Ideas, Not People

Appreciate that, Dan.
We're sincere about helping folks find a place to make their voice heard. I'm not in favor of silencing anybody. That isn't my job (anybody's?). But that isn't the same as saying we want to bear responsibility for promoting every allegation or insinuation someone wants to make. If they can start their own blog or use Facebook, etc., the responsibility will be their own to bear. That seems fair to me.

Meanwhile, if there's a millionaire out there who wants to help launch a SharperIron Ivestigative Reporting Division... well, again, we'd be really interested in talking about that. Nobody on the current team has the time and money to do that right (and it's not the sort of thing that ought to be done poorly).

I remember one of my teachers challenging us with the following: "Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, and small minds talk about people."

Well, off and on, I've emphasized since I got involved heavily in '08 that I don't think fundamentalism needs more focus on people. It could stand more thinking, though. Occasionally, real life examples help thinking. Human nature being what it is, and our culture being what it is--so much attention and energy is absorbed by fame and infamy.
I don't see a lot of value in our contributing much to either of those two.

In the Phelps controversy, it was a lose-lose scenario for us pretty much from day one. Where emotions run hot, people "see" attacks and defenses whether they are there or not. My own experience through that has been interesting. Some have characterized a post as toting some defensive party line while others have characterized the same post as a vicious attack on the same character. Still others would read it as a personal attack on a third party (such as Tina A.) and still others as an endorsement of pedophilia.

One can either take all that seriously and pull his hair out or he can shrug and say hey, that's how people are and not worry too much about it.

In any case, I think SI's contribution is better in the areas of ideas than people whether it's the forums or the front page. Not everybody on the team shares my degree of conviction on that point.

We don't know everything he did, so how do we comment intelligently and accurately on that? Not to mention that there is more than one version of events- it's a veritable Golden Corral of speculations and theories.

If we aren't sure about the details of what was said and done, it's still an exercise in speculation. It seems to me that when we start answering according to the general information we do have, we still end up tangled in missing particulars.

That is the most beneficial and productive question IMO, and the one that most needs to be answered.

If you think a post has violated the Comment Policy, you can 'flag' it (there is a link below each post for this purpose) and the mods will take a look at it. Many times people answer for themselves, and when they do, we tend to leave it alone unless intervention is requested or things get out of hand. Also, the mod team is composed of volunteers who check in at their convenience.

Let's not have another "Phelps thread," eh? That would be sort of ironic given the topic of the article.

But plenty can be learned from that and lots of other cases without focusing on the people involved and without ever coming to your own verdict about it. My mind's more than a little woozy from travel today, so this may not be very clear, but I'll give it a go...

But that's actually not true. You can learn more if you don't pass judgment. It works by playing "What if?" and then thinking through all the lessons of each possibility.

1. What if the pastor is telling the truth? What lessons can I learn? (About handling funds, about documenation, about dealing with accusations, etc., etc.)
2. What if the pastor is lying? What lessons can I learn? (About need for accountability, need for stronger emphasis on ministerial ethics in seminary, need for better procedures in churches, etc.)

Now what if you had passed judgment and then only considered what you could learn from that scenario? You learn roughly 50% less.

My point is just that what can be learned from analyizing real world cases can often be learned just as well by rigorous use of the imagination. And what can be learned by passing judgment in a situation where there are conflicting claims can often be learned just and well and then some by not passing judgment.

So a focus on ideas--and intentional employment of the imagination (using hypotheticals, etc.)--does not short change the learning process in the long run.

To quote lots of people smarter than me... Ideas have consequences.

Of course, "what we can learn" is a separate question from "how is justice going to be acheived?" A major point of the OP is that SI is not in a good position to pursue justice and our history is not a justice-pursuing history. We're in a much better position to deal with "What can we learn?" That doesn't help with justice problem, no--but since ideas have consequences, we should not underrate the impact of "what we can learn."

I have been a poster on SI since almost the beginning. While I understand what you are saying, it seems odd. I want to respect the thread, but I have a question. Let's take the issue that brought this thread up. If there is something to this new case, does that mean SI wont report it under filings? Does that mean we do not discuss it? I will do my best to respect the decision, but I don't agree with it. I don't think there is any real way to apply this, without it looking like we are ignoring sin our camp.

JG,

I agree with what you are saying. But if it is clear also clear that the most loving thing to do is to call out sin. My problem is that we have always lighter on are fellow Fundamentalists and harder evangelicals. IMO, it should be the other way around. We should hold each other accountable.

Aaron,

Thanks for this post. I really appreciate the spirit here.

