Medicine and technology are close companions. From the early prosthetics to those devices which–like the iPhone–are nearly if not actually part of our physical bodies, a necessity for connection to the digital terra firma. Today I am happy to Host Alistair Brown, Associate Lecturer at the Open University, and a Postdoctoral Teaching Assistant at Durham University. His recent work considers cyberfiction, cybergothic, gaming and the limits of literature. Welcome Alistair!

_____________________

BIOGRAPHY

Alistair Brown is an Associate Lecturer at the Open University, and a Postdoctoral Teaching Assistant at Durham University, where he also edits Research in English At Durham, the impact blog for the Department of English Studies (http://readdurhamenglish.wordpress.com/). He is currently writing a textbook on Topics in Modernism for the Singapore Institute of Management University, and preparing a monograph on Reading Games: Computer Games and the Limits of Literature.

His PhD on Demonic Fictions: Cybernetics and Postmodernism (http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.495964) was completed in 2009 under the supervision of Patricia Waugh at Durham University. His blog, current research, and publications list can be found at http://www.thepequod.org.uk/. He also tweets as @alibrown18.

INTERVIEW on CURRENT PROJECTS:

Your research aims are quite fascinating. As one who has spent a lot of time plotting intersections between Paul Virilio, Katherine Hayles and William Gibson, I am particularly interested in the concept of cyberfiction and cybergothic. Could you tell us more about these genres and what drew you to them?

During my MA, I studied under Patricia Waugh in her class on science and the novel. Much of the focus was on nineteenth-century literature, and we were looking at all these gothic responses to Darwinism, in which monsters, vampires and so on express fin-de-siècle fears about biological and moral degeneration. I was thinking that in times of scientific revolution, monsters seem to be the default cultural response. Then I thought that given we’re living through the cybernetic revolution, we ought to find similar tropes in our own time.

Lo and behold, I looked and here they were – in William Gibson, Philip K. Dick, in The Matrix – and so too was my PhD proposal born! What interested me was that even though we like to think of ourselves as uniquely modern, experiencing a brave new world, in fact we seek to understand it through existing metaphors. The Matrix, for example, seems to frame a new type of narrative possibility, the idea that we’re living in one giant computer simulation. Perhaps such a notion is only possible in the age of the internet…except that you cut beneath the skin of the sci-fi premise just a little, and what you have is the classical, Cartesian anxiety about the “deceiving demon.”

Katherine Hayles’ work makes a similar fundamental point. As she explores innovative cyberfictions, she’s also revisiting our assumptions about print and discovering that, actually, we’ve always had a fluid notion of “text,” even though with the arrival of etexts, the novel is cherished as this allegedly stable entity.

So as with my answer about game studies and literature below, what fascinates me about cybergothic is the intersection between the old and the new, the way in which something which seems radical and striking is also at the same time quite conventional. Even when plugged into the internet like cyborgs, we remain, at heart, only human.

Game studies have even made it into the Medical Anthropology journal I manage–it is a growing field and has, I think, earned new respect from the literary community in recent years. Could you expand on your research for the monograph-in-progress: Reading Games: Computer Games and the Limits of Literature?

You’re absolutely right that video games are becoming increasingly accepted as objects worthy of serious cultural study. In part this is because games have become more artistically and narratively complex; witness the dialogue-driven Mass Effect or Heavy Rain games. In part, we’ve realised that in the age of hypertext, ebooks, and video games, our own conventional definitions of what constitutes a “text” have become problematic, so that to some extent games can be studied as textual artefacts (admittedly some game genres more readily than others), whilst texts themselves might be considered to be interactive to some degree.

So my developing monograph is an attempt to explore these fuzzy boundaries between literature and games. I’m not suggesting for one moment that games are literary in any strong sense; game theorists have convincingly shown that game narratives are largely ludological. More important than any explicitly narrated plot, game narrative is primarily a product of the story the player tells themselves about the process of playing: “I was crouching by the window hiding from gunfire outside when suddenly an enemy jumped me from behind.” This sort of self-created narrative development is very different to being led by the hand by an already composed novel.

Nevertheless, we have a long heritage of literary theory and critical appreciation that can still help to explain the significance of these sorts of experiences. For example, in one chapter I draw on Frank Kermode to explore the ways in which both games and novels draw us insistently forwards because of the sense of the imminent ending with which they are imbued. In another I explore how games and novels both require a certain degree of empathic immersion into their world.

