A Few Answers to SharperIron Critics
Should we answer critics or ignore them? Though critics should not be lumped in with fools too hastily, Proverbs 26:4-5 might be of some help in answering this question. Apparently, sometimes we should not answer fools, but sometimes we should. Given the number of leadership experts who say, “Never answer the critics because…” as well as the number who say, “You have to answer your critics because…,” I’m guessing that what’s true of fools is also true of critics in this case: sometimes we shouldn’t answer them, but sometimes we should.
Of course, we should listen to our critics first and weigh their criticism. But when listening to a critic reveals a consistent pattern of factual error (and more than a little evidence of malice), further listening is poor stewardship of our time. That narrows the options to “tuning out” or responding.
Public criticism over an extended period of time narrows the options even further. The likelihood increases that people unfamiliar with the facts will encounter accusations and believe them. Actual damage could occur.
Eventually the question is no longer if we should answer the critics but how to answer them without further empowering them—or perhaps, how to answer them in a way that empowers them less than not answering them! One good way might be to target falsehoods without specifically targeting their source.
So here goes. In most cases, these are criticisms that have been leveled publicly against SI or the team for many months, but some more recent accusations receive attention here as well. I’ll put them all in question form.
Is SharperIron going to go under financially?
Sure—doesn’t everything eventually? But the site has not asked for money in over a year. Last August we had a fund drive to pay for 2009’s server costs. As we enter the third quarter of 2010, we’ve no need to do that this year. But what does that prove, either way? Sometimes the wicked prosper (Ps. 37:7) and sometimes the faithful languish (pretty much the whole book of Jeremiah) and sometimes vice versa.
Did SharperIron misrepresent its membership total?
In May of 2009, the membership database had over 4,000 accounts, many of which had been inactive for quite some time. On June 1, 2009, the site went live with new software we nicknamed “3.0.” Due to unexpected data migration problems, we couldn’t get those accounts into the new software in any timely way. So we gave up and asked everyone to register again. From that point on, we had two membership databases. The old one is still on the server.
For some time after June of ‘09, the membership reporting page still had the old ballpark number of 4,000. At some point, I updated the page with more precise wording distinguishing between the two databases. Now we just report the number in the new database (at this moment, 1,387).
To one critic, having the original “4,000” out there for a while was both dishonest and criminal. And more precise reporting as we continued the transition wasn’t good enough either. But one fact remains: the night before we went to “3.0,” SharperIron, LLC owned a database with more than 4,000 member accounts, and after the move it still owned that database—and still owns it today. “SharperIron 3.0” was a nickname for new software, not the name of a new organization. “3.0” does not have members and never will.
I’m still waiting for the FTC to prosecute me for my crimes. But I’m not holding my breath.
Do the SharperIron team members (publisher, moderators, etc.) beat up on non-calvinists?
I’ve been publicly accused (recently by name) of doing this. I’m tempted to offer a cash reward for anyone who can find a thread where I attacked someone for not being a Calvinist or for expressing views contrary to Calvinism. I don’t think I’ve ever even claimed to be a Calvinist. Since some of the critics seem to have too much time on their hands, I invite them to see if they can find any place where I declared my views on Calvinism. It’s possible that I’ve done that somewhere, but it would take a while to find.
In reference to the team, the situation is a little more complex. Many of the team members are more Calvinistic than not, and in the area of Calvinist soteriology, some are very passionate about their beliefs on one point or several. But that’s OK. At SharperIron, the moderators are allowed to have opinions and express them. We’ve officially said so in the “About” information (though it could probably be made clearer), and that’s been standard practice here since SI launched in 2005.
For the record, Arminians (and neither-nor’s!) are welcome here. The doctrinal statement does not exclude them and we’ve never banned anyone for those views. You will find that Arminian or anti-Calvinist views are greeted with passionate rebuttals, but you are welcome to offer passionate counter-rebuttals.
To any non-Calvinist who is being ganged up on at any time: contact me and cry foul. I can’t really help it if the ratio is such that you’re outnumbered—the membership is open in that regard—but we’ve no desire to gang up on anyone. If you’re a non-Calvinist and want more folks standing with you, recruit some buddies to join the site.
Is SharperIron in love with the conservative evangelicals?
That sort of depends on whether you’re talking about the membership, the readership or the leadership. Members are all over the map on that one. Judging from the ‘09-‘10 reader survey, readers would be even more so. But that accusation is often targeted at the site leadership. Where do we stand?
I feel kind of silly answering this because I think the answer is obvious. But not everybody reads the forum threads, and some apparently read every fifth word or so (just enough to get things completely wrong). The attitude of everybody on the team that I’ve seen comment on the subject is that the McArthur, Mohler, Dever, Carson, Piper, Mahaney, etc. crowd has accomplished some really good things and appears destined to continue to do that. We appreciate much of these men’s work. I don’t know of anyone on the team who would deny that these men have some problems theologically and/or in their practice of separation. The “CEs” are not all the same, so it’s hard to generalize beyond that.
But in discussions about seeking closer ties with these leaders—and others like them—my own response has been pretty consistently tepid. I continue to not really understand why some are so passionate about seeking that kind of “emerging middle.” I’m not for lumping the CEs in with apostates, but my imagination doesn’t seem to be up to the task of envisioning what benefit there would be in “closer ties” (whatever exactly that means). I don’t see much to gain for fundamentalists, for the conservative evangelicals or for the body of Christ as whole. Since I’m not a believer in “bigger is better,” I tend to see larger coalitions as more dramatic but not more productive in any eternal sense.
“In love with the CEs”? Well, I don’t hate them. Maybe to the critics, that’s the same thing.
Has Aaron described the site as being for “fundamentalists of the conservative evangelical variety”?
I have to smile at that one. There’s a little switcheroo misquote there. In a few places I have described the site as being for, or consisting of, “conservative evangelicals of the fundamentalist variety.” I think in one place I went with “conservative evangelicals of the kind known historically as fundamentalists,” but that was pretty clunky. The aim in those descriptions is to help folks who know nothing at all about fundamentalism get some idea what the term means in reference to the site.
Since all who believe and promote the gospel are evangelicals (the term derives from euangelion, the Greek word for “gospel”), the site is certainly for evangelicals. Since our constituents are more conservative than most who claim the gospel, we’re also certainly conservative evangelicals. But since we’re also particular about separation (with varying understandings of the principle), we are in yet another subset: one called fundamentalists.
Maybe a diagram would be of some help.
Does the SI team unfairly moderate people they disagree with?
I don’t think we’ve ever had a “How we can moderate less fairly?” meeting. It’s our aim to be fair, and we put a lot of effort into looking for good balances, but we’d have to be fools to think we’re always successful. Sometimes the truth in a situation seems quite clear at the moment but looks very different a few days or weeks later. Sometimes the only thing that is clear is that we ought to intervene in a discussion, but we can’t work out among us what form that intervention should take. So sometimes we just have to pick an option and go for it, and hope for the best.
Everybody sees things through the filter of his or her own sympathies and prejudices. This is true of moderators but also of members posting in threads. So it’s all too easy for someone to believe he “got reffed” when a foul is called against him.
Interestingly, the most aggressive critic of our moderating efforts routinely and unilaterally removes—or refuses to post—comments at his own site if he doesn’t like what they say. At SI, your comment posts first and if there are issues, a team discusses them. Through that counsel, we seek to make wise choices.
We’re always looking for ways to do things better. One persistent goal is nurturing healthy tension while simultaneously reining in inappropriate or clearly unhelpful statements. But it’s an art, and none of us claim to be Michelangelo.
Conclusion
SI is not constantly under attack. As far as I know, the site’s enemies are few, and critics of the distorting or dishonest sort are even fewer. I don’t get angry phone calls (which kind of surprises me—but I certainly don’t mind!). If there are a whole lot of folks who think we’re a Very Bad Thing, they don’t seem to go out of their way to say so. To the few who seem determined to sling mud: well, sling if you must. I’m not slinging back—but occasionally we will rinse off a bit.
Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia and worked in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.
Thanks Aaron for all that you do, and thanks also to the others who work with SharperIron to continue this great website. I appreciate it, and truly believe it is making a difference for good. I check the site usually multiple times per day.
SharperIron gives a voice to people who simply would not have had one 10 or 20 years ago, and — if nothing else — serves as a much-needed check on some of the excesses of fundamentalism for all who will hear — and, believe me, people are listening. That is very healthy.
I must say, however, that my greatest surprise in participating on SI is finding members who are willing to question things such as young-earth creationism or even free-market capitalism. Of course, this is not to mention a willingness to denigrate dispensationalism!
My fear is that a new generation with a new freedom to question and criticize the abuses of fundamentalism’s past sometimes lacks the discernment to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Whereas the “fundamentalist rebels” of my college days were enamored with MacArthur and Swindoll, today it seems that a focus is placed on men like Piper who are not solid on either creationism, cessationism or prophecy but are highly regarded for holding to the “doctrines of grace.” Things like creationism and dispensationalism are seen by some as part of a “fundamentalist baggage” which needs to be discarded in favor of something more weighty.
Frankly, this scares the daylights out of me and leaves me wondering where my ecclesiastical home may be in 10 years.
(In a nutshell, I would argue that indeed something more weighty is needed than the excesses of the fundamentalism of the past — but that dispensationalism was never inherent to those excesses and Reformed Theology is not the answer.)
All of this is by no means the fault of SI — but I believe that SI has greatly brought this situation to light. I would love to hear the thoughts of others on these issues.
As always, please correct me if I am wrong :|
SharperIron gives a voice to people who simply would not have had one 10 or 20 years ago, and — if nothing else — serves as a much-needed check on some of the excesses of fundamentalism for all who will hear — and, believe me, people are listening. That is very healthy.
I must say, however, that my greatest surprise in participating on SI is finding members who are willing to question things such as young-earth creationism or even free-market capitalism. Of course, this is not to mention a willingness to denigrate dispensationalism!
