto that is substantially lacking in verbs does not seem to me to be a statement of any kind whatsoever. It fails to predicate. Nothing is said about anything. It's simply a string of pseudo-random words put together in such a way to suggest substantive content without actually bothering to do so. It is, as far as I can tell, exactly the kind of bland, spineless tripe that the Neilson administration seems to love so much. Rhetorical hyperbole? Perhaps. But it sure felt good. And now that I've two more schools that will show up above my BA, my allegiance to the friends and collegues I met at Covenant does not seem to be directly related to the institution or its leaders.

Ryan, thanks for the love, and for the critique of my writing. I really shouldn't try to comment on a blog while watching my kids; it does have a negative effect on my prose. Hopefully the faults in my delivery didn't obscure the core issue I was pursuing.

I hope, too, that I haven't presumed too much upon Josiah's and my relationship, on the basis of which I feel free to poke at his arguments pretty vigorously. He certainly does poke vigorously at mine. I react strongly, though, to what I perceive as unjust and erroneous assertions. I think truthfulness matters.

And I'm sorry you don't like my long comments. I'll try to be brief.

As for "advancing factual and empirical claims without providing any kind of data to support them", are you talking about something I said, or about Josiah's claims about the college replacing the motto and the capital campaign imploding? I'd be interested to know if I've made an unsupported empirical claim.

Josiah, you asked me to read your post closely. I just did. My "no mention of" was a direct quote from your latest comment. Not sure how much more closely I can read that.

Was I wrong in thinking that you are equating the introduction of a new admissions tagline with the replacement of the college motto? Your initial post declares that the college has a new slogan. I read that to mean the whole college, especially in view of the statement that all marekting and PR materials would bear the new tagline. If I was wrong, I stand corrected, though I think you might have been more clear. Also, I'm unsure what the gripe is then: if the motto stands, and the tagline is just a tagline for an admissions marketing campaign--not the rest of the college, not the capital campaign--then what's the problem? [Outside of the tagline itself, which is certainly fair game for discussion, critique, etc.]

The communications committee is only one of nine volunteer committees that make up the campaign structure. I maintain that it is unjustifiable to attribute the problems, or successes, of one committee to the campaign as a whole. Plus, the campaign, overall, is doing very well, which fact (empirically verifiable, for Ryan's sake) works against your position.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Build #4 is a working document. The designer already knows that there are pieces that will need to have the motto inserted in order for them to be consistent with the college's standards and the exisiting stationery package. (Check with him, if you don't believe me. He'll tell you that we had the conversation a couple of weeks ago.) You didn't know that because you aren't serving on the committee anymore and haven't been in on those conversations. And, as I also argued in my last comment, the college has never put the motto on all of its stationery pieces, nor would doing so mean that we all loved the motto and really lived by it.

I know that you got Build #4 after you resigned from the committee. I provided it to you. I see no reason why a former volunteer who left a committee on good terms shouldn't be kept in the loop.

I don't mind you being open and honest. But I also want you to be honest and informed; i.e., open and honest about your feelings and the facts. The two initial assertions with which I have an argument are counterfactual, and I want you to be open and honest about that. I'm certainly not asking you to be happy about everything associated with the capital campaign, or about everything at the college.

Derek, your original "makes no mention of" was in reference to the new motto being associated with the Admissions department, which I state in the third paragraph of the initial post.

Given my stated unknown in the third paragraph ("no word yet...") it would make sense (to me) to infer that the new motto may not (or may be) ubiquitous to the College, and consequently what is known (or at least is stated in the post) is that the new motto thus far is for the Admissions Department.

While all of this is obvious to me, I am not assuming that it is obvious to anyone else and that some burden of responsibility for reader misunderstanding rests on my shoulders. That I own, wholeheartedly.

Your third paragraph is, again, indicative of a very pragmatic (ends justifying the means) approach to evaulating the Capital Campaign. I'm inclined to think that process is as important as the results, and while it may be the case that Campaign raises all of the money it set out to raise, the creative crap that Stamats produces and the screw job the committee received is enough, in my opinion, to tarnish the entire thing.

I suppose though, one does have to break a few eggs...

It's good to hear that the Committee is now embracing the history and tradition of the College as represented in the old college motto.