I guess I’m ultimately interested in whether what it feels like to play a game can be compared to what it feels like to read a book. For example, when I am playing amid the bitter African war of Far Cry, I sense a political and racial confusion that reminds me very strongly of the sense Conrad conveys in Heart of Darkness. Why and how do both video games and literature work these immersive effects? Are their methods entirely different? Answering this will remind us of the powerful narrative possibilities of both media – as well as perhaps enabling us to develop more subtle types of gaming experience than the simple “run and gun” one.

Given that the Daily Dose is the companion to my Fiction Reboot pages, I am pleased to discover a creative writing component to your own site: The Pequod. The balance of creative output and research output is a difficult one, I find. What inspires you? More particularly, how do you keep up with your poetry in the midst of this freight train we call academia?

When I was at school, my inspirational English teacher used to encourage us to read – anything. It didn’t matter whether it was a Jane Austen novel or a car instruction manual, Doctor Faustus or Dr Seuss. His philosophy was that the practice of reading in general benefits the mind. I feel much the same about writing. Writing in any medium and in any voice is a healthy and constructive thing.

So I use The Pequod, and the fact that it offers a medium of (vanity) publication, to encourage me to keep up different types of writing. And I don’t see this activity as a distraction from my mainstream academic work. For example, I started writing poetry at university as a way of trying to understand the form from the inside out, and I like to think that although I write much less poetry now, I still understand something about the formal engine of a poem from having built some from scratch myself. Similarly, I’ve lost count of the number of times when I’ve blogged about something that is seemingly incidental, only to discover six months later that it has burrowed its way to the surface of a journal article or a teaching seminar. So if during the working day I suddenly decide to bash out a blog post – on whatever subject, not explicitly research-related – I see this as an extension of the core academic activity for which I’m ostensibly paid.

Having said that, I’m probably not very good as a blogger, because I struggle to write succinctly and in an entertaining way, instead slipping into an academic tone. And I wouldn’t for one minute entertain the belief that I’m any good as a creative writer or poet – I guess in part because, in answer to your question, I don’t find enough time to keep it up. But to me, as for my English teacher, the effort is all.

On a related note, I am a great lover of Moby Dick–it would be the text I’d most wish to have on a deserted island–most appropriate to its isolato imagery, its cast-aways, it’s lonely war-faring ship. Could you tell us how you came to choose The Pequod as your blog title?

The title of The Pequod stems from the same impulse as motivates me to write in different forms. In Moby Dick, The Pequod is described as a “cannibal of a craft,” constructed from various parts of other ships and bearing the artefacts of its many voyages. I launched The Pequod once I had finished my undergraduate degree, and while I was taking a year out before deciding whether to pursue further study. The Pequod played host to many of the essays and scribblings I’d made as an undergraduate, the artefacts of my first voyage through an English degree, and as I continued to add essays and book reviews and creative writing to it over that year it ultimately bore me in the direction of continuing my studies further.

As I eventually decided to return to postgraduate studies, Moby Dick also seemed an apt conceit, because one of the features of that book is of course Ishmael’s irresistible thirst for knowledge. Rather than satisfying him, every new scrap of information about the whale spawns the quest for another one. This seems to me to be a fair corollary to what drives us on as academics, especially when we’re hunting the white whale of literature – a slippery, indeterminate and irrational form of knowledge, which can never be speared once and for all.

Having said all this, as I continued in academia The Pequod also posed some problems. We’ve all got files and folders of school work festering in the attic somewhere, because whilst we honestly know little of it is of any use, at the same time we can’t bring ourselves to throw it out. The internet now allows us to make this sort of work more publically and permanently available, which is what I did initially in the eclectic collection of The Pequod. Was this a good thing? Probably not, given that potential employers and colleagues might be able to see my early essays and believe these to represent my current work and style. Hence for most of the time I published The Pequod under the pseudonym, Ishmael. It is only recently, now that the vast majority of the content there represents my mature work and current research projects, that I’ve opted to come clean and put my name to it. And I’m glad I did, given that you wouldn’t be featuring these questions on the Daily Dose were it not for my newfound openness!

Lastly, do you have any upcoming projects? Any vistas you are planning yet to explore?

I’ve got a number of different projects on at the moment. I’m currently finishing off a distance learning textbook on Topics in Modernism for a university in Singapore.