My fear is that a new generation with a new freedom to question and criticize the abuses of fundamentalism’s past sometimes lacks the discernment to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Whereas the “fundamentalist rebels” of my college days were enamored with MacArthur and Swindoll, today it seems that a focus is placed on men like Piper who are not solid on either creationism, cessationism or prophecy but are highly regarded for holding to the “doctrines of grace.” Things like creationism and dispensationalism are seen by some as part of a “fundamentalist baggage” which needs to be discarded in favor of something more weighty.
Frankly, this scares the daylights out of me and leaves me wondering where my ecclesiastical home may be in 10 years.
(In a nutshell, I would argue that indeed something more weighty is needed than the excesses of the fundamentalism of the past — but that dispensationalism was never inherent to those excesses and Reformed Theology is not the answer.)
All of this is by no means the fault of SI — but I believe that SI has greatly brought this situation to light. I would love to hear the thoughts of others on these issues.
As always, please correct me if I am wrong :|
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I know you didn’t start it, but thanks for running SI — despite the critics.
I count one of those critics among my friends, and we talk from time to time about this stuff. I say now what I said to him once:
You are doing a journalistic service here, on some level. You expose that which nobody was allowed to talk about at one time in certain institutions or groups or associations.
Some don’t like this. Some don’t like where it leads.
But a few benefits are this…
a). If there is any hope to stem the tide of exits from Fundamentalism, the foks inside the movement are going to have to answer questions and address misgivings. Some who have questions and misgivings will leave anyway. But the steady migration over the years has been partially a result of the suppression of free speech within certain groups. “Ask the wrong thing, and you’re out of our [insert club, institution, movement, association here].” No wonder people leave. Others left because “they were not of us”. So be it. But why throw away those who only want answers or clarifications?
b). There are some things that skulked in the dark in some parts of Fundamentalism. That which was done in secret can now be shouted from the housetop. That is uncomfortable for some. It is also diffucult to remember how to shout Biblically when you’re up there on the housetop. But in the end, the process should be good for the movement. As someone who once dwelled in those parts of the movement that had some skulking going on, I know where many bodies are buried (please, don’t take this too literally). It’s good to know that they can be dug up from their hiding place and given a decent marker in a good cemetery.
c). SI appears to lean leftward (toward CEhood) because that is one of the big issues now. Fundamentalism has always deemed that which was most like itself as the biggest threat. And culturally, rightly so. But the folks who are looking for those imaginary greener pastures are surely going to look over the fence next door before they start loading up Google Earth to look all over. CE is the issue, as much as anything else. That’s why it appears in the pages of SI so much. Same thing with Reformed Theology, or Covenant Theology, or other Milliennialisms than the one we all really know deep down is right. ;)
So keep on doing this, Aaron.
I count one of those critics among my friends, and we talk from time to time about this stuff. I say now what I said to him once:
You are doing a journalistic service here, on some level. You expose that which nobody was allowed to talk about at one time in certain institutions or groups or associations.
Some don’t like this. Some don’t like where it leads.
But a few benefits are this…
a). If there is any hope to stem the tide of exits from Fundamentalism, the foks inside the movement are going to have to answer questions and address misgivings. Some who have questions and misgivings will leave anyway. But the steady migration over the years has been partially a result of the suppression of free speech within certain groups. “Ask the wrong thing, and you’re out of our [insert club, institution, movement, association here].” No wonder people leave. Others left because “they were not of us”. So be it. But why throw away those who only want answers or clarifications?
b). There are some things that skulked in the dark in some parts of Fundamentalism. That which was done in secret can now be shouted from the housetop. That is uncomfortable for some. It is also diffucult to remember how to shout Biblically when you’re up there on the housetop. But in the end, the process should be good for the movement. As someone who once dwelled in those parts of the movement that had some skulking going on, I know where many bodies are buried (please, don’t take this too literally). It’s good to know that they can be dug up from their hiding place and given a decent marker in a good cemetery.
c). SI appears to lean leftward (toward CEhood) because that is one of the big issues now. Fundamentalism has always deemed that which was most like itself as the biggest threat. And culturally, rightly so. But the folks who are looking for those imaginary greener pastures are surely going to look over the fence next door before they start loading up Google Earth to look all over. CE is the issue, as much as anything else. That’s why it appears in the pages of SI so much. Same thing with Reformed Theology, or Covenant Theology, or other Milliennialisms than the one we all really know deep down is right. ;)
So keep on doing this, Aaron.
I agree, Bro. Scharf, that there’s a ‘double-edged sword’ that places like SI have supplied us with. Forums have given people a chance to voice questions that simply were not allowed in the past. It’s a place where folks can work things out out loud, so to speak, and with people of similar but not identical (the Doctrinal Statement here is quite broad IMO) doctrinal beliefs. I can think of many times that just a little blurb by someone like Bro. Durning or Bro. Aaron sent my mind off in a direction I didn’t even know it needed to go. I’ve read books I never would have known existed if not for men like Bro. Charlie and Bro. Joseph. I’ve read posts in opposition to some of my firmly held beliefs that have changed my mind, and others that actually served to strengthen those beliefs instead of weaken them. But it has also provided an unprecedented opportunity for heresy to flourish.
The problem I have with critics is when they offer no evidence to support their accusations. It’s often hearsay and invective, and I’m shocked when the brethren tolerate this online when they would never tolerate it in real life. I’ve attempted to answer blogs/comments on other sites only to have my comments removed. That does not happen here unless a post somehow violates the Comment Policy or Doctrinal Statement, which are posted for all to see. One quickly realizes when active on the internet if someone is not really interested in the truth, but in sowing strife and confusion. So if you read something critical of another person or website, just ask yourself if they’ve provided any proof of their assertions, or if it’s just mud-slinging. If you find that what you are reading is basically filth, then leave it in the pig trough where it belongs, mark that person as a railer and separate from them. There are plenty of good-hearted and honest people out there who want to have interesting and reasonable discussions about the hard issues, who are willing to admit to making mistakes, and to make public correction after having made a public mistake.
But all of this interaction can get quite messy at times. We have to ask ourselves- do we really want Sharper Iron to be pristine? Should we narrow the membership down to only those who think like ‘us’- whoever ‘us’ is? Do we want the Doctrinal Statement to outline every jot and tittle? Aaron posted a question about changing the DS to include a statement about 24/7 creation (if that’s not aboveboard, I don’t know what it, btw). The responses were really interesting, and I felt like I could see wheels turning as we considered what it means to narrow the focus of SI. What do we want to discuss, and what do we want to take for granted? What difficult and controversial questions should people see answered in this format? If we want stimulating conversation, we are going to have to put up with the mess- and that is what the moderators are for- to sweep up when the pile gets too high. :p
When it comes to moderation, the bottom line is that people who have never moderated a forum do not know what is involved. They don’t see the long discussions, the thought that goes into what kind of action to take, if any; the hateful emails we sometimes receive from people who are oh-so-spiritual in the forums but pull a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde when something happens they don’t like. When situations arise that may require moderation, there are many different perspectives that are offered, because the mod team consists of very different people with very different beliefs on many things. I think the only thing that all the mods have in common (other than agreeing with the DS) is that we believe places like SI are a good thing, and we’re willing to put our keyboards where our mouth is.
That’s my 2 shekels.
The problem I have with critics is when they offer no evidence to support their accusations. It’s often hearsay and invective, and I’m shocked when the brethren tolerate this online when they would never tolerate it in real life. I’ve attempted to answer blogs/comments on other sites only to have my comments removed. That does not happen here unless a post somehow violates the Comment Policy or Doctrinal Statement, which are posted for all to see. One quickly realizes when active on the internet if someone is not really interested in the truth, but in sowing strife and confusion. So if you read something critical of another person or website, just ask yourself if they’ve provided any proof of their assertions, or if it’s just mud-slinging. If you find that what you are reading is basically filth, then leave it in the pig trough where it belongs, mark that person as a railer and separate from them. There are plenty of good-hearted and honest people out there who want to have interesting and reasonable discussions about the hard issues, who are willing to admit to making mistakes, and to make public correction after having made a public mistake.
But all of this interaction can get quite messy at times. We have to ask ourselves- do we really want Sharper Iron to be pristine? Should we narrow the membership down to only those who think like ‘us’- whoever ‘us’ is? Do we want the Doctrinal Statement to outline every jot and tittle? Aaron posted a question about changing the DS to include a statement about 24/7 creation (if that’s not aboveboard, I don’t know what it, btw). The responses were really interesting, and I felt like I could see wheels turning as we considered what it means to narrow the focus of SI. What do we want to discuss, and what do we want to take for granted? What difficult and controversial questions should people see answered in this format? If we want stimulating conversation, we are going to have to put up with the mess- and that is what the moderators are for- to sweep up when the pile gets too high. :p
When it comes to moderation, the bottom line is that people who have never moderated a forum do not know what is involved. They don’t see the long discussions, the thought that goes into what kind of action to take, if any; the hateful emails we sometimes receive from people who are oh-so-spiritual in the forums but pull a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde when something happens they don’t like. When situations arise that may require moderation, there are many different perspectives that are offered, because the mod team consists of very different people with very different beliefs on many things. I think the only thing that all the mods have in common (other than agreeing with the DS) is that we believe places like SI are a good thing, and we’re willing to put our keyboards where our mouth is.
[Paul J. Scharf] My fear is that a new generation with a new freedom to question and criticize the abuses of fundamentalism’s past sometimes lacks the discernment to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.This is where the mature and experienced can make somewhat of a sacrifice and get involved. What happens is that a thread gets messy and complicated and frustrating, and what most mature people do is walk away, because that is what one would do in real life. But on a forum, that just means the inmates get to run the asylum. Forums need the stability and wisdom of the spiritually mature and knowledgeable, but it takes time and effort, which is something we hesitate to spend online. I think as much as some of us use the internet, we still see prolonged interaction online as a waste of time. It’s a theory, but I think today our generation is in many ways setting the standard of the use of the internet for future generations. We have to decide if its an investment we want to make.