You mentioned that "ideas have consequences." I like the idea that we can withhold judgment and learn more from a situation. I do. However, I would like to flip it around a little. If ideas have consequences, then consequences say something about ideas too. So sometimes we learn better when we can determine just what the consequences were. That way we can see what impact the effects of the idea had in real-world circumstances. Some may say this is could tend towards pragmatism or gossip, but ascertaining what happened (say, in an embezzlement) is important to how we learn from it.

Shayne

If there are Biblical steps to follow (and there are) when there is a need for admonition, rebuke, confrontation... then we are obligated to follow those steps. It only makes sense that those directly involved in and affected by a situation are in the best place to engage in those steps. Even in the case of a 'well-known' person, there is still an inner circle of family, friends, and fellow church members who have an actual real-life relationship with them. Reading someone's book or seeing them preach on YouTube does not equal a relationship, nor does it put one in a position to minister to that person and those they've wronged. And that should be our first thought- to not only seek justice if it is called for, but to minister and restore all parties involved.

The focus here is whether SI can and should 'break news' of criminal, moral, and ethical violations, try cases in the court of public opinion, and hold people accountable. I don't think so.

Now, with heretical or problematic teachings, it is usually fairly easy to establish what was said, as it has very often been preserved in print or audio for folks to examine for themselves (in context, mind you) and draw a fair conclusion. We do that all the time around here, based on actual writings and available audio/video. Even though a variety of opinions are offered, they are perspectives on the same easily procurable information. Plus it isn't yet illegal to be wrong or even stupid, or half of Congress would be behind bars.

If someone has knowledge of misdeeds, then they are bound by Scripture and our legal system to follow certain protocols. I think if each one of us were more focused on the needs in our own families and churches, there would be fewer problems all around. It's always easier to point out what's wrong from a safe physical and emotional distance. But the problems we see in Christianity at large exist in our homes and our local churches, and not just big name universities and churches with national recognition.

That is why the best recourse is to consider our own bit of earth for Godly standards of conduct, better protections and preventions, and Biblical counseling and correction. We can help each other with that here- just think of all the years of experience and wisdom that could be brought to bear on some of these issues that grieve us. That is why IMO we need to focus on ideas, and not trying to be the Christian version of the National Enquirer.

Roger, here are a few observations and questions.

1. Is discussion and judgment on SI the equivalent of calling out sin in the NT? It seems that calling out sin was the confrontation of the guilty and judgment carried out the context of the local assembly, not spreading and discussing it in all the churches over the known world. (I will note that some of the OT situations were written specifically for our admonition, learning, and warning. However, I wonder how many SI posters have honestly reviewed their own situations rather than merely clucking their tongues.)
2. Yes, we are harder on Evangelicals than ourselves. However, we are harder on the other camps within Fundamentalism than ourselves too. One definitely gets the feeling that Bauder and Doran are beyond questioning but Sexton, Comfort, Jones, and Chappell are fair game. So, how is one more hateful than the other?
3. How is it the loving thing to call out sin on SI? It seems that this is the function of the local church to confront the sinners and call them to repentance. Are the sinners reading the SI posts? How do they benefit?

Roger, it seems that you saying that judgment should first begin at home (I Peter 4:17). I agree. Then, home consists of us, who have been posting on SI, not the larger context of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the next circle.

No, no, no . . . .Roger . . . I'm not accusing you of inconsistency. I respect your integrity even when we disagree. This is a broad indictment taking off from the point that you made about Fundamentalists being more critical of Evangelicals than themselves. I am just driving home the point that we must be consistent in that we, ourselves, are more critical of other Fundamentalists than of our own circle of Fundamentalism. The foibles of our own guys are overlooked or defended but we are quick to jump on the smallest misstep of the guys in the other camp. So, consistently applying your stated principle, we must recognize the positive as well as the negative aspects of even those with whom we disagree as well as those with whom we agree. If Chappell and Sexton are to be judged by whom they share platforms, then it is only fair and equitable to judge Bauder and Doran by whom they share platforms. It's simply a matter of recognizing our own prejudices.

Also, Roger, I would be interested in your ideas regarding whether SI is a proper forum for matters that are considered local church discipline in the NT. See the other points in my previous post.

Some examples might be more helpful...

SI could have decided against linking to discussions on the Phelps/Trinity/Anderson issue entirely.
SI could have decided against linking to the Danny Sweatt issues / discussion in 2009, but we ran it.
SI could have decided against linking to BJUNumbers in the filings a couple weeks ago, but the team decided to put it out there anyway.

So if we are 'covering up' for IFB's, I'd say we're doing a lousy job of it.