I’m also editing the blog, Research in English At Durham (http://readdurhamenglish.wordpress.com/), which publicises our research. In the UK under the Research Excellence Framework we’re suddenly under pressure to demonstrate the social and economic “impact” of research. When a scientist discovers some new life-saving drug, this is pretty straightforward. But how to demonstrate the impact of an esoteric study of some unknown nineteenth-century poet? This is far harder. But one thing we can at least do is to announce that, “hey, I’ve found this and it interests me, and it might also interest you.” The internet, and blogging and podcasting, allows us to do this. So one of my projects is to figure out ways to show off research to a wider audience, something we academics have perhaps been a little reluctant to do in the past, because we like to assume our niche fields are valuable in and of themselves – which they are, but in today’s world that is an insufficient explanation. I guess this is also something you feel, in having set up projects like the Daily Dose.

As for research, I’m currently struggling to write an article on empathy in Ian McEwan’s Atonement. Empathy has become the default explanation for why it is valuable to read literature. Literature, we’re told, makes us better people in the real world by allowing us to practice imagining the inner lives of fictional characters. But McEwan’s novel seems to make this idea problematic, given that Briony’s “crime” is to possess too much imagination. She entertains the novelist’s prerogative to imagine what other people are doing, rather than just using blunt commonsense which often, helpfully, instructs us just to mind our own business rather than trying to empathise all the time. Perhaps, McEwan seems to be saying, novels and novelists are not so good after all as empathy generators.

As with my book on computer games, or as with the research blog mentioned above, all my research and activities seem to circle around the question of why literature matters. I think it does matter, of course; but I think we shouldn’t rest on our laurels about its importance.

During the Ceremony of Inauguration, Dr. Ian Chapman, a retired past president of Northern Baptist Seminary gave the charge to the new president. The address below is Chapman’s charge to President Alistair Brown.

In one of her poems, Edna St. Vincent Millay wrote:

These words were penned in 1939 in a “dark hour” when the menacing clouds of war were “falling from the sky.” In that year Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Great Britain and other countries declared war on Germany. The Manhattan Project began work on the atomic bomb. With these events the world was plunged into a monstrous conflict that was to destroy the lives of millions. To make matters worse, there existed no loom to make any sense of this tragic fabric.
Today some might say we live in a “dark hour”. A world-wide economic disaster is destroying the lives of millions. The specter of terrorism and piracy looms over the free world. Even the Christian faith has fallen upon hard times. A recent edition of USA Today reported that in America “faith is shifting, drifting or vanishing outright.” Newsweek’s Easter edition carried the article, “The Rise and Fall of Christian America.” “This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than in any other time in recent history.”

If we wish to be pessimistic we might conclude that in this present time there “exists no loom to make any sense of this fabric.” But that would not be true. A theological seminary is God’s loom. It is the seminary’s mission to make sense out of the madness of the world; to bring meaning and purpose to the emptiness that often daunts life; and to give perspective to those who have given up or simply lost their way. In short, the seminary, that is, the president, Board, faculty, staff, and students are called to weave the fabric of biblical faith in order to transform the church and the world.

It is my deep conviction that if a seminary did not exist, it would be necessary to invent one. A seminary is that vital to the church; it is that crucial for the nurture of every believer. It is that essential for the sake of the world. Our dear friend Brimson Grow [Northern Seminary’s former trustee] who served Northern faithfully for so many years often said, “Theological education is the greatest investment we can make for the cause of Christ.” I believe that to be true.

Alistair, God has gifted you and called you to weave the fabric of biblical faith on Northern’s loom. This is a high and holy privilege and a daunting responsibility. As you are installed this day as Northern’s Tenth President, I offer you these challenges from the early church.

1. The early church paid attention to the biblical text. You see this in the church’s deep commitment to preaching and teaching. Peter’s sermon to the Passover crowd in Jerusalem in the second chapter of the book of Acts was based on two portions of the Old Testament. In Acts 2:42, we learn that the believers “devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching….”

In 2 Peter 1:16 the author writes, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the coming and power of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” But sadly in today’s evangelical church Scripture is rarely read and preachers rarely exegete the biblical text. They preach sermons to amuse and entertain or offer therapeutic pabulum to satisfy the congregation’s self-centered needs.

Mr. President, I challenge you to infuse in this community a love and commitment for the biblical text. The church needs more, much more than “cleverly invented stories.”

2. The early church had a story to tell. In a recent meeting the guest speaker said of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “This is really important stuff. It’s worth our lives.” What struck me was his voice. It throbbed with passion. It was obvious that the Gospel meant everything to him. When you study the biblical record you quickly discover that the early church throbbed with a similar passion.