That’s my 2 shekels.
Paul… in the world of Drupal (the PHP software the site uses), they talk about “exposing” functions. What they mean is, getting capabilities of the software out in the interface where folks can click and find ways to use it. There are all kinds of possibilities that nobody can use until a programmer “exposes” them.
What I think SI can do for ministry leaders is expose thinking, not in the sense of “uncover something bad that folks are generally trying to hide” but rather get ways of thinking out where anybody who wants to influence thinking can see them, understand them and answer them. So I think the anti-capitalism and anti 6x24 (which is a pretty rare thing here, but you do see some questioning of particulars) and lots of other ways of thinking that might be surprising to some, are out there all the time but not answerable until they’re known and understood.
In the case of how Scripture and wisdom relate to economics, we who believe we understand the implications in that area have a very tough row to hoe because schools have not really taught economics very well for a couple of generations now and Christian schools have not done much better than the rest, as far as I can tell.
We have somewhat similar problems in the area of science because Fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism often speak very broadly and condemningly of “science,” as though the thing itself is somehow anti-Christian. That’s unfortunate and the attitude alienates the best brains that grow up among us… so they leave in search of a view of truth that is more coherent.
But anyway, it’s just a case in point that if you don’t know what folks are thinking, you can’t tell what you’d like to “fix.” And for those who are called do that sort of fixing (or attempt it) as part of whatever their official job is, that kind of knowledge is valuable (for the rest of us, it’s kind of a fun hobby). Of course, SI doesn’t reveal anything like a scientific sampling of what a generation is thinking, but it does provide some clues.
Mike, thanks for the encouragement and for putting in a good word for us among your friends.
What I think SI can do for ministry leaders is expose thinking, not in the sense of “uncover something bad that folks are generally trying to hide” but rather get ways of thinking out where anybody who wants to influence thinking can see them, understand them and answer them. So I think the anti-capitalism and anti 6x24 (which is a pretty rare thing here, but you do see some questioning of particulars) and lots of other ways of thinking that might be surprising to some, are out there all the time but not answerable until they’re known and understood.
In the case of how Scripture and wisdom relate to economics, we who believe we understand the implications in that area have a very tough row to hoe because schools have not really taught economics very well for a couple of generations now and Christian schools have not done much better than the rest, as far as I can tell.
We have somewhat similar problems in the area of science because Fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism often speak very broadly and condemningly of “science,” as though the thing itself is somehow anti-Christian. That’s unfortunate and the attitude alienates the best brains that grow up among us… so they leave in search of a view of truth that is more coherent.
But anyway, it’s just a case in point that if you don’t know what folks are thinking, you can’t tell what you’d like to “fix.” And for those who are called do that sort of fixing (or attempt it) as part of whatever their official job is, that kind of knowledge is valuable (for the rest of us, it’s kind of a fun hobby). Of course, SI doesn’t reveal anything like a scientific sampling of what a generation is thinking, but it does provide some clues.
Mike, thanks for the encouragement and for putting in a good word for us among your friends.
[Mike] Fundamentalism has always deemed that which was most like itself as the biggest threatI wouldn’t make that generalization, myself, but it does describe much of the movement in the last fifty years or so.
[Susan] willing to put our keyboards where our mouth isI know what you mean, but I enjoyed trying to picture that! :D
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
There is no such thing as a perfect place to read about issues and discuss them, but SI is a great place to do these things. Through this site, I have reconnected with friends I have not seen in years and I have met some wonderful new friends. I have been encouraged by some of the things I have read and challenged by other things. I’ve even been disgusted by some things a time or two.
Aaron is doing a wonderful job.
I’ve taken a few beatings from critics for my participation in this site and I am thankful for them. God is teaching me to love critics, evaluate their legitimate concerns, ignore their unreasonable concerns, and to ultimately focus on Him in my walk and service whether people like what I am doing or not. That’s been good for this sensitive soul.
Here’s the neat thing, I have even watched some of the critics of SI become friends of SI!
God is good.
Aaron is doing a wonderful job.
I’ve taken a few beatings from critics for my participation in this site and I am thankful for them. God is teaching me to love critics, evaluate their legitimate concerns, ignore their unreasonable concerns, and to ultimately focus on Him in my walk and service whether people like what I am doing or not. That’s been good for this sensitive soul.
Here’s the neat thing, I have even watched some of the critics of SI become friends of SI!
God is good.
From time to time I read sharperiron, particularly if there is an article afoot that has caused a stir among the brethren. I have also posted comments from time to time, with varying responses. I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but some of the responses have been a bit condescending. I happily represent an older form of fundamentalism that isn’t fooled by John Piper, Rick Warren, and that crowd.
I have also noticed the attitude that the older preachers take toward SI. Whenever it comes up at pastors’ fellowships or just around the lunch table, most of the old guys roll their eyes and express discouragement over the lack of discernment so prevalent among the young. They not only dislike the left-leaning position of SI, but they also dislike the attitude. SI has the reputation of defaming godly men of the past in preference for “non-cessationist” (please read “charismatic”) compromisers of the present. (To even consider the possibility that one can be a fundamentalist and question creationism is absurd.)
One final thought about SI bias: Your diagram of evangelicalism and fundamentalism reveals your bias. You drew a clear oval separating “conservative evangelicalism” from “evangelicalism,” but you DID NOT draw any lines of separation between “conservative evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism.” Aaron, a picture is worth a thousand words!
I have also noticed the attitude that the older preachers take toward SI. Whenever it comes up at pastors’ fellowships or just around the lunch table, most of the old guys roll their eyes and express discouragement over the lack of discernment so prevalent among the young. They not only dislike the left-leaning position of SI, but they also dislike the attitude. SI has the reputation of defaming godly men of the past in preference for “non-cessationist” (please read “charismatic”) compromisers of the present. (To even consider the possibility that one can be a fundamentalist and question creationism is absurd.)
One final thought about SI bias: Your diagram of evangelicalism and fundamentalism reveals your bias. You drew a clear oval separating “conservative evangelicalism” from “evangelicalism,” but you DID NOT draw any lines of separation between “conservative evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism.” Aaron, a picture is worth a thousand words!
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
SI has the reputation of defaming godly men of the past in preference for “non-cessationist” (please read “charismatic”) compromisers of the present.Reputation is not fact. Reputation is based on perspective, personal experience, and bias. For example, if the only sermon you ever heard by Dr. Roloff was one where he spent 15 minutes on the evils of using aluminum foil, then your assessment of his ‘reputation’ would be that he had some… serious issues. However, I have listened to and read Dr. Roloff my entire life, and I can place his comments in context with his personality and ministry focus. I believe I can see what he did that was good, and where his foibles were. If anyone thinks that Godly men of the past didn’t have foibles and that if they did we shouldn’t acknowledge them, then that’s a problem.
I venture to say that some of this ‘consensus’ is based more on rumor and vague impressions than on actual participation or a thorough reading of the entire site, nor does it take into account what the purpose of forums are. If you have evidence of the defamation of Godly men, a preference for charismatic compromisers, and a left-leaning ‘position’ or ‘attitude’ here at SI, please feel free to present it.
[Monte] (To even consider the possibility that one can be a fundamentalist and question creationism is absurd.)Nobody here has done that, to my knowledge. We have had some debate as to whether 6 24hr days is an essential for fundamentalism and given the early Gap Theorists in the movement, it’s obvious that this is not an absurd question.
As for the diagram. It is nothing more than three concentric circles. All three were created using exactly the same process. Made a circle, labled it, made another inside that, labeled it, made another inside that, labeled it. Simple as that.
About reputation… it’s easy to sample a few friends’ opinions and declare it to be a reputation. But if this consensus exists, it’s telling that I have not heard from any of these men (OK, maybe a couple in the space of two years).
Edit: one more thing about “the site leadership’s positions” on things. It’s likely that a 2nd tier doctrinal statement of some kind will post here sometime in the next few months. The team has talked about this a lot and we see several advantages in leaving the site DS as it is but putting out some things to clarify where the team stands on some issues.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
A few thoughts while reading this.
I am not sure what the purpose of this article is or what is driving it, but it comes across pretty strong. I have to wonder if a few cooling off days before posting it would have been wise.
Also, if one of the purposes of this article is to get feedback and improve, I would be very cautious on how you respond to the criticism. Demanding proof for the way people perceive the site is a bad idea Susan. People do not owe you that, and they do not have the time or desire to build a air tight case that will stand up in court. But if they have read the site for a few years, they have perceptions over time that may be accurate even though they will not go to the trouble to research and cite specifics.
My perception after several years (and no, I have no interest or time to research specific examples to prove my point) is that the site is just run in a too top heavy way to really work online. I am not saying it is wrong, but it is just not the way the online world works. I think the decrease in participation proves my point.
Here is one big reason why I do not post any more. If I post something a moderator doesn’t like, he/she can publicly attack me and my motives but give me no voice to defend myself. Your policy is that people can only question moderators privately about forum policy issues even though moderators can/do blast people publicly. This actually happened the last time I posted.
That kind of authoritarian approach may work in real life, but I don’t know it will work in this setting. Moderators and such should be invisible, handling problems quietly rather than doing public executions. They should not be anxious to always remind people they have power over them (which is the opposite of my perception here).
I am not sure what the purpose of this article is or what is driving it, but it comes across pretty strong. I have to wonder if a few cooling off days before posting it would have been wise.
Also, if one of the purposes of this article is to get feedback and improve, I would be very cautious on how you respond to the criticism. Demanding proof for the way people perceive the site is a bad idea Susan. People do not owe you that, and they do not have the time or desire to build a air tight case that will stand up in court. But if they have read the site for a few years, they have perceptions over time that may be accurate even though they will not go to the trouble to research and cite specifics.