Finally, I don't feel or think that my two assertions are counterfactual, at all. Whatever "facts" have been presented have been, IMO, context not evidence against.

This motto discussion has obviously become pointless. The fact that you choose to continue in labeling the college's current motto as its old "motto" is indicative of the fact that you're more interested in winning some sort of spin campaign than you are in the truth. I'm sorry that I can't concede that definition. There is no "old" motto, and I would challenge you to demonstrate to the contrary. (BTW, Admissions' adoption of a tagline for a marketing campaign does not constitute proof to the contrary, no matter what sort of logical gymnastics you engage in.)

Re: your original post, "not sure yet ..." governs only "the now imploded Capital Campaign." In the sentence prior, you state "as I understand it the tagline will become ubiquitous with all marketing, PR, and other Admissions related materials." No matter what you meant, what you said is that the new tagline is being applied ubiquitously, which it is not.

How should we evaluate the success of a capital campaign? Measurable goals seem like a pretty good idea to me--$ raised, # of new donors, etc. Certainly it would never be the goal of the College in any endeavor to alienate alumni. Sadly, it seems that in this instance, that's happened with at least one. I'll continue to maintain, though, that a problem in one area doesn't constitute "implosion" for the campaign as a whole. Tarnish might be a fair term (I'm glad you introduced it), but again, we're talking about the tarnishing of one aspect of a very large campaign (and, I might add, a tarnishing that might have limited impact on the larger picture of the College's relationship with its constituents, outside of your publication of it ... for the good of the College?).

One doesn't have to break a few eggs. Sadly, in a fallen world, eggs get broken. Nobody hates that more than me. (You'll remember, I believe, that I am the one who worked and spent relational capital to bring the campaign communications committee together.)

It's funny that you say the committee is "now" embracing the college's "old" motto. You just can't let go, can you? The campaign communications committee, and the college, have always embraced the college's current motto. Again, you need to provide some real evidence to the contrary if you want to suggest otherwise. I'm sure you'll concoct something, but the revelation "Oo, there's no motto on the back of this ticket stub, or on this business-reply envelope!" just doesn't cut it.

Finally, I can't believe your final paragraph. I don't understand how a thoughtful person could say that your two assertions aren't counterfactual.
1. You stated that the College has a new slogan. Not fact. A department of the college has a new marketing tagline, but that is clearly different than the college having a new slogan (and the body of your post makes clear that you were speaking of whole college).
2. You state that the capital campaign has imploded. Not fact. The capital campaign is doing well (I'm not saying that everything has gone as planned; it never does). If you need evidence, I suggest you come up and have a look at the two sites where buildings are being constructed (not imploded).
Unless we're playing by some really weird rules of Josiah-logic, those statements are contrary to fact based on the definitions of the terms.

[Really, finally, your sister says she needs a laptop, and that she doesn't want your dad involved.]

p.s. Ryan says I was name-calling. If I was, I apologize. I will try to stick to only calling you names in person.

Perhaps I misunderstand the nature of the discussion, but as far as I can tell, Derek, both you (and Josiah, when it comes down to it) weem to be referencing data that the rest of us don't seem to have at our disposal. Most of the rest of us weren't on any Capital Campaign committees, haven't received working copies of any official documents, and as such, arguements which hinge on such sources of information do not make for a particularly instructive read. If you've got documents that prove your assertions (either of you), I'd sure like to see them.

My take on it is this: Josiah starts off by venting his spleen on what he feels (and I'd be missing my guess by a lot if Josiah were doing anything other than going with his gut) is yet another terrible move by the Neilson (or should we say Anderson?) administration. Fair enough.

A close read of the situation reveals that the suggestion that the new... thingie... will be replacing the tried-and-true Covenant motto is not found in Josiah's original post, but in the first comment. Josiah makes a post about ten hours later kind-of-ish affirming this suggestion, though the comment leaves some room for ambiguity.

About four hours later, some discussion intervening, Josiah says that he's got the straight dope from the WA man himself. I would have liked to have seen some kind of documentation for this, but no matter.

Derek then comes along and flatly asserts that no replacement is talking place. Again, no documentation whatsoever. He does launch into a rigorous discussion of what I can only assume are arcane marketing techniques, none of which are of any interest to me or, in fact, of any significance to the discussion in any way I can determine. He does, however, begin to level rhetorical implications about Josiah's character, none of which are relevant.

