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.
(Actually, it is pretty decent, but it's just an ordinary Dell).
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.
Fundamentalism has always deemed that which was most like itself as the biggest threat
I wouldn't make that generalization, myself, but it does describe much of the movement in the last fifty years or so.
willing to put our keyboards where our mouth is
I know what you mean, but I enjoyed trying to picture that!