My perception after several years (and no, I have no interest or time to research specific examples to prove my point) is that the site is just run in a too top heavy way to really work online. I am not saying it is wrong, but it is just not the way the online world works. I think the decrease in participation proves my point.
Here is one big reason why I do not post any more. If I post something a moderator doesn’t like, he/she can publicly attack me and my motives but give me no voice to defend myself. Your policy is that people can only question moderators privately about forum policy issues even though moderators can/do blast people publicly. This actually happened the last time I posted.
That kind of authoritarian approach may work in real life, but I don’t know it will work in this setting. Moderators and such should be invisible, handling problems quietly rather than doing public executions. They should not be anxious to always remind people they have power over them (which is the opposite of my perception here).
[Pastor Marc Monte] I have also noticed the attitude that the older preachers take toward SI. Whenever it comes up at pastors’ fellowships or just around the lunch table, most of the old guys roll their eyes and express discouragement over the lack of discernment so prevalent among the young. They not only dislike the left-leaning position of SI, but they also dislike the attitude. SI has the reputation of defaming godly men of the past in preference for “non-cessationist” (please read “charismatic”) compromisers of the present. (To even consider the possibility that one can be a fundamentalist and question creationism is absurd.)Where’s the proof? I’d like to see where we did that.
I do recall someone writing a letter from “Richard Clearwaters” and passing it off as their own, which got them into trouble, but SI actively defaming godly men of the past? I don’t think so. It certainly isn’t planned or discussed by the mods/admin team.
On second thought, if you mean that we’re not going to cover up the moral failures of men like Jack Hyles ( http://www.biblicalevangelist.org/jack_hyles_chapter3.php] who was disqualified from ministry many times over ), then I’d like to know why we should. After all, http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-28-10/14386] if Piper can get crushed on this site for taking an 8 month leave of absence , then how much more so a guy who kept his own mistress on staff at his church?
FWIW, I agree with you. I don’t think that a Fundamentalist - as rightly defined - could be anything other than 6x24 literal creation. As for the discernment factor - well, maybe some of those older men should be here to tell us when we’re wrong. Iron sharpening iron and all that. ;)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[GregH] Demanding proof for the way people perceive the site is a bad idea Susan. People do not owe you that, and they do not have the time or desire to build a air tight case that will stand up in court. But if they have read the site for a few years, they have perceptions over time that may be accurate even though they will not go to the trouble to research and cite specifics.This raises the question of how we participate online being different than how we operate in real life. IOW, we’d not receive an accusation IRL without some proof, but we can do it on the internet? If you have an impression, then you can certainly state it as such, but I believe making an accusation requires more than just “Because I think so”.
Here is one big reason why I do not post any more. If I post something a moderator doesn’t like, he/she can publicly attack me and my motives but give me no voice to defend myself. Your policy is that people can only question moderators privately about forum policy issues even though moderators can/do blast people publicly. This actually happened the last time I posted.I’ve noticed some confusion on the roles of moderators. Unless a post is headed with something like “MODERATOR NOTE” or “Official Moderator Action”, then that post is simply a post by another member. It is not an attempt to enforce site policy. I put my mod hat on to act as a mod, but then I take it off to post like everyone else. You are free to reply to those posts as you would with any other member. If you have a concern or question about official moderator action, then you simply email or PM that moderator or Forums Director Peet, or the site publisher Aaron Blumer. We take all such communications seriously and discuss them at length.
We also handle most moderating actions quietly. There are very few times when we take action publicly, but sometimes our actions are visible, and there’s nothing in the software that allows us to be completely invisible… and sometimes it is a good thing to act publicly so that folks know what is and isn’t expected. We have never claimed to be perfect, and the poll we did recently showed that folks are evenly split over 1) we moderate too heavily and 2) we don’t moderate enough. So we act in good conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
The ‘leadership’ here is not that of a pastor or elder, and SI is not a church. People who view a Christian forum as if it is a church-by-proxy are going to be very confused by how we handle things, that’s for sure.
Monte, Thank you for your comments
- About Creationism: I agree with you on this point: “To even consider the possibility that one can be a fundamentalist and question creationism is absurd.” (By the way I am a Y/E creationist. Haven’t always been but for the last 38 years or so that has been my position - in my very early years I believed in ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism] the Gap “)
- Cessationism: Bauder http://www.sharperiron.org/article/now-about-those-differences-part-ele…] cited in one of his “About those differences” articles that one major difference between fundamentalism and C/E is over this issue. I agree with him. I personally am a cessationist. I’m aware of some who participate on S/I who are not
I don’t think that a Fundamentalist - as rightly defined - could be anything other than 6x24 literal creation.Many early fundamentalists believed in the gap theory. B Ramm (in the link above to “the Gap”: “The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings.” (c. 1954)
[Jim Peet] Many early fundamentalists believed in the gap theory.One could argue that this is a good illustration of the fact that fundamentalism as a movement was inherently flawed.
One could also argue that in the light of 50 years of the modern creation movement, this position, though perhaps once allowable, is now completely untenable.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I wrote this for another thread, but it seems to be needed here as well, so I’ll repost (in it’s entirety so people can submit feedback here). I’m not going to recreate every link, since I’m already doing so in the Title field, and I’m not going to carry over over things like smilies and the “edited by” info. That stuff is easy enough to see and doesn’t alter the substance of what I originally wrote. In retrospect, the term “Administrative Interjection” probably wasn’t best - Personal Interjection was probably better. As I noted, this wasn’t (and is not currently) an official mod. action…it’s a peek behind the walls, so to speak.
http://sharperiron.org/article/ethos-statement-fundamentalism-evangelic…] Administrative Interjection[Bob T.] SI needs to allow for normal and reasonable discussion or it will continue to lose people who desire to post here. Perhaps there needs to be more real conviction to allow normal expression and stop trying to over superintend all discussions. This thread involved most all Pastors, theologians, and teaching professionals. Do they really need to have the term heresy defined for them just because some moderator or administrator doesn’t like it? Lets get some old fashioned back bone that allows discussions to proceed with expressing convictions with back bone. Again, the statements of Central faculty on this thread were much stronger than mine. This thread should have been allowed to proceed without any remarks by Aaron or Susan as to language used. There were strong convictions expressed but within acceptable Christian conduct.I’m going to stick my head in here to try and provide a clearer understanding of who/what the mods and staff are and also explain what SI does and doesn’t allow. I’m hoping to assuage some concerns that might be prompted by this thread or other discussion.
1. SI does NOT permit people who hold to an inspired King James position to remain on this site (if we’re talking about the position that only the KJV is without error).
2. None of the admins / staff hold to a re-inspired KJV position.
3. SI HAS, in the past, asked people to leave who did hold to an inspired translation position.
4. SI does try to provide a place for serious and scholarly discussion of the KJV issue http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forums/english-bible-text-debate] in this forum .
5. Anyone http://sharperiron.org/writing-for-sharperiron] who would like to write an article for either side is welcome to do so , although I can’t guarantee it will get published - I’m in the wrong department. Smile People who interact on this site, especially on this issue, should expect to be challenged.
6. SI is not trying to redefine Fundamentalism or doctrine. We are a place for orthodox Christians - both Fundamentalist and Evangelical - http://sharperiron.org/about-si] to discuss doctrine and other matters . We are not the Oxford English Dictionary of Fundamentalism, and really don’t want to be. We try to be a ‘republic’ in terms of this site, not a dictatorship that establishes all the ‘rules’ of Fundyism.
7. SI isn’t perfect. We promise that we can’t always be as consistent as we might like to be, and we can’t always please everyone - including all the mods/staff.
8. We reserve the right to modify our policies, and people who have suggestions for our policies are welcome to contact Jim or Aaron to provide their input.
9. There’s no law keeping anyone here or keeping anyone from leaving. There’s also no law keeping anyone from starting their own SI or moving to http://www.baptistboard.com/ BaptistBoards.com or the http://www.fundamentalforums.com/ FFF .
10. Mods and Admins are allowed to express opinions and interact. Otherwise, they wouldn’t enjoy their jobs as much and probably wouldn’t want to do them.
11. edit - added after posting - If anyone feels unfairly moderated - and this post is NOT an official mod. action - they have the right to complain to Aaron, Jim, or any other mod who is not directly involved.
Personally, I’ve argued that we shouldn’t host the English Text Forum on this site, because I think it provides a platform for spreading error, and that should be easy enough to verify. However, we work as a team, and the other members of the team do not feel that way, so it stays. If it becomes a serious issue (as it was in the ‘06-‘07 years, IIRC), then we’ll revisit that.
So, I hope that’s helpful. If not, please contact myself, Jim, or Aaron. I now return you to the regularly scheduled debate between Bob and Aaron. :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
The concentric circles: the Fundamentalist one is in a very pastel green color that doesn’t stand out against the pale tan color of the next size larger circle. So I can see how if your screen isn’t displaying colors well, or if you’re not paying too close attention, the diagram would look like it doesn’t have a separate circle for Fundamentalists.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Aaron Blumer] As for the diagram. It is nothing more than three concentric circles. All three were created using exactly the same process. Made a circle, labled it, made another inside that, labeled it, made another inside that, labeled it. Simple as that.While I disagree with Marc’s assessment of SI, I think this diagram complaint might be a unique kind of perception problem. On my computer, the difference in color between the CE and Fundamental circles is very faint. I missed it myself at first. Perhaps Marc did not realize there were actually three circles; it might look like only two circles to him with CE and Fundy together in the inner circle.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
As a new guy here, I enjoy SharperIron. I check in most days to see if the posting interests me.
I’ve enjoyed many engaging discussions, and I enjoy hearing back from the moderators. I usually learn new things, or get challenged with a broader perspective. Also, not knowing the history of the blog means that sometimes I’m saying things that are probably trite, or tiresome to many.
I posted this morning on Kevin DeYoung’s blog, and he answered me - a rare occurrence! But not here. I’ve found the interaction genuine, regular, focused, and pithy.