Someone who lurks at SI sent me an email. He alleged that SI is terribly inconsistent with this policy in a couple of ways. They publish more critically of Fundamentalists than Conservative Evangelicals. They published, he says, "unprovoked attacks" by Dr. Bauder on other leaders of Fundamentalism. And their failure to publish stories like Aaron’s aforementioned "X", “Y”, and “Z” is not consistent with their behavior in other cases, such as the ongoing persecution of Pastor Phelps that is tolerated here.

A few thoughts based on my reply to him are perhaps useful for this discussion. They are relevant to the discussion happening here.

I believe it is appropriate that people who self-identify as Fundamentalist and who come from that heritage be more concerned to critique themselves than others. The whole premise of the movement is to separate from and criticize the other guy – but few have the integrity to criticize their own movement.

Before the internet at large, and before SI in particular, some parts of Fundamentalism had become nearly morally and ethically bankrupt. They adopted a circle-the-wagons, good-old boy approach to dealing with internal problems. It’s endemic to all movements, but it had been raised to an art-form by some.

One of the things that made SI valuable from the very beginning is that the forums provided a platform from which to hold the Fundamentalist Movement’s leaders’ feet to the fire. Before SI, nobody had the platform to do that. A University & Seminary president or large church pastor could do wrong or engage in abusive leadership, and nobody short of someone else at the same “influence level” had a voice to call attention to it before SI existed. Accountability is good, for everyone. So if SI is nipping at the heels of Fundamentalist leaders, I see it as a service to the movement. We ought to be self-cleansing.

Quite frankly, sites like SI can potentially be part of the cure for the “Independence” question discussed so much after the 20/20 piece. “How can we have accountability and local church autonomy at the same time?” Answer: SI and other sites like it give a mechanism for a leader’s behavior to be compared with Scripture by the entire movement, rather than only those under the direct influence of a particular leader. Since the days of the apostles, no such mechanism has existed among churches with a Biblical polity of inter-church relations.

What some take as “unprovoked attacks” on Fundamentalist leaders mounted at SI, I take as healthy observations about problems in the movement – problems that ought to be fixed.

As for publishing about story “X” (the lurker who emailed me mentioned a specific matter) vs. the supposed character assassination of Pastor Phelps, a few things must be observed:

“X” is entirely rumor. There is no verifiable source of any kind. Nobody knows what happened, except for a vague accusation. There is nothing to report on except “there is a rumor going around” – much more worthy of a Hollywood Rag than a serious site. By contrast, the 20/20 piece played an interview with a young lady who clearly believed she was wronged by Pastor Phelps’ handling of her situation, as well as Pastor Phelps’ personal response. Pastor Phelps subsequently created a website to give further information. Even taking only the confirmed statements on the public record, without any judging of motives, there is room for discussion as to the appropriateness of his actions. And that discussion has value in the realm of ideas itself, so that we may carefully plan how we would handle such situations. No personal animosity toward Pastor Phelps need be assumed.

In short, posting about “X” would be a post about uncertainties. It is appropriate to wait until more information (if any) is forthcoming.

My access to the Web is limited this week. Vacationing a bit.

A few points that might clarify.

Will we still pay attention to news stories via Filings?
Yes. There is a point about that in the What You Can Do section of the OP. As in the past, we may or may not have discussion. Depends on multiple factors. The team is still talking alot, off and on, about Filings and the boundaries of what we use in them. We have a tradition of posting references to blogs there, so it's not always going to be "a reputable newsgathering organization" that is the source of content there, but we are interested in developing clearer guidelines on what sort of sources we should not draw attention to. The goal with that isn't protecting anybody who's in the wrong but in fulfilling the biblical obligation to avoid spreading rumors, etc.

Is SI changing?
The intent of the OP is to explain why we are not changing though there has been pressure lately to do that.

What's up with the timing?
The timing is alluded to in the OP. It has to do with mounting pressure to move the site toward being a place to seek justice by exposing alleged wrongdoing by fundamentalist leaders. The time seemed right to explain why we do not intend to yield to that pressure.

Is there value in real-live situations vs. hypothetical ones?
Yes, on multiple levels. Real life failures, crimes, etc. serve to ignite the imagination in working through scenarios, principles and "what we can/should learn." Also, sometimes a portion of "What we can learn" has to do with cause and effect and what actually happened. That said, there are always trade offs because in real life scandals so much energy goes into staking out and fighting for positions on who's in the wrong and how much and who's version of events is true, partly true, etc., etc.

Should SI be harder on evangelicals in general than we are on fundamentalists?
This is a tougher question than it may seem. If you organize a forum/article site for bowlers, does it make it sense to focus on the problems and weaknesses of bowlers there? (or how much better human beings nonbowlers are than bowlers?)...especially if there are already dozens of other sites devoted to bowler bashing?
On the other hand, I do believe a "grown up" organization/movement must be self-criticial, that fundamentalism has lacked that, and that SI can help.
But is there likely to be a shortage of criticism of fundamentalism if we don't do a ton of it here? I think not! But there is likely to be a quality shortage. Mature fundamentalists can more accurately identify the movement's weaknesses than many who are far, far outside of what we're about and don't understand our values, convictions, distinctives, emphases, history, etc.