As far as the health of the capital campaign as such, Josiah's "imploded" remark does not, to me, require any kind of financial pronouncement to be taken seriously. Derek's repeated insistance that the campaign is meeting its financial goals in no way invalidates Josiah's take on it, which does not seem to be economically based. Be that as it may, Derek, you make a claim as to the health of the campaign, but provide no way for us to verify that. Tsk-tsk.

The rest is, as they say, history, but props to Josiah for keeping the discussion as clean, on his side, as is reasonable to expect. No such props to Derek.

For both of you: you've both made factual claims referencing documents and/or data that you have failed to present for consideration. Sounds to me like this discussion could be over really quickly if you'd just publish your sources...

Is anyone else wondering why Ryan isn't in charge of the peace accords in the middle east? I think he could show those muslims and jews who to really fear... and bring them together in a united fear of RYEDAWG!

Who LET THE DAWG OUT WHO WHO WHO WHO!

The one, the only. Accept no substitutes.

Or something.

Ryan, a very good summary, and some good points. Sadly, I'm going to have a hard time providing evidence that the motto isn't going away. How would you have me prove that nothing is changing? Let me know, and I'll do it.

As for the campaign, I think I can say (without divulging more than I'm supposed to at this time) that the college is over half-way to the 5-year goal at a little over 1-year into the campaign. I'm pretty sure that's not an "implosion", and by most standards I think that would be counted a success.

I apologized to Josiah in my last post, and will do it again--I didn't mean to suggest name-calling, if that's what I did. As you might imagine, for someone who is investing heavily with time and energy in the college, it is frustrating to see one's commitment to the college's mission misrepresented in print in a flippant matter. I don't know that I wasn't "clean", as you suggest; but I also know that I don't want to back down from calling misinformation misinformation. If I crossed a boundary please forgive me.

OK, so now I've pointed out that I can't prove that something's not happening, and I've given you a general statement of the campaign's health (at least from a financial sense, which seems to me to be the most logical way to measure the success of a fundraising campaign), and I've apologized for impugning Josiah's character. What more can I do? I certainly can't tell you that the college is changing its motto, since it's not, and I can't tell you that the campaign is "imploding", because it's not.

BTW, I'm not the one who introduced supporting data that isn't public, though I did reference the publicly available college ID standards. In fact, Josiah's initial post is based on information that is still not public, and hence no documentation has been published. Perhaps when the admission office actually launches its materials, there will be a statement about the relationship between the tagline and the motto.

Ryan, I don't know about you, but I know that Josiah and I are, in many respects, on the same page in terms of our desires for the college (at least, we were the last time we actually spoke about it). We would like for it to retain the distinctives that made it an important place in our own development, and we would also like to see it do some things in a more professional fashion. (I, like you, have a couple other institutional names above my Covenant BA. I've certainly seen some things at other schools that I would like to see Covenant do someday, but I've also grown to appreciate the distinctive educational potential of a confessionally-grounded, Christ-centered liberal arts college.) I can't see how Josiah's initial post contributes to the health of this place, and I suppose that's part of what moved me toward vituperation.

Crap. Just saw the two latest comments--Holton and Davidson. This isn't going to turn into a former-Catacombs-dwellers v. lone-Ghetto-guy thing, is it?

I lived on Blackwatch... but went to Catacombs hall meetings for the free Tab.

I'm just here to ensure that no one gets hurt, and that random dumb comments are made.

Like this: How would the motto fit into Lou Voskuil's Culture Box? Can the Culture box help us dissect this discussion? OR maybe we need to put on some Dr. Denison Vossian eye glasses to look at this issue...

Insightful.

I was a history major, too (Voskuil supervised my SIP, on Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms), so I'm liking the Culture Box application.

Holton wishes he lived on Catacombs.

Derek, please allow me to attempt to be "thoughtful":

Fundamentally, the entire argument is, in my opinion, due to different definitions of terms.

I fail to see how the fact that the College will continuing to "have" (whatever that means) the old motto/slogan/tagline somehow negates the statement that "Covenant College Has A New Motto", when it is, in fact, the case that the College is going to start using a new motto/slogan/tagline for it's Admissions materials?