So thanks guys, and, of course, Susan!
I’ve enjoyed many engaging discussions, and I enjoy hearing back from the moderators. I usually learn new things, or get challenged with a broader perspective. Also, not knowing the history of the blog means that sometimes I’m saying things that are probably trite, or tiresome to many.
I posted this morning on Kevin DeYoung’s blog, and he answered me - a rare occurrence! But not here. I’ve found the interaction genuine, regular, focused, and pithy.
So thanks guys, and, of course, Susan!
First, I think we all would agree that I would represent a generally ‘right wing’ segment of SI participants. Anyone disagree with that? I submit the motion is carried!
But really, I think the complaints that SI is too authoritarian or too biased or whatever are completely absurd. The moderators have a difficult job when dealing with comments. They make decisions, sometimes reverse them, sometimes make even tougher decisions. I have NO PROBLEM with any of that. This site doesn’t belong to the users, and the users need to conform to the generally accepted standards of the site. That’s just the way it is. I have personally experienced the disciplinary action of SI ownership (version 1.0 ) and then returned to the site much later under new ownership (version 2.0 ). I have NO PROBLEM with the decisions of either owner. They were perfectly within their rights and if Aaron et al had decided to keep me off the site, I would have had NO PROBLEM with that either.
As far as SI bias is concerned… well, who doesn’t have bias? I can’t imagine this being a ground of complaint. I don’t agree with a lot that is written here. If I don’t agree enough, I can make a response and let MY bias be tested by the rigours of debate.
And as for Aaron’s concentric circles displaying bias… Man, are you wearing a tin-foil hat this morning, or what? Please find something serious to complain about!
I do disagree with the notion that fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicalism. That hasn’t been true since the new evangelicals politicized evangelicalism in the 1950s. Evangelical doesn’t mean simply people interested in the evangel any more. Just as fundamentalism doesn’t simply mean orthodoxy (it is orthodoxy plus militancy), evangelicalism is orthodoxy minus militancy.
Anyway, I think that Aaron et al are doing a commendable job. Even when I disagree with them. Herding cats isn’t easy, and I think you are doing pretty well at it.
But really, I think the complaints that SI is too authoritarian or too biased or whatever are completely absurd. The moderators have a difficult job when dealing with comments. They make decisions, sometimes reverse them, sometimes make even tougher decisions. I have NO PROBLEM with any of that. This site doesn’t belong to the users, and the users need to conform to the generally accepted standards of the site. That’s just the way it is. I have personally experienced the disciplinary action of SI ownership (version 1.0 ) and then returned to the site much later under new ownership (version 2.0 ). I have NO PROBLEM with the decisions of either owner. They were perfectly within their rights and if Aaron et al had decided to keep me off the site, I would have had NO PROBLEM with that either.
As far as SI bias is concerned… well, who doesn’t have bias? I can’t imagine this being a ground of complaint. I don’t agree with a lot that is written here. If I don’t agree enough, I can make a response and let MY bias be tested by the rigours of debate.
And as for Aaron’s concentric circles displaying bias… Man, are you wearing a tin-foil hat this morning, or what? Please find something serious to complain about!
I do disagree with the notion that fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicalism. That hasn’t been true since the new evangelicals politicized evangelicalism in the 1950s. Evangelical doesn’t mean simply people interested in the evangel any more. Just as fundamentalism doesn’t simply mean orthodoxy (it is orthodoxy plus militancy), evangelicalism is orthodoxy minus militancy.
Anyway, I think that Aaron et al are doing a commendable job. Even when I disagree with them. Herding cats isn’t easy, and I think you are doing pretty well at it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]One of the great paradoxes of the Internet is that while someone may actually own a site like this, his mindset had better be that the site belongs to the users. If you don’t, you probably won’t be around too long. Look at Facebook. They are worth $30 billion but notice how much they value the input of their users. I know this more democratic perspective may see absurd to some more authoritarian types, but I don’t see any successful sites out there of this kind that don’t give up some of their authority or at least try to downplay it.
But really, I think the complaints that SI is too authoritarian or too biased or whatever are completely absurd. The moderators have a difficult job when dealing with comments. They make decisions, sometimes reverse them, sometimes make even tougher decisions. I have NO PROBLEM with any of that. This site doesn’t belong to the users, and the users need to conform to the generally accepted standards of the site.
[Don Johnson] First, I think we all would agree that I would represent a generally ‘right wing’ segment of SI participants. Anyone disagree with that? I submit the motion is carried!What happens if I disagree ;) ?
Seriously, I’m glad guys like Don and Marc are here. It prevents groupthink and shows that we’re upholding our own goals of ‘providing a place for discussion’.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Balognah!
Hmmm… SI is being construed as too authoritarian and therefore doomed to fail. Yet it has daily activity and is certainly a “top of mind” site across fundamentalism. Some are enthused about it, some are grousing about it, yet EVERYONE knows about it. (‘Everyone’ is hyperbole, for the nitpickers.)
If that’s failure, well….
P.S. I should clarify that I was responding to Greg’s comment. Jay jumped in there while I was typing.
Hmmm… SI is being construed as too authoritarian and therefore doomed to fail. Yet it has daily activity and is certainly a “top of mind” site across fundamentalism. Some are enthused about it, some are grousing about it, yet EVERYONE knows about it. (‘Everyone’ is hyperbole, for the nitpickers.)
If that’s failure, well….
P.S. I should clarify that I was responding to Greg’s comment. Jay jumped in there while I was typing.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
As a certified “old guy” who is about to turn 67, I want you to know that I have greatly appreciated SI. I was raised in a secular home by a scientific father. One of his great statements was “Question your questions. Do you want to learn, or are you trying to justify your position ?” I have always welcomed and encouraged questioning when it is designed to help me grow in my understanding of Scripture. At SI, I am able to be exposed to others who love the Lord and His Word, but who may slice the cake a little differently from myself. That is healthy questioning. May SI continue for a long time. I refer by people to it often during my preaching, so that they can stretch their minds as they think about Biblical issues. If we quit asking questions, we will quit growing in grace and knowledge, and we will die on the vine.
Dick Dayton
About my graphic. Must be the super expensive ultra high quality monitor I’m using that distinguishes better between colors. :D (Actually, it is pretty decent, but it’s just an ordinary Dell).
I’ll remake it.
I agree in part w/those who say fund. is not a subset of evangelicalism. But mostly don’t agree. That is, fundamentalists “came out” of the network and institutions of evangelicalism, and do often use “fundamentalism” and “evangelicalism” on contrast to eachother. But two things:
a. Both historically and theologically we’re all still lovers of the gospel and that is what “evangelical” has meant. (But there is much debate now among “evangelicals” as to whether that term any longer has any useful meaning. They have the same debates we do about “fundamentalism” only over a different term. Interesting, no?)
b. When we use the terms “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” in contrast to eachother, I think most folks mean “fundamentalist” and “other people who believe the gospel/i.e., other evangelicals.” At least that’s what I usually mean.
c. Oops. I said “two things.” Oh well. You’ll note that “New Evangelical” is not on the graphic and fundamentalism is not a subset of that. If I was going to include it, I’d have it be another circled within the evangelical one which partly overlaps the “conservative evangelical” one (maybe with a dotted border?) but doesn’t intersect the fundamentalist one.
Anyway, I’ll post a new graphic shortly.
I’ll remake it.
I agree in part w/those who say fund. is not a subset of evangelicalism. But mostly don’t agree. That is, fundamentalists “came out” of the network and institutions of evangelicalism, and do often use “fundamentalism” and “evangelicalism” on contrast to eachother. But two things:
a. Both historically and theologically we’re all still lovers of the gospel and that is what “evangelical” has meant. (But there is much debate now among “evangelicals” as to whether that term any longer has any useful meaning. They have the same debates we do about “fundamentalism” only over a different term. Interesting, no?)
b. When we use the terms “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” in contrast to eachother, I think most folks mean “fundamentalist” and “other people who believe the gospel/i.e., other evangelicals.” At least that’s what I usually mean.
c. Oops. I said “two things.” Oh well. You’ll note that “New Evangelical” is not on the graphic and fundamentalism is not a subset of that. If I was going to include it, I’d have it be another circled within the evangelical one which partly overlaps the “conservative evangelical” one (maybe with a dotted border?) but doesn’t intersect the fundamentalist one.
Anyway, I’ll post a new graphic shortly.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Well, from my perspective they are ovals, not circles. They are definitely not concentric circles (same center). “Fundamentalists” is below and to the right of “Conservative Evangelicals”, and “Fundamentalists” is in a much smaller type size. I’m a guy, so I have no clue what the choice of colors means. I’m sure all that has some subliminal meaning :)
As for the diagram. It is nothing more than three concentric circles. All three were created using exactly the same process. Made a circle, labled it, made another inside that, labeled it, made another inside that, labeled it. Simple as that.
[GregH] A few thoughts while reading this.What this means is that you’re blissfully unaware of the criticism, which is one reason I long hesitated to write a piece like this. (And I”m happy for you, believe me! Nothing wrong w/not being aware of that stuff.)
I am not sure what the purpose of this article is or what is driving it, but it comes across pretty strong. I have to wonder if a few cooling off days before posting it would have been wise.
But…
[the article] In most cases, these are criticisms that have been leveled publicly against SI or the team for many months,So we’ve been kind of cooling off for about a year in reference to a lot of it.
Just wanted to make something available for folks who haven’t heard our side of things and may have encountered the critical side.
As for the authoritarianism thing: if you ever breathe a hint of that again, you will probably disappear. We will hunt you down and …exterminate!
I’m kidding. But please be aware that we are always wrestling with how to accomplish the goals without being heavy handed. Folks will have different opinions about how successfully we’re doing that, but avoiding being too authoritarian is always a goal.
There’s a thread in one of the dark, smoke-filled rooms right now about some different kinds of appeal processes that might or might not be helpful. We do talk about these things.
