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.
[Bob T.] 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.Couple thoughts, and I’m kind of musing aloud here…so bear with me.
A prime example is on this thread. Do not be so quick to gang up on dissenters…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…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.
I think you’re right about the bolded section…it does sometimes it look like we do ‘gang up on’ people, especially when the comment is especially atrocious. Take, for example, the comment you brought up because it’s obvious. Three people from the mod/admin team addressed that specific comment within an hour, and I was one of them. I also know that we didn’t plan and coordinate that together because I was too busy writing my own reply to check with them first - not a good sign of coordination! Yet the allegations haven’t been proven (as of yet), and this person instead leaves for another site and makes more disparaging remarks about us and SharperIron. He returns and reposts twice, but hasn’t yet provided proof for his allegation. So what is it - are we evil and mean for gangtackling him or are we legitimately trying to address a concern by grieved members? Others, including Aaron himself, have noted that when it comes to personal, face to face interaction about where we screwed up, we don’t get a lot of emails…most of it comes in through proxy or via something like Facebook that one of us just happened to see and shared with the rest of the team. Aaron would know about that better than I would.
The maddening thing is most, rather than taking advantage of the various ways to contact the mods and admins about perceived injustices in general (PM, email, even the snail mail address is posted), they snipe at us via proxy. So now we’re supposed to turn the other cheek and pretend it never happened, putting us into positions (like this) where we’re reacting after literally months of criticism, or we’re the Gestapo, silencing all dissent, hiding all posts in a pathetic attempt to cover our tracks, or banning our poor and misunderstood members willy-nilly. Which is it? And more importantly, what’s the RIGHT way for us to do it?
I say all of this because the example of Christ in John 18 comes to mind…
19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” 22 When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?” 24 Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.I put a lot - and I do mean a LOT - of time into this site. I probably put two to two and a half hours in today (although today is an aberration because I knew this thread was coming.) So do Aaron, Jim, and Susan, among others - they’re the more visible members of the team. We ARE offended when someone accuses us, especially when they coordinate with other, less charitable, people in order to do so. I can take the slings and shots - even when my posts are ripped from context and turned against me - but we do want to resolve criticism graciously, especially when there is a grain of truth, as you yourself alluded. We can’t do that if our critics are more interested in spreading gossip and slander than if they are in actually addressing concerns. I know that the mods take criticism because we criticize ourselves internally in the Team (not just Mod) forum, and sometimes a someone will say that they got a PM saying they went over the line…or they just volunteer it and say, ‘hey, I messed up here’. As Aaron said,
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.I know that I can’t pull back the veil and show the inner workings of the site, but we are taking the merited criticism to heart and we do want to make the site better; Aaron has alluded to that as well. My plea is this - don’t empower The Adversary by spreading slander and dissension among the brothers and sisters in Christ…confronting us on our sin is actually the Scriptural thing to do, no matter what we may want to do. See:
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.
[http://christianteens.about.com/od/whatthebiblesaysabout/f/gossip.htmSo I’d appreciate some feedback here. This isn’t about one person in particular - although they can certainly address me publicly for what I’ve written, since all of this is out in the open - but about how we handle criticism. If we’re going to be critiqued - at least provide specifics for that so we know what’s going on. I know all of the team members personally, and no one on the team brushes off criticism as unwarranted or worthless.
Leviticus 19:16 – “Do not go about spreading slander among your people…I am the Lord.” (NIV)
Matthew 7:12 – “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (NIV)
Ephesians 4:29 – “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” (NIV)
Yes, I know - I probably should provide specifics here for the one comment in particular. Yet I’m not trying to make an example of that person - I’m actually trying to safeguard their privacy by intentionally leaving specifics out - just to demonstrate that it’s impossible to take some of this stuff in any way other than personally, esp. when there’s no way to know who is making the remarks and whether or not they actually care or if they’re just shooting burning arrows into a neighbor’s wheat field (Proverbs 26:18-19). And this statement is something that I’m putting my name to - so hold me to it!
"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
Did this make any sense or is it so obvious that it need not be discussed, or is this comment so obscure no comment can be made, or…? I want to be part of the discussion on SI. But it’s hard when I don’t get any interaction.
[Rob Fall] SNIP
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..