The passage I referred to earlier in 2 Peter continues with these words: ‘but we were eyewitnesses to his majesty.” Jesus. He was the priority of the early church and they told his story over and over again. None of us here were eyewitnesses to the “majesty of Jesus Christ.” but we can tell His story and tell it with passion and conviction.

Mr. President I challenge you to infuse in this community the passion to tell the story of the life, death, resurrection, ascension and coming again of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is really important stuff. It’s worth our lives.

3. The early church persevered. When you read the events of the early church you cannot help but be moved by the courage of these believers. When ordered by the religious authorities not to speak further of Jesus the disciples replied, “We cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Where did these believers find such courage? What was the secret of their confidence? They were, as scripture says, “ordinary, uneducated people.” Surely they were not the kind of people we would choose as the founding leaders of His church. The secret of their confidence was their intimate relationship with Jesus. As we read in the book of Hebrews (12:3) they followed Jesus who “endured the cross, scorned its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Mr. President, you have already been confronted by many challenges since you came to Northern. And no doubt there are more to come. During WW 2 Winston Churchill singlehandedly became the loom that weaved the fabric of hope for the British people. He encouraged, he persevered, he sacrificed, and he risked his life. In a dramatic radio address he uttered these memorable words: “Never, never, never give up” and the British people stiffened their upper lips and marched to victory.

Mr. President, I challenge you to infuse in this community the courage to endure for the sake of Christ. I believe the fabric of text, story and perseverance in Northern’s loom will design a new future for the seminary church and the world.

May God bless you.

****

I want to thank Dr. Ian Chapman for the permission to publish his Challenge to the President. His address describes well the theological task of a seminary.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Alistair Brown, Ian Chapman, Northern Seminary

var addthis_pub = ‘claude mariottini’;

Ali Brown

Posted on www.overtimeonline.co.uk – March 13 2007

By Tom Rubashow

Tom Rubashow gathers the thoughts of two England batsmen, Alistair Brown and Ed Smith, and questions whether the Three Lions can find a winning combination.

Five members of the England team that lost the first Test of this winter’s Ashes series will not be representing England at the World Cup. This in part reflects the events of the series but also the perceived differences between Test cricket and the 50-over game.

Matthew Hoggard is England’s best Test bowler, according to the ICC rankings (he is fifth in the world) and yet he has played only 26 one-day internationals for England since his debut in 2001 against Zimbabwe. He played his last ODI against India in April 2006 and does not feature in the World Cup squad.

Steve Harmison, ranked 17 in the world in Tests, was allowed to retire from ODI cricket with little debate. Alastair Cook, who has established himself in England’s Test team in the past year, has played just two ODIs and despite helping England to good starts in both he was not included in the World Cup squad.

Ashley Giles and Geraint Jones are the other non-World Cup squadders who played in the side that lost that Brisbane Test to Australia by 277 runs last November 2006. Indeed, the squad includes seven players who have played fewer than 10 Tests; and of that seven, four have never played Test cricket.
Coach Duncan Fletcher, many feel, has tended to use ODIs as a way to assess a player’s Test potential, and does not give the shorter game quite so much of his attention.

Making the switch

But is one-day cricket really that different from the longer version? Does it merit such a change in squad? Alistair Brown, regarded by many as a one-day specialist, played 16 ODIs for England and has dominated county attacks playing for Surrey in both versions of the game. In fact, his 268 against Glamorgan in 2001 remains the highest in any professional limited-overs match. He said he doesn’t find it difficult to switch between formats:

“I don’t find it hard. I think it is more difficult for the bowlers. In four-day cricket they can bowl a wider line and be more patient. In one-day cricket if you bowl wide you will get hit, so you have to bowl straighter and be more aggressive.”

‘I still play the same type of shots. It is just you change the type of balls to attack’ – Ed Smith

Middlesex captain Ed Smith played three Tests for England in 2004 and believes the approach changes slightly: “I still play the same type of shots. It is just you change the type of balls to attack. The main change is in shot selection, as I attack balls in one-day cricket that I may not otherwise.”

He agrees with Brown that it is not hard to switch from one form to the other: “If you are in good form it is not too hard to make the change. It does require an adjustment but if you are playing your best it can be quite seamless.”

If it is relatively easy to change format, why do England chop and change their squad? Smith highlights the different traits required: “Some qualities are more important than others in one-day cricket. If you bowl a bit it helps. It means extra batsmen can be played, whereas in four-day cricket you need to have really good concentration.”