The survey was one opportunity we provided to get feedback from non-members as well as members on that question, along with many others.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If you hold a up a mirror and look at the graphic over your left shoulder, it says “Eat More Chocolate Fudge”. I’m taking that as a mandate.
[Jonathan] Well, from my perspective they are ovals, not circles. They are definitely not concentric circles (same center). “Fundamentalists” is below and to the right of “Conservative Evangelicals”, and “Fundamentalists” is in a much smaller type size. I’m a guy, so I have no clue what the choice of colors means. I’m sure all that has some subliminal meaning :):D!
I did nearly flunk geometry. Now you know why. They are indeed not “concentric.” Somebody will have to tell me what the right term is for “circles inside circles.” They may well also be slightly elliptical. Which probably does have subliminal meaning… as in, revealing the “artist’s” slightly lopsided view of reality.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Maybe it’s my eyesight or maybe it’s my computer, but the graphic I see has only two colors, the larger circle being lavender and the smaller being peach. The peach color sort of fades toward an off cream/yellow as it nears “fundamentalist,” but there is no definite oval line on mine. It could be my computer. (Those who are seeing green circles have me concerned!)
I think my initial point was highlighted by Susan’s immediate, defensive response. The truth of the matter is that perception is important. Most perceptions are based in fact. The near universal perception of IFB pastors (the old-school guys) is that SI is a haven for left-leaning ideas. I am well connected within the IFB circles, and I am only reporting honestly and accurately what is the general opinion. (I could “name names,” but I will refrain. If I did, almost everyone on thes blog would recognize them.)
Rather than make a knee-jerk demand for “facts” as if I’m only out to take pot shots, the moderators should consider the impression that has been left with the old guard of the IFB movement. Like it or not, there is an increasingly “great gulf fixed” between the older guys and the younger, and SI is viewed as decidedly on the same page as the younger. Also, the moderators should consider the fact that their defensiveness and the tone of their posts discourages guys like me from engaging in the discussion. If the “powers that be” can pull the plug or belittle a thread (or, in the case of the alcohol issue, move the thread around so much that it can’t be found), the more conservative guys will decide that it’s not worth the effort to discuss anything in this venue. As I have done for several months, they’ll just ignore it and eventually forget about it.
I think the moderators should consider these thoughts without being defensive and self-congratulatory.
I think my initial point was highlighted by Susan’s immediate, defensive response. The truth of the matter is that perception is important. Most perceptions are based in fact. The near universal perception of IFB pastors (the old-school guys) is that SI is a haven for left-leaning ideas. I am well connected within the IFB circles, and I am only reporting honestly and accurately what is the general opinion. (I could “name names,” but I will refrain. If I did, almost everyone on thes blog would recognize them.)
Rather than make a knee-jerk demand for “facts” as if I’m only out to take pot shots, the moderators should consider the impression that has been left with the old guard of the IFB movement. Like it or not, there is an increasingly “great gulf fixed” between the older guys and the younger, and SI is viewed as decidedly on the same page as the younger. Also, the moderators should consider the fact that their defensiveness and the tone of their posts discourages guys like me from engaging in the discussion. If the “powers that be” can pull the plug or belittle a thread (or, in the case of the alcohol issue, move the thread around so much that it can’t be found), the more conservative guys will decide that it’s not worth the effort to discuss anything in this venue. As I have done for several months, they’ll just ignore it and eventually forget about it.
I think the moderators should consider these thoughts without being defensive and self-congratulatory.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
OK, here’s another go at my picture that is worth 999 words.
I also shrunk the font used for “Conservative Evangelicals” so that I do not suggest any exaggerated sense of importance for them. ;)
“Fundamentalism” would be much, much larger, but wouldn’t fit in its oval that way.
I also shrunk the font used for “Conservative Evangelicals” so that I do not suggest any exaggerated sense of importance for them. ;)
“Fundamentalism” would be much, much larger, but wouldn’t fit in its oval that way.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Pastor Marc Monte] Maybe it’s my eyesight or maybe it’s my computer, but the graphic I see has only two colors, the larger circle being lavender and the smaller being peach. The peach color sort of fades toward an off cream/yellow as it nears “fundamentalist,” but there is no definite oval line on mine. It could be my computer. (Those who are seeing green circles have me concerned!)Hey Mark …. want you to know I am listening. I did reply earlier to you here: http://www.sharperiron.org/article/few-answers-to-sharperiron-critics#c…
I think my initial point was highlighted by Susan’s immediate, defensive response. The truth of the matter is that perception is important. Most perceptions are based in fact. The near universal perception of IFB pastors (the old-school guys) is that SI is a haven for left-leaning ideas. I am well connected within the IFB circles, and I am only reporting honestly and accurately what is the general opinion. (I could “name names,” but I will refrain. If I did, almost everyone on thes blog would recognize them.)
Rather than make a knee-jerk demand for “facts” as if I’m only out to take pot shots, the moderators should consider the impression that has been left with the old guard of the IFB movement. Like it or not, there is an increasingly “great gulf fixed” between the older guys and the younger, and SI is viewed as decidedly on the same page as the younger. Also, the moderators should consider the fact that their defensiveness and the tone of their posts discourages guys like me from engaging in the discussion. If the “powers that be” can pull the plug or belittle a thread (or, in the case of the alcohol issue, move the thread around so much that it can’t be found), the more conservative guys will decide that it’s not worth the effort to discuss anything in this venue. As I have done for several months, they’ll just ignore it and eventually forget about it.
I think the moderators should consider these thoughts without being defensive and self-congratulatory.
Jim Peet
S/I Forum Director
Rather than make a knee-jerk demand for “facts” as if I’m only out to take pot shots, the moderators should consider the impression that has been left with the old guard of the IFB movement. Like it or not, there is an increasingly “great gulf fixed” between the older guys and the younger, and SI is viewed as decidedly on the same page as the younger.If this is true, I wonder why virtually none have bothered to tell me so. But hey, today’s a new day. I’d welcome the feedback. I’ve heard from more older guys who appreciate the site than I’ve heard from these others. But gentlemen, if there are so many of you out there, use the http://sharperiron.org/contact] contact form and give me a piece of your mind.
(I really am not fond of angry phone calls, but I don’t mind angry emails at all. Fire away.)
But to be clear, I don’t doubt in the least that SI aligns better with the younger generation, generally. This is the Internet we’re talking about here. But to several of the younger guys I’ve heard from, I’m an old curmudgeon. It’s all relative I guess.
Jim… love the new profile pic. Really projects a warm, approachable personality.
[Don J] Man, are you wearing a tin-foil hat this morning, or what? Please find something serious to complain about!I’m sure you meant that in nicest possible way. A bit of warm, comradely ribbing?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’d just like to say from someone who puts the “new” in newbie, I have thoroughly enjoyed this site and am very thankful for it. The lively debates on both sides of the non-heretical coin, from a variety of perspectives, have sharpened me immensely. Honestly, I’m sometimes sharpened more by someone who differs from my point of view than someone who agrees with it. So thanks Aaron and all of the SI Admins, for using a fairly wide, non-heretical ruler to measure what should and should not be posted—both articles and comments. I can’t even begin to grasp the weight of the tasks that each of you must handle in order for this sight to run as well as it does. Blessings!
Kim Noble
Kim Noble
thanks to the SI crew
Hey, Jim, thanks for listening to my concerns an for you thoughtful responses.
Aaron, I know the internet has a certain appeal to the young guys, but all the older guys I know are quite adept at using it. It’s not a generation/technology issue.
Speaking of high tech, have you seen our new website? www.faithbaptistavon.com Just one visit should prove that I value the communicative value of technology.
(Be sure to sign up for my daily devotionals, delivered to your e-mail!)
Aaron, I know the internet has a certain appeal to the young guys, but all the older guys I know are quite adept at using it. It’s not a generation/technology issue.
Speaking of high tech, have you seen our new website? www.faithbaptistavon.com Just one visit should prove that I value the communicative value of technology.
(Be sure to sign up for my daily devotionals, delivered to your e-mail!)
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
OK I’ve been on S/I for about 5 years (perhaps more). I’ve been a moderator for a number of years and now the Forum Director for a year and a half or so
A new icon … I got rid of the old http://www.chumby.com/ Chumby icon and today turn over a new leaf … the fearsome Syndrome from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredibles] The Incredibles . Hopefully I will get some respect now! :)
- Firstly I appreciate Sharper Iron. I like interacting with folk here. Have made some friends. I really appreciated the administration prior to Aaron (The Janz era … Dan Miller forum director. I met Dan for lunch one day when he was in town and we had great fellowship. I appreciate the Aaron era too. Sadly there has been one S/I member (at least) who has passed into glory (sad for us …. not for him (Larry L!)
- Moderating. Trust me I’ve made mistakes. I hope that even in moderating I learn something and grow. Sometimes other moderators get on me … a learning experience and I appreciate them.
- Critics: I think it is OK to criticize the moderators or Aaron. I do know this about Aaron: he has a Pastor’s heart and he is gentle. When he says contact me he means it
- Doctrinal bias: I believe in the doctrines of grace. I don’t actually think I have ever used that as a filter to moderate someone who disagrees with me.
- Labels: I’ve been called a FINO (Fundamentalist in name only) and a pseudo-F, Once someone called me a Lutheran. I really don’t care what folk call me because I know who I am. When I read George Dollars book years ago (the definitions of militant fundamentalist, moderate, etc.) I pegged myself as a moderate fundamentalist. I do think that the term fundamentalism has generally lost its meaning.
- Friendship with C/E’s: I’ve read 2 Piper books. His church is in my city (near where I work). I could have joined his church when we moved here. I chose not to for several doctrinal issues (eschatology, the Toronto blessing thing years ago, etc). I joined a fundamental Baptist church
- Lordship Salvation: Since I am laying all things bare. I actually don’t think MacArthur’s book represents my view. No time to discuss in depth now but I’ve read it several times (old edition and new edition. Some of the phraseology he uses makes me uncomfortable. But I do read John Mac and appreciate him.