Further, the qualifier I used in the initial post, "other", implies (IMO) that "marketing" and "PR" are in fact "Admissions" things, not something else. This is bolstered (IMO) by my later discussion of a non-admissions thing (Capital Campaign) i.e. "No idea...".

And onwards, it's all about how we define "implosion". My feeling/thinking is that your definition of what constitutes a successful campaign is incomplete (at best) and outright dangerous and/or wrong (in the worst). The importance, if not primacy, of judging the means and process by which we go about a project & task being something I learned at Covenant.

Which is why (IMO) the manner in which the Committee was treated and the subsequent hiring of the vastly inferior Stamats (in terms of its design & creative) means that the Capital Campaign has "imploded".

Sure, the College may end up with the money it needs, but that's no reason (IMO) to think it hasn't "imploded" or is a "good thing". Lots of things make a ton of money which are very, very bad.

Finally, I'll tell my sister not to talk to you / bug you. Sorry about that.

Difference of definitions, indeed. There's an awful lot of ambiguity in that sentence that you're wanting to interpret as referring solely to admissions, especially given your clarification in a comment: "It is the new, official school moto [sic]/slogan/tagline whatever."

As for "implosion", I'm only going to argue that the definition of "implosion" that you're wanting to employ is not the one employed by educated, English-speaking human beings [not that you aren't one; I readily acknowledge that you are]. I'm sure you've seen a building implode. When a building implodes, the whole thing falls down.

You know that I agree with you about the importance of process. Numbers are only one way to measure progress/success. I'll reiterate, though, that the communications committee is only one of nine, and the fact that it hasn't continued to function in the way that you or I might like it, and the fact that we don't think that Stamats' has demonstrated creative capabilities of a caliber fitting for Covenant's capital campaign, doesn't mean that the whole campaign has imploded. Stick to your definition if you will, but I'm sticking to the one that most people use.

I've done my best to answer all of your questions. Now, the question you've never really answered for me is why? What did you gain by making this post? How did the college that you claim to love benefit? You have mentioned to me on numerous occasions the existence of a body of disgruntled young alumni to whom you have direct access via your blog. I don't doubt the existence of that group. What's the point of tossing inflammatory, half-true-at-best assertions into that mix? How does suggesting that the college is abandoning its motto, which you know us alums love, help the college? Especially when the college isn't abandoning the motto? (Which you easily could have ascertained by picking up the phone/IMing/emailing any one of the several senior staff at the college that you know on a personal basis.) And how does suggesting that the capital campaign has "imploded" benefit the college? When it's not true by any standard definition. Why the hyperbole? I mean, if you've got a beef with how the committee you once served on was treated, why not take that up with the responsible senior staff member, whom you know personally? Why, instead, toss it into the midst of a reading public that is made up at least in part of the disgruntled alumni you've referenced before?

On second thought, don't answer that. (I fear that we're about to return to an email conversation we had last year about the relationship between blogs and public/private discourse, and I still owe you a response on that subject.) Perhaps we can discuss over a Maker's sometime (if you ever return my phone call, wanker [sorry, Ryan]).

This is hilarious. Liberal arts education in action. I couldn't stop reading it and I am the guy who used to work at Covenant and left because I felt I could make more of a difference in the world elsewhere.

I am slightly ashamed that I actually read (most of) it but am willing to add my name to the thread for one reason only. Who is this "ryan" character? Did he go to Covenant? If so his post that starts with "1. Derek, you're an ass." is my new shining example of living of the world but not in it.

Unbelievable. Derek and Josiah, bury the hatchet fellas... pretend like you were joking and listen to each other, or let it go. Oh and if this Ryan dude writes that I'm an ass, then stick up for me (or don't). I have better things to do than "fight" back :)

Have you tried selling this thread to The Onion yet?

"Small Southeastern Presbyterian Liberal Arts College's Inane New Marketing Slogan Causes Heated Southeastern Presbyterian Liberal Arts Uproar on Blog."

"Commenter doesn't understand 'real issue,' says other, issue-understanding commenter."

Wow. What if they changed the the school's actual motto? That would kill the Chattablogs server, for sure.

Thanks for the great reading, folks.