Brown added: “It is a change; the difference is time. There is an onus to score quickly. You have less time to judge the wicket. Australia play with intensity and aggression and I think that is the best way.”

The right balance

So what is the best way to pick a squad? At the last World Cup 10 of England’s 15-man squad had more than 10 Tests under their belt and England struggled, failing to make it out of the group stages. In 1999, nine of the 15 had played more than 10 Tests and again England failed to make it out of the group stages, while in the equally unsuccessful 1996 World Cup side 10 players had 10 or more Test caps.

The best way to look at this is to take into consideration the winners at these tournaments. In 1996, Sri Lanka had an established Test team and adjusted brilliantly to the one-day game, hitting throughout the first 15 overs of the game, whatever the state of the pitch, because of the fielding restrictions. Of the XI that started the final against Australia, only wicketkeeper Romesh Kaluwitharana and off-spinner Kumar Dharmasena had 10 or fewer Tests to their name and both went on to play more than 30 five-dayers for their country. It was a superb one-day team that adapted their Test side to the abridged game.

Australia’s 1999 World Cup-winning side included four players who had not played more than 10 Tests. It was a well-balanced side that included one-day specialists – Tom Moody, Adam Gilchrist, Darren Lehmann and Michael Bevan (who had played 18 Tests but was by then already regarded as a one-day player) – and established Test performers such as Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and the Waugh brothers.

The winning XI in 2003 again was a balanced Australian team, with the usual scattering of talented Test players and one-day specialists, the latter including Andrew Symonds, Brad Hogg, Darren Lehmann (who was about to get a run in the Test side) and the brilliant Bevan. The first three of those had not played 10 Test matches; not until this winter, indeed, did Symonds cement a Test place.

It is clear there is no set formula for success. You can do what Australia have done and have a mix of one-day specialists and quality Test players or you can do what Sri Lanka did and keep the same side but adjust your tactics.

‘You do need one-day specialists. You need to find a good blend’ – Ali Brown

Brown realises getting the mix right is hard. “England are doing well after winning their last few games. It is difficult though. You need to put in one-day specialists but you also need established players who can deal with the high level of bowling and batting. Some players from county cricket may struggle, but you do need one-day specialists. You need to find a good blend.”

In picking their squad, England have forced themselves into the Australia option. The lack of Hoggard, Cook and co. means that the one-day specialists – as they are currently regarded – namely Ed Joyce, Jamie Dalrymple and Paul Nixon, are likely to be used.

‘I think England can win’ – Smith

Brown, who was part of the last English team to win an ODI tournament abroad prior to victory down under – in Sharjah in 1997 – believes England can win the World Cup. He said:

“It is asking a lot of England and they need to play well but if they get to the quarter-finals, which they should do, they are just a few good games away from winning it. England have matchwinners in Kevin Pietersen, Paul Collingwood and Andrew Flintoff, who are very strong. The key roles are the openers and number three. I have been impressed with Ian Bell, who is playing well and more aggressively than he does in Test cricket. England really need to attack the power-plays.”

Interestingly, when England won their only one-day pot of note, the Champions Trophy in Sharjah a decade ago under Adam Hollioake’s forthright leadership, the team included five all-rounders – Dougie Brown, Robert Croft, Mark Ealham, Matthew Fleming and Hollioake, as well as Alec Stewart behind the stumps. The XI, who won all four of their matches, included just one recognised bowler, Kent’s Dean Headley. Brown acknowledges that England have not gone down that extreme route this time:

“When we won the Champions Trophy we had a lot of decent all-rounders and batted a long way down. Now [the team] have the best batsmen and the best bowlers, which mean they don’t bat as far down. It is tricky to get the right blend.”

Smith agrees with Brown that England can turn their poor record around. “I think they can win. The reversal Down Under [in the CB Series] was great: they showed Australia could be beaten and did well to win four on the trot. I think in this World Cup it is hard to predict who will win. If England play well, with key players such as Pietersen coming back, they have a chance. It will be dependent on good individual and collective form. They have peaked at the right time and that will boost their confidence. If they play with that confidence and some hunger they will be in with a chance.”

England ended the Commonwealth Bank tri-series in Australia with a four-game winning-streak to claim the trophy. With captain Michael Vaughan in and out of the side with injuries and best batsman Pietersen missing, the triumph was even more impressive. With Vaughan, Pietersen and key bowler James Anderson hoping to return for the start of the World Cup, England have reason to be optimistic, don’t they?