A new icon … I got rid of the old http://www.chumby.com/ Chumby icon and today turn over a new leaf … the fearsome Syndrome from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredibles] The Incredibles . Hopefully I will get some respect now! :)
i actually have grown b/c of si, not just the info, but learning to have a discussion and how to do it in this type of interaction.
:)
:)
I will jump in here. As someone who has posted here for over 4 years, I do appreciate SI. There have been times where I slacked off but I am back now. I have yet to post my own article, maybe I will soon.
I thnk what Marc says should be taken seriously. But to those who agree with Marc. Especially those who don’t like the way the younger men talk to them. All should treat you graciously. But I have noticed that many older fundamentalists have not done that with the younger. Many older Fundamentalists also take being challanged on an idea as not being treated respectfully. Not only is that not fair, it’s not Biblical. We should all welcome the idea to explain our Biblical justification for why we do what we do. If in that course, we find that our ideas are not really Biblcal, we should be willing to discard them - instead of holding tradition for the sake of tradition (or because we are afraid of what man will think). I am not saying all or even most older men have done this. But some of the reaction to the crtiques of the older fundamentalists falls in this category. Bob Jones Sr was a godly man, but he was not perfect. While we all acknowledge that, it seems that if someone lays a criticism down about him (example only) he is considered a hater of the old guard.
So we younger men (I am 39) need to be gracious and respectfulto our men who are more seasoned, those same men need to be gracious and respectful to the younger. Many here have been to me (RPittman is a good example in how he has handled me), but there are others who have not. Not only to me, but other younger men. When they have been challanged on a doctrinal or even a practice, the response has been, “I am older, I know better.” That is not right either.
Susan does have a point about asking for examples. While there is often truth in perceptions, our perseptions could be wrong. I don’t doubt what Marc says about his contacts. But what is sad is that none of these men have contacted Aaron. To those who are out there that believe that this sight is so bad. You have talked about this sight at pastor’s fellowships with your concerns and not even contacted the owner? The owner who graduated from two thoroughly fundamental institutions and pastors a fundamental church? How are your actions Biblical? (Those last comments are not to Marc. They are to those who criticize Aaron and don’t even bother to talk to him about it)
I will also add that I think some of this perception is because of the medium (we can’t read facial expressions or body language). That is why we often remind each other of that here.
I thnk what Marc says should be taken seriously. But to those who agree with Marc. Especially those who don’t like the way the younger men talk to them. All should treat you graciously. But I have noticed that many older fundamentalists have not done that with the younger. Many older Fundamentalists also take being challanged on an idea as not being treated respectfully. Not only is that not fair, it’s not Biblical. We should all welcome the idea to explain our Biblical justification for why we do what we do. If in that course, we find that our ideas are not really Biblcal, we should be willing to discard them - instead of holding tradition for the sake of tradition (or because we are afraid of what man will think). I am not saying all or even most older men have done this. But some of the reaction to the crtiques of the older fundamentalists falls in this category. Bob Jones Sr was a godly man, but he was not perfect. While we all acknowledge that, it seems that if someone lays a criticism down about him (example only) he is considered a hater of the old guard.
So we younger men (I am 39) need to be gracious and respectfulto our men who are more seasoned, those same men need to be gracious and respectful to the younger. Many here have been to me (RPittman is a good example in how he has handled me), but there are others who have not. Not only to me, but other younger men. When they have been challanged on a doctrinal or even a practice, the response has been, “I am older, I know better.” That is not right either.
Susan does have a point about asking for examples. While there is often truth in perceptions, our perseptions could be wrong. I don’t doubt what Marc says about his contacts. But what is sad is that none of these men have contacted Aaron. To those who are out there that believe that this sight is so bad. You have talked about this sight at pastor’s fellowships with your concerns and not even contacted the owner? The owner who graduated from two thoroughly fundamental institutions and pastors a fundamental church? How are your actions Biblical? (Those last comments are not to Marc. They are to those who criticize Aaron and don’t even bother to talk to him about it)
I will also add that I think some of this perception is because of the medium (we can’t read facial expressions or body language). That is why we often remind each other of that here.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Bro.Monte- While impressions are certainly interesting and have some merit, they can only be meaningful when they have a foundation. I don’t think asking for support for one’s assertions is unreasonable, indicates defensiveness, or constitutes a “knee-jerk demand”. Most of the posts on a forum contain just that- folks providing one kind of support or other for their stand on various subjects, and those who either can’t or refuse to provide evidence aren’t taken seriously… so I’m somewhat puzzled by your response.
Bottom line- I can’t really see my way clear to entertain anonymous, secondhand opinions. I don’t know on what basis their opinions were formed, I don’t have any particulars as to their objections, and I don’t have a clue as to who they are. I’m not aware of any effort on their part to address their concerns with any of us publicly or privately. I am happy to receive correction when I know what it is I am being corrected for and on what basis. “I know this really spiritual guy who doesn’t like your attitude” isn’t particularly helpful.
BTW- None of the alcohol threads have been moved. Not sure what you’re talking about there. If a thread has moved down the column on the main Forum page or in the Foundry, you can always use the search feature. I do it all the time when I lose track of a thread, or I check my profile for a list of threads I’ve participated in.
As for the tone and/or content of posts by those on the moderating team, I answered that in post #12-
Bottom line- I can’t really see my way clear to entertain anonymous, secondhand opinions. I don’t know on what basis their opinions were formed, I don’t have any particulars as to their objections, and I don’t have a clue as to who they are. I’m not aware of any effort on their part to address their concerns with any of us publicly or privately. I am happy to receive correction when I know what it is I am being corrected for and on what basis. “I know this really spiritual guy who doesn’t like your attitude” isn’t particularly helpful.
BTW- None of the alcohol threads have been moved. Not sure what you’re talking about there. If a thread has moved down the column on the main Forum page or in the Foundry, you can always use the search feature. I do it all the time when I lose track of a thread, or I check my profile for a list of threads I’ve participated in.
As for the tone and/or content of posts by those on the moderating team, I answered that in post #12-
Unless a post is headed with something like “MODERATOR NOTE” or “Official Moderator Action”, then that post is simply a post by another member. It is not an oblique attempt to enforce site policy. I put my mod hat on to act as a mod, but then I take it off to post like everyone else. You are free to reply to those posts as you would with any other member.The only posts that members are not ‘allowed’ to discuss on the forums is specific moderator action, and we have a system in place for complaints and questions.
Just another thought on the “old guard fundamentalists are unhappy with SI” idea. As a thought experiment, suppose we completely believe that. What do we do next? I have no idea what in particular bothers them or what their advice would be. In short, whether it’s true or not is still pretty much beside the point if we do not hear from them. We have to have actual advice in order to evaluate and think about changes…. and “SI has a bad reputation with group X” is not advice. It’s not information we can do anything with.
Not verifiable and contains no particulars.
Someone told me the older fundamentalists are afraid of a backlash if they speak up. Two things about that:
Anyway, just want to repeat that if you have advice and are afraid to post it, send a message via the contact form. Suggestions we can evaluate. “A bad reputation” is not information we can use.
Edit: I have to add, though, that “old guard” fundamentalists (those still living) have never struck me as being nervous about backlashes or being shy about speaking their minds. This narrative doesn’t ring true.
Not verifiable and contains no particulars.
Someone told me the older fundamentalists are afraid of a backlash if they speak up. Two things about that:
- The worst thing we can to do anybody here is ban them from the site. If they aren’t commenting here anyway, there is nothing to lose by speaking up and getting banned (which wouldn’t happen anyway unless the speaking up also involves being rude and slanderous, etc.). No worse off than before.
- The survey provided an opportunity to communicate anonymously about SI. I’ll have to go back and check the crosstabs by age (I think we still have that data), but I don’t recall seeing any displeasure with the site correlating to age.
Anyway, just want to repeat that if you have advice and are afraid to post it, send a message via the contact form. Suggestions we can evaluate. “A bad reputation” is not information we can use.
Edit: I have to add, though, that “old guard” fundamentalists (those still living) have never struck me as being nervous about backlashes or being shy about speaking their minds. This narrative doesn’t ring true.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Arron, your second diagram comes through to me the way you wanted it.
Old Guard, from what I can gather, a lot of the criticism of the”old guard” is made about the OG who came out of the SBC. Much of the current OG (speaking of the FBFI and GARBC) didn’t. They did have good relations with their southern brethren. But, after l’affair Hyles and the KJVO controversy such relations became strained. IOW, the current OG didn’t go through the types of tsuris of some younger SI members. so, they don’t quite understand the stridency of some of the comments.
Old Guard, from what I can gather, a lot of the criticism of the”old guard” is made about the OG who came out of the SBC. Much of the current OG (speaking of the FBFI and GARBC) didn’t. They did have good relations with their southern brethren. But, after l’affair Hyles and the KJVO controversy such relations became strained. IOW, the current OG didn’t go through the types of tsuris of some younger SI members. so, they don’t quite understand the stridency of some of the comments.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Sharper Iron takes on the characteristics of its posting members and its active moderators.
Some posters are dogmatic militant Calvinists (Militant Reformed). I am not.
Some posters fail to see the clear errors of the LS gospel. I find that sad and frustrating.
Some Posters are open to what is being called “Conservative Evangelicals.” I am not. Been there - done that.
Many posters post from the standpoint of limited exposure to theology and ministry issues yet seem to know it all.
Some Posters are anti Dispensational and often do not have a grasp of its history or what it really is.
At any internet site you deal with a level playing field and the PHD stands next to the high school drop out.
The 18 year old is on the same field as the 80 year old ( I am not 80, only 71).
The above can be frustrating to some. Sometimes it is to me. But I realize I must understand and tolerate this in any public internet discourse. This is not a classroom or church.