As long as the college does not embark on truly "revolutionary" change, but rather continues to build on its history as it presses forward, then I have enough confidence that the Nielson administration is not going to implode the school. Have you folks never taken a change management class or worked in a large corporation?

Personally, I think that the disgruntled almuni are a vocal minority primarily made up of people who graduated or left immediately after the change in administration. I live in Chattavegas and mix with a lot of Covenant grads and I don't know anyone outside of this demographic who is as vehemently opposed to the decisions of the college. In fact, at times some of y'all sound a lot like the Bush bashers on Chattablogs (just replace GW's name with NN's).

As for how one ought to conduct oneself on a blog discussion, especially in light of our image-bearing calling, check out this post from Jollyblogger (the list is summarized below).

1. Remember who you are debating.
2. Remember your relationship when debating a fellow Christian.
3. Remember who you are.
4. Remember how little you really know.
5. Remember the Burger King Principle.
6. Argue with what has been said, not what you think should have been said.
7. Read and listen sympathetically.
8. Be careful with the "reductio ad absurdum."
9. Be careful about the use of invective.

Scott, I'm sure you're a wonderful coorporate manager.

Caleb, Ryan is affectionately known as "Ry-Dawg" or more simply "The Dawg" (preferably pronounced with a Southern drawl). He's current in law school at Notre Dame, and blogs here. I'm also in love with him.

Onwards,

Derek, we could argue in circles about who's position is most in line with the one most likely adhered to by the "educated", which would be little more than implicit name calling.

Given our personal conversation I'm inclined to think we're on the same page in terms of process, but your public statements here (IMO) indicate otherwise. I take them all with a grain of salt though: you've got a personal calling to back the College and like I said earlier, I respect that.

Others may have left (like Caleb), or fired the College as a client, or resigned from committees, but I really do respect you sticking it out even if I believe that you are "polishing the brass". It certainly takes more integrity than I've got. I'd have walked away from that crap two days into the job.

I'm also not overly concerned with the ramifications of the "truth by general consensus" argument that you've made. I wholeheartedly get that there are consequences that come with bucking that particular vague guideline, I just hope that I never wimped out on taking responsibility for the consequences (and I hope I haven't given any indication that I am).

Further, I simply don't feel compelled to answer the occasional request for some grand justification for how I roll on this blog. I certainly wouldn't expect demand it of you, nor do I think it would be owed, and vice versa. Folks don't have to read, and if the College doesn't like what I have to say, I do accept Visa & Mastercard.

My gut tends to be inclined towards airing things, even if they're ugly, like the new College Motto. It's a healthy process, IMO, and really, it's the only option available to a concerned alumni that bears any actual weight (you and I have discussed privately numerous times the impotence of Marshall Rowe's role and the alumni advisory club).

All that said, I'm not sure why I still care about Covenant. Perhaps it's because the thing it once was gave me so much, and I hate to give up on a thing (call it the little bit o' Derek I have in me).

On a more serious note, I'm considering sending my kids to Vassar. Perhaps you could put some pics of Vassar on the next fundraising flyer the Advancement Office sends out?

Finally, when I manage to make it home before midnight one of these days I'll call you back. People are still in town for Vincent & Kiko's wedding, and I've been slammed with houseguests, visiting with old friends, and all the chaos that was Emcee'ing/Coordinating their wedding. I'm sure Scott can continue to provide you with plenty of opportunities for pontificating.

This tendency ("to be inclined towards airing things, even if they're ugly") is hard, I think, to reconcile with the biblical call to speak edifying and gracious words, to speak the truth in love. I don't deny that there are times when hard truths have to be spoken, but I think how you deliver those words, and when, and in what context, are factors that must be considered in light of the biblical directive.

I'll look forward to your call.

Well put, Derek.

Josiah, you say:

I simply don't feel compelled to answer the occasional request for some grand justification for how I roll on this blog... Folks don't have to read, and if the College doesn't like what I have to say, I do accept Visa & Mastercard.

This strikes me as a confession on your part to the same attitude you condemn in the college administration, and which you cite as evidence that darkness has descended on our beloved alma mater. If the integrity of process matters, as you profess, why should the same standard not apply to the process by which you critique the college?

Derek it's not, actually, at all. Tangentially, I'm not sure the new Motto's feelings are hurt.

Matt, they're two different things. Check the title.