Brother Dayton,
I agree that we need to speak the truth in love. And we need to do the same for these vitcims. There have been many on the blogs that were quick to judge the victim.....we really (as pastors) need to rethink this wicked-thought process

Roger,

I absolutely affirm that we must support the victims. Church and home should be safe places, and, when that safety is violated, it is a terrible thing. Proverbs 18 cautions us to learn as much information as possible before making judgments. I have used the "in the multitude of counselors there is safety" principle by involving godly leaders to help me sort out situations. In Iowa, even a consensual relationship between an authority figure and a subordinate (such as counselor/counselee who are both of age) is seen as exploitation. From my understanding of the New Hampshire situation, it was an adult and a teen, which is definitely a situation of exploitation. In the account in John of the woman taken in adultery, how did they know it was "in the very act" if they had not set her up ? Again, it was a misuse of power.

It is tragic that we must face these things in our churches, but let us remember that, though believers are forgiven and cleansed, we still are sinners desperately in need of the grace and guidance of God.

Brother Pittman you asked Jay not me but I will self-identify on the issues you raised

• On Phelps / Anderson case: While I did not say much publicly, I support that Sharper Iron posted Filings on the case. I never saw the trial as Phelps on trial. (You can dig through whatever comments I've made about on S/I to validate)
• On Sweatt. Support that S/I posted filings
• On BJU numbers filing. I filed it myself. I consider myself a BJU supporter and feel very positive about the school. But have no official association with the school. Not sure if folk know this but many of the S/I team are BJU grads: Jay, Joe, Dan M, Aaron, Monty, Larry. It's pretty obvious to me that that website (BJU numbers ) has its own agenda but the numbers (that particular post) are interesting

On my "camp" .... I don't have much of a "camp" mentality. You may view my doctrinal statement under my signature

Earlier, I made the point that the IFB's whom we freely criticize are usually those outside our camp (i.e. those with whom we do not closely identify or associate). I was striving for a balance because certain IFB's were being denigrated for their criticism of CE's (i.e. Conservative Evangelicals) because they differ from us. Meanwhile, we are freer in our own criticism of other IFB's who are less like us than those who are like us and in our camp. By camp, I am referring to the circles within which we move. Don't nitpick the word. I am simply referring to common associations and beliefs--nothing more. Heretofore, much lip service has been paid to self-criticism but, IMHO, it is lacking in practice. My assertion is that we are more open to judging the faults of other IFB's, who are different from us, than we are of exposing our own foibles. Now, this is a malady common to all of us--it is human nature to defend our own and criticize those different from us. However, by recognizing our own human tendencies, we can curtail much of it. Absolute objectivity is unattainable but it can be increased by intentional effort and awareness of our own prejudices. This is my purpose.

I asked Jay if he was willing to identify with the folks that he listed as examples of IFB's critiqued by SI. If he is unwilling to say,"Yeah, these are my friends and people with whom I identify," then it seems to me his point loses it punch. After all, I understand that his point is we critique our friends as well as our enemies. Is Jay's list, which he gives in support of his point, a list of friends and those with whom he identifies or a list of other IFB's? How about it Jay? Are you willing to say, "Hey, I'm not ashamed to be identified with these folks who are my friends"?

Your question IMO is completely irrelevant to his point and this discussion. In face, if pursued it will derail the topic into Twaddleville. The idea of needing to 'publicly align' or 'identify with a camp' is insipid.

The fact is that SI is not involved in covering up events, but is endeavoring to handle information as it comes our way in a Biblical manner. That is the topic of this discussion.

Susan, I think if you bundle this with Roland's post # 34, his point becomes more clear. I'm not saying I agree. I just see why he's asking it.

Roland, this is a Fundamentalist site. For some, that means association with the Movement of Fundamentalism, for others, it means they value the idea of Fundamentalism. Still others are concerned for the Fundamentals of the Faith alone, and couldn't care less about movements or even the idea (which is, largely, separatism). When a person who in some way embraces the name Fundamentalist sees someone else who embraces the name behaving in a way that endangers the good name of the movement, erodes the idea of the movement, or rejects a Fundamental of the faith, they should feel free to speak out, whether they are from that exact camp or not.

Maybe "nobody cares" was the wrong way to put it, but I'm not sure that so-called CE"s are going to adjust their practice based on SI. However, the average pastor of an IFB-type church might very well change practice/conviction based on what happens on this site.