One must remember, however, that in the CB series England won as many games as they lost – five. They are also ranked seventh (as of February 20, 2007) in the LG ICC One-Day International Championship and since the last World Cup only have a better ODI winning percentage than the West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe of the Test nations. Add to this the fact England’s recent record in ODIs in the West Indies is very poor – five wins and 13 losses since 1990 – and you can see why there is still work to be done. Let’s just hope they picked the right squad.

He played a few games for England, even smoked the Indians once.

Scored a double ton in a domestic one day cricket.

And played for Surrey.

None of these things impregnated my memory.

Then before the IPL started, the cream of the English domestic cricketers were in a rush to come out and say they were approached to play.

Ali Brown was one of the first.

He had just signed a one year happy retirement contract with Surrey.

Brown is old school Surrey, not one of these “I’ll play for anyone with cash” sort of county players.

He decided that as Surrey had been good to him, he would be good to them, and he stood by his contract.

This meant saying no to Bhaji and Sachin.

Surrey have been rubbish this year.

Really rubbish.

Watching them the other day reminded me of watching the clean up of a mass religious suicide.

They had to start getting some new blood.

The decision to get rid of Brown was a correct one.

The team is bigger than the individual.

Ali Brown probably thinks he did the right thing.

Perhaps his wife/lover/accountant or posse are doubting that.

If he had done a Dimi, he would have at least double his salary for the year, and been in on the ground level of the IPL.

Now he is looking for a county, when if he played in the IPL he could have owned one.

Sportsmen have only a short window to cash in, and you can’t blame some of them for choosing cash over club/county/country.

Ofcourse I will, and do, all the time, bloody money grubbing fuckers.

Dr. Brown has prepared a video in which he sent greetings to Northern’s community and to all friends of the seminary. To watch the video and listen to Dr. Brown’s greetings, click here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Alistair Brown, Northern Seminary

Picture: Northern Baptist Seminary’s New President

The Board of Trustees of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary has released the following press release:

On March 7, 2008, in a meeting characterized by a profound sense of God’s leading, the Board of Trustees of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary unanimously elected the Rev Dr. Alistair Brown the Seminary’s tenth President.

Dr. Brown currently serves as the General Director of the Baptist Missionary Society (BMS) with its World Mission headquarters in Didcot, Oxfordshire, UK. The General Director is the CEO. BMS is responsible for 160 mid and long term mission workers and 200 plus supported partner workers (indigenous personnel). The Society has a staff of 70 with an annual budget of 14.4 million dollars.

After a short career in journalism, Dr Brown sensed a call to ministry and studied at the University of Edinburgh, gaining a BA with Merit, a BD Honours degree in New Testament Language, Literature and Theology, and a PhD with a thesis that examined metaphors of baptism in the Pauline literature. Later, while serving with BMS, he gained an MBA from The Open University.

Dr. Brown has told friends for years that the only thing that could ever pull him away from his current role is preparing people for ministry. As he pondered the possibility of becoming Northern’s president he wrote, “Walking by faith never ends, so exploring this role is part of my faith journey. Christ is more real and more precious now than ever before, and my determination to know and do his will controls all my decisions. … With every breath and every act I seek to serve Jesus and always will.” In responding to Northern’s call he quoted the language of Northern’s prospectus seeking a new president, “The next leader of Northern will come because following Jesus offers no other choice.”

The Chair of Northern’s Board and chair of the search, Ted Rodgers, stated, “We are profoundly grateful to God for guiding us to Alistair Brown. Dr. Brown is a proven effective and visionary leader with the skills and breadth and depth of experience necessary to lead Northern as she approaches her second century of preparing congregational leaders.”

In his letter to the Board of Trustees of March 7, 2008 Dr. Brown stated, “It’s said that nothing ever takes God by surprise. I agree. But God certainly takes us by surprise. God holds me, as he holds Northern in his firm grasp, and that’s all we need. … Right now we may be a little surprised at what God is doing. I look forward to the surprise turning into wonder and gratitude as we see God accomplish far more than we can imagine.”

I welcome the new president to Northern Baptist Seminary. May his tenure with us be a blessing to our institution.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Alistair Brown, Northern Baptist Seminary

Despite supporting Kilmarnock, Broon has a fine mind and can sniff out an online business opportunity at 400 paces. He’s also a tough negotiator. Well I remember the stream of would-be suppliers who would ply their wares to scotsman.com when he was head of operations/general manager. After 30 minutes of sales pitch, Broon would say: “I really like your product but I want you to give it to us for nothing.”

A suprisingly large number agreed.