Josiah:

"I just hope that I never wimped out on taking responsibility..."

A vain hope, apparently.

Josiah, I think it would be good for us to meet at Hoppy's sometime. Not that beer solves problems (though its a good reason to get together), but that I think our impressions of each other are based far too much on our online personas.

Nothing like a little moral condescension to go with your morning coffee.

Scott, mine is more informed by your bike shorts, which are sexy.

Good to know...I'll make sure I ride past Coptix more often on my commute.

Josiah, I'd love for you to elaborate on how there isn't any difficulty in reconciling your gut tendency and the Bible's call to edifying speech. Perhaps over lunch sometime.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the new admissions tagline's feelings aren't hurt. Especially since you didn't criticize it, but rather the college, which is a community of fellow believers.

Yikes, I take some time off from blogging and miss all the good verbal knife fights. Seems like it started choreographed like West Side Story but ended up with a few folks with real kidney wounds again.

It seems Mike Sloan’s words still ring true - when in doubt we all devolve to the social norms of a ten year old boy.

While I'm not shocked at the topic, the subsequent comments, the terse responses or the self justifications... I always find the notion that "folks don't have to read it" funny.

It's kind of like hearing that someone wrote something crass about your sister on the men's bathroom wall. While not necessarily public, it's public enough - and if the comments are crass and about someone you care about you'll take the time to find the stall.

Might I suggest we have a permanent "old school" blog that we can all sign our names to? I can be made of this stuff called paper and we can all keep copies of it. It could go something like this:

Post: Covenant did [--------] and it makes me think they're more stupid than they were before.

Reply: Why do you think Covenant is stupid for doing [--------]? Do you have a thing against Covenant?

Reply: Why shouldn't you think Covenant is stupid for doing [--------]? Are you just a tool?

Reply: Why do you always call me a tool? Do you have a thing against me caring for Covenant?

Reply: [--------] is stupid at it's core and I can't understand why you can't see that?

Reply: Are you saying that I'm stupid?

Reply: No, buy I will say something akin to it to get a rise out of you.

Reply: You should stop bloggin like this.

Reply: Make me.

Reply: I should convince you to stop bloggin like this.

Reply: Make me.

Reply: You're a jerk.

Reply: I know you are but what am I?

Reply: That's so like you.

Reply: You know it, and you know you love it.

Reply: We shouldn't talk like this anymore, I feel dirty for taking this much time blogging on this vapid subject.

Reply: You know I love it.

Reply: Let's go to Hoppy's and drink a beer.

Reply: Yeah beer!

D, actually I did criticize the new slogan, rather specifically, and particularly my post about the new College Motto was a sharing of information, not a critique (that came later in the comments, for the most part).

You may not like that the information was shared, and heck, it may be downright unpleasant, but it doesn't make it either unedifying, unloving, or morally wrong.

The problem with the manner in which you're using Biblical language in this situation (and why the underlying conclusion is wrong) is that it is both thoughtlessly applied and spiritually puerile.

Which leaves me wondering if you're simply trying to win cheap rhetorical points, given the Covenant community who may or may not be reading this. Nothin' wins a crowd like the Jesus-speak, no?

Because, in my experience, you're not that immature. It's about wisdom (& the Holy Spirit); that thing which bridges the gap between the vague principles of Scripture with the real world in which we live. Wisdom acknowledges that how we treat "Covenant College" is going to work slightly differently than how we treat an individual person, and so on. The alternative is a dehumanizing machine.

This is a dork train wreck.

What I don't like about the "information" you shared, and what's unedifying about it, Josiah, is that it wasn't true. I think we've addressed this issue already. I don't know what more I can do than point you to the college's style guide, which disproves your assertion tht the college is replacing its motto (as I did above), and point to the general health of the capital campaign, which disproves your assertion that the capital campaign has collapsed inward upon itself (which I did above).

I'm disappointed that you view my application of a Biblical principle as "thoughtless" and "spiritually puerile". I'm also disappointed that you didn't make an argument for that characterization, but just the naked assertion. Perhaps you can explain to me how the "vague" principle laid out in Eph. 4:29 applies to Christian engagement in public discourse? And how I wrongly applied it? It doesn't seem that vague to me. Let's engage in a little Jesus-speak/application-of-Biblical-principles-to-all-dimensions-of-life, since you and I are both followers of Jesus. This isn't for "cheap rhetorical points", but so we can have some common ground from which to operate.