However, there have been times when the moderators of SI have deleted posts and been involved in discourse in which they have merely had the effect of restricting discussion based on personal view or offense. In my over 5 years of posting I have had a post deleted but one time (of course it was unjust). ;) However, I am talking about others who have come and gone.
A prime example is on this thread. Do not be so quick to gang up on dissenters. IMO Susan and others have defensively ganged up on Marc Monte. If I may be outlandish in my remarks - stop and listen!
So far as some of the outside criticism of SI by bloggers, this is to be expected. One constant critic should not be replied to by SI members. IMO that blogger is [removed: appreciate the support, but let’s not personally target anybody -Aaron]. Even the WPNs have some good things to say. But it comes with some contents pulled from a Dempsy Dumpster. In my years of going to Fundamental Pastors meetings I would occasionally meet and talk with someone that by demeanor and attitude had me thinking that they were not balanced. It is possible that some Fundamentalists who get involved in the constant criticism syndrome, which some make into a ministry, are what Psychiatrists call “functioning Paranoids,” even functioning Paranoid Schizophrenics. That may be why they often take statements wrong or misunderstand what is going on. This of course is but a general statement and I am not applying it to any specific person.
Please take my criticism as being friendly and with appreciation for the difficult job of running such a site as SI. Thank you Aaron for your efforts. Thank you to all the moderators for your efforts on SI.
[gray] I edited your post a little. Ironic, isn’t it? -Aaron
Some posters are dogmatic militant Calvinists (Militant Reformed). I am not.
Some posters fail to see the clear errors of the LS gospel. I find that sad and frustrating.
Some Posters are open to what is being called “Conservative Evangelicals.” I am not. Been there - done that.
Many posters post from the standpoint of limited exposure to theology and ministry issues yet seem to know it all.
Some Posters are anti Dispensational and often do not have a grasp of its history or what it really is.
At any internet site you deal with a level playing field and the PHD stands next to the high school drop out.
The 18 year old is on the same field as the 80 year old ( I am not 80, only 71).
The above can be frustrating to some. Sometimes it is to me. But I realize I must understand and tolerate this in any public internet discourse. This is not a classroom or church.
However, there have been times when the moderators of SI have deleted posts and been involved in discourse in which they have merely had the effect of restricting discussion based on personal view or offense. In my over 5 years of posting I have had a post deleted but one time (of course it was unjust). ;) However, I am talking about others who have come and gone.
A prime example is on this thread. Do not be so quick to gang up on dissenters. IMO Susan and others have defensively ganged up on Marc Monte. If I may be outlandish in my remarks - stop and listen!
So far as some of the outside criticism of SI by bloggers, this is to be expected. One constant critic should not be replied to by SI members. IMO that blogger is [removed: appreciate the support, but let’s not personally target anybody -Aaron]. Even the WPNs have some good things to say. But it comes with some contents pulled from a Dempsy Dumpster. In my years of going to Fundamental Pastors meetings I would occasionally meet and talk with someone that by demeanor and attitude had me thinking that they were not balanced. It is possible that some Fundamentalists who get involved in the constant criticism syndrome, which some make into a ministry, are what Psychiatrists call “functioning Paranoids,” even functioning Paranoid Schizophrenics. That may be why they often take statements wrong or misunderstand what is going on. This of course is but a general statement and I am not applying it to any specific person.
Please take my criticism as being friendly and with appreciation for the difficult job of running such a site as SI. Thank you Aaron for your efforts. Thank you to all the moderators for your efforts on SI.
[gray] I edited your post a little. Ironic, isn’t it? -Aaron
As someone who has written intentionally provocative articles on occasion (Cessationism, Calvinism, Creationism, and Dispensationalism – have I missed anything?), I appreciate the opportunity that SI has given me. Some of these articles expressed my viewpoint; others expressed questions that I felt needed to be raised, then challenged, defended, discarded or reaffirmed. My understanding of the gospel allows me, yea encourages me to labor with those who would disagree with me on many of those issues – to a point of course. As we have heard before disagreement among us does not necessarily entail disobedience to the Word of God. Do any of us really think that we are completely, unalterably right on these issues among others? I’m sure I’m not (and many of you would agree). But I’m still learning. Thanks Aaron for your commendable service for the Lord and his Church.
Aaron, et. al -
Please disregard criticisms aimed at you for funneling fundies from the movement into conservative Evangelicalism. Your work is funneling a lot of folks the other way. There are some of us who have grown up in the type of extreme style IFBism often caricatured here and other places who take a look at SI and say, “hey wait, maybe I’ve been too dismissive. These guys really have some good things to say.” The whole idea here is that iron sharpens iron - it’s all about the discussion and learning and not about tradition and brainwashing and that is a good thing.
Please disregard criticisms aimed at you for funneling fundies from the movement into conservative Evangelicalism. Your work is funneling a lot of folks the other way. There are some of us who have grown up in the type of extreme style IFBism often caricatured here and other places who take a look at SI and say, “hey wait, maybe I’ve been too dismissive. These guys really have some good things to say.” The whole idea here is that iron sharpens iron - it’s all about the discussion and learning and not about tradition and brainwashing and that is a good thing.
I’m sure I’m not (and many of you would agree)Yes. I was just telling someone that the other day. But I had to agree that you have made me think.. sometimes when I really didn’t want to.
Andrew, thanks. That’s encouraging.
Everybody: this really wasn’t intended to evoke a huge group hug/back patting session. Honest. I mean, it wasn’t a play for sympathy. But I am touched.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
One thing we have perhaps not communicated clearly enough. Where criticizing the moderating (per the Comment Policy) is a no-no is when a moderating decision has just been made in a thread and someone wants to argue the decision then and there. One big reason is that it tends to turn the discussion into one about the moderator action rather than whatever it was about before that. But it’s not like we can’t occasionally have discussions about the moderating, etc. and offer some critiques. It just doesn’t belong “on the scene” when the ref. blows the whistle. Maybe more on that later.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I personally find the ignorance by those who complain to be one of the worst sides of fundamentalism. The people who are whining about SI and its bully tactics actually cannot defend their position and must realize that their own little power structure is going away. It reminds me of the Mainstream media who complains about new media (talk radio, internet, etc).
The “conservative evangelicals” would have ALL BEEN fundamentalists if they lived in the 1920s. This is a fact. I read on here where people complain about charismatic leanings of the Piper crowd. Are they really this ignorant? What about all the fundies who go around saying God told them to do this, or the Lord just spoke to me today, or any other language that implies divine revelation?
No, the problem these people have is that Sharper Iron and other blogs have allowed the information to travel so much faster. People don’t have to wait for information to be filtered by the family heads of the fundy power institutions anymore. People are able to read and understand the information directly, and that has the old school (i.e. ignorant) fundies who have lost their power nervous. These same people who still kiss the rings of the family heads have their own blogs where they whine and moan what gets done over here. I get the impression that they think of themselves as made men.
I am frankly amused at the attempts of some of these men to beat their chest and shout against SI. They could after all just come on here and seek to debate the scriptures and other topics. They won’t though. They cannot not be rankerous and rowdy. Now they sit at home and furiously pound their keyboards in anger and frustration because fundies no longer just sit there and be told what to believe.
Aaron, I truly think you should leave them to themselves. Don’t even engage them. If they want to be crazy, let them.
—Mod edit—
Removed personal reference; notified original poster -Jay C.
The “conservative evangelicals” would have ALL BEEN fundamentalists if they lived in the 1920s. This is a fact. I read on here where people complain about charismatic leanings of the Piper crowd. Are they really this ignorant? What about all the fundies who go around saying God told them to do this, or the Lord just spoke to me today, or any other language that implies divine revelation?
No, the problem these people have is that Sharper Iron and other blogs have allowed the information to travel so much faster. People don’t have to wait for information to be filtered by the family heads of the fundy power institutions anymore. People are able to read and understand the information directly, and that has the old school (i.e. ignorant) fundies who have lost their power nervous. These same people who still kiss the rings of the family heads have their own blogs where they whine and moan what gets done over here. I get the impression that they think of themselves as made men.
I am frankly amused at the attempts of some of these men to beat their chest and shout against SI. They could after all just come on here and seek to debate the scriptures and other topics. They won’t though. They cannot not be rankerous and rowdy. Now they sit at home and furiously pound their keyboards in anger and frustration because fundies no longer just sit there and be told what to believe.
Aaron, I truly think you should leave them to themselves. Don’t even engage them. If they want to be crazy, let them.
—Mod edit—
Removed personal reference; notified original poster -Jay C.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
after reading this post and the comments of Pastor Monte, I find myself liking Sharper Iron even more than before! Straight ahead, Aaron! After a couple decades under the Hyles regime, Sharper Iron was a breath of fresh air to me back when I first found it. Sadly, many from the old school fundy camp are never going to be comfortable with this kind of forum. I appreciate this ministry and it has sharpened me over and over again. Thanks to all the folks that moderate and make this place possible.
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, Indiana
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, Indiana
those who don’t like Sharper Iron would probably fit in quite nicely over at www.baptist-city.com I for one could not make it a week without being expelled, but some of the old-schoolers will find it very comfortable—like an old corduroy sportcoat with leather elbow patches! LOL!
Matthew
Indianapolis, IN
Matthew
Indianapolis, IN
[Aaron Blumer] OK, here’s another go at my picture that is worth 999 words.Aaron,
I also shrunk the font used for “Conservative Evangelicals” so that I do not suggest any exaggerated sense of importance for them. ;)
“Fundamentalism” would be much, much larger, but wouldn’t fit in its oval that way.
You really need to put “fundamentalism” in bold letters and slap a porky (pocket hanky with points) on it!
Matthew
[Aaron Blumer]Just for that jab I take back my try at humility. I’m right and will start my own movement - righterism!I’m sure I’m not (and many of you would agree)Yes. I was just telling someone that the other day. But I had to agree that you have made me think.. sometimes when I really didn’t want to.
Featured Resource
Discussion