NOT VASSAR!!! NOOOOOOO!

Scott does have nice bike shorts.

Caleb, Sorry your house hasn't sold yet, I've stopped sun bathing nude on my front porch, I figured that probably scared a few people away so I thought I'd do the Christian thing and cover up what no one should see.

Man, can you imagine me nude? That's a scarry thought. FYI I shower with my eyes closed. Nobody needs to see that, even myself.

I think everyone just wishes they were back at covenant where this could all be settled with hall pranks and intramural dodge ball/battleball.

College was great, no responsiblities, no bills, all you had to worry about was a paper here and there which you could stay up all night the day before it was due and bust out some BS about how Russia's inability to progress through the industrial revolution is tied to the Czarist dynasty that maintained a hegemony over its people. (FYI, i don't even remember what hegemony means anymore I just recall using it in just about every history paper I wrote)

2 Timothy 2:23

D, then we're back to square one: our fundamental disagreement over the truthfulness of certain propositions.

To be fair, I was assuming you were asserting that such kinds of things (like my post) were in and of them themselves unedifying (regardless of their truthfulness), which I was wrong to assume. Were they actually untrue, I'd be inclined to agree that they were contingently unedifying. So, my bad.

Finally, to address your third paragraph: the fundamental problem I see with using Scriptural passages/versus/whatever as some kind of turnkey problem solver is that a. Scripture doesn't talk about itself that way (and no, 2 Timothy is supportive of that modernistic/mechanistic approach to The Word) and b. it doesn't give us a whole lot of data on the application of the principles it contains (hence "wisdom" and the importance of The Holy Spirit).

From your perspective, "turnkey"; from mine, the clear and simple truth of Scripture, appropriately applied given the context of Ephesians 4, which has to do with truth-telling and how we are to relate to one another.

I like K's (toungue-in-cheek?) invocation of II Timothy 2:23. I think there might be some real practical wisdom tucked in that exegesis, and I'm going to use it as my excuse for an exit.

Oh yeah ... make sure to keep your eye out for that next capital campaign update that I send you ... with the motto on the letterhead, and the good news of continued progress in our efforts to provide more infrastructure to support the college's mission.

Before we become quick to set aside 2 Timothy, we should all read the context of those verses in chapter 2 and 3 - which very clearly communicates the principles it contains. It cuts to the quick and does not speak in vague terms.

Rather, it speaks to the very nature of service within God's kingdom and how we should then live - both in service to our Lord and in harmony with one another. I do not cite this as an individual reproach, but a common reminder for those who claim Christ as Savior and Lord.

"You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops. Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.

Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound! Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

The saying is trustworthy, for:

If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful--
for he cannot deny himself.

Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."

Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra--which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

2 Timothy 2, 3

God help us all if for fear of being seen the fool we fret about engaging in a little "Jesus-speak."

D, there is a distinction 'tween the Word and the application of the Word to a given situation. It's what that application looks like that we *may* be in disagreement over (nevermind the seemingly infinite number of debates out there of what exactly the text is saying). It's the age old question of "but what does it mean? here. now."

Odds are we are simply "quarreling about words". We likely agree on that, in the least.

Josiah - after reading through all of this, I don't get it.

Your original post said, THE new slogan; not A new slogan.

I know this blog is all about being irresponsible, but is this, or is this not, THE new slogan?

I get the feeling that it is A new slogan. Also, shame on me for not understanding that a slogan is not a motto...

On a tangential side note: Someone asked recently why I went to Covenant. I realized I did it because it was the cool thing to do at the time. That said, His World. Your Calling. is way cooler that "In all things..." so I say keep it. Covenant definitely needs cool kids!

James, now I'm confused. It may be that it's late. Do you want me to make it "A New Covenant College Slogan", I'm down.

All I'm saying is that as THE slogan, it's lame. As A slogan it's fine.

But. Not. Worth. $50k.

I'm still holding out hope that the college will adopt my favorite among the myriad of possible slogans/mottos:

Covenant College: literally thousands of places to make-out.

Now that is something the aforementioned cool kids could get behind, or on top of, or underneath...whatever the case may be.