Wow! When I made my comments earlier in the day, I envisioned a big group hug involving the critics of SI along with the committed of SI. Then ole Marc Monte comes along and stirs the pot. 8-)
Let me offer a donut, some coffee, and some clarifications (donuts and coffee have a way of uniting fundamentalists).
Clarification on older preachers - There are older preachers who love what is taking place on SI.
Clarification on disrespecting older preachers - I’m not sure I have seen this here. Any attempt at disrespect has been moderated from what I understand. Most people I know on SI have a great respect for godly older preachers.
Clarication on Piper - I hope nobody buys everything Piper says. Evaluate his words and actions. His whole teaching on “Don’t waste your life” is one of the most significant challenges given to the body of Christ in this present time. His whole teaching on leaving comfort because of need has inspired a whole new group of young people to go and risk it all for the sake of the gospel. Fundamentalism should embrace this and echo this teaching. Piper also must be commended for his honesty in issues like missions. He has not been afraid to acknowledge that the center of gravity in missions is rapidly shifting from America to parts of Asia and South America and has called the church to respond accordingly. Piper is wrong in having Rick Warren. He is also wrong in some of the other things he’s done. Learn to respond to him with wisdom. This is all that SI has ever encouraged, I believe.
Now, as Joel T has always encouraged, let’s gather around the campfire, have a big group hug, and break out the smores. :D
Let me offer a donut, some coffee, and some clarifications (donuts and coffee have a way of uniting fundamentalists).
Clarification on older preachers - There are older preachers who love what is taking place on SI.
Clarification on disrespecting older preachers - I’m not sure I have seen this here. Any attempt at disrespect has been moderated from what I understand. Most people I know on SI have a great respect for godly older preachers.
Clarication on Piper - I hope nobody buys everything Piper says. Evaluate his words and actions. His whole teaching on “Don’t waste your life” is one of the most significant challenges given to the body of Christ in this present time. His whole teaching on leaving comfort because of need has inspired a whole new group of young people to go and risk it all for the sake of the gospel. Fundamentalism should embrace this and echo this teaching. Piper also must be commended for his honesty in issues like missions. He has not been afraid to acknowledge that the center of gravity in missions is rapidly shifting from America to parts of Asia and South America and has called the church to respond accordingly. Piper is wrong in having Rick Warren. He is also wrong in some of the other things he’s done. Learn to respond to him with wisdom. This is all that SI has ever encouraged, I believe.
Now, as Joel T has always encouraged, let’s gather around the campfire, have a big group hug, and break out the smores. :D
[Rob Fall] Did this make any sense or is it so obvious that it need not be discussed, or is this comment so obscure no comment can be made, or…? I want to be part of the discussion on SI. But it’s hard when I don’t get any interaction.Rob,[Rob Fall] SNIP
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.
I hear what you are saying and think you may be on to something here. I am part of the group that lived through some of the foolishness of the OG that came out of the SBC…
Matthew
[Bob T.] The 18 year old is on the same field as the 80 year old ( I am not 80, only 71).Would you care to expand on your statement? I am bothered by several age-related comments in this thread that seem, to me, to dismiss youth. The general thrust of those comments seems to be “I’m old (guard); therefore, I’m right” instead of “these are the Biblical principles, and here is my perspective on applying these principles based on my age/experience)”. I wonder if I’m understanding the age-related comments correctly. God demands respect for age, but God gives truth to both young and old. Consider Elihu (passage below). He showed respect for age by waiting and being afraid. When the time came, Elihu spoke and laid out what he believed was truth. My guess is that Elihu was quite agitated since the passage states twice that his wrath was aroused. For full disclosure I am 43, with lots of gray hair :)
Job 32:1-10 (NKJV)
So these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. Now because they were years older than he, Elihu had waited to speak to Job. When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, his wrath was aroused. So Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, answered and said:
“I am young in years, and you are very old; therefore I was afraid, and dared not declare my opinion to you. I said, ‘Age should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.’ But there is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding. Great men are not always wise, nor do the aged always understand justice.“ Therefore I say, ‘Listen to me, I also will declare my opinion.’
For me (plain church member and not a pastor), the GARBC Quest is a great example of older, established pastors reaching out to younger pastors.
http://garbcquest.org/?page_id=2] http://garbcquest.org/?page_id=2
http://garbcquest.org/?page_id=2] http://garbcquest.org/?page_id=2
Aaron, Thanks for running SI :)
cascadingfaith.wordpress.com
[Matthew Richards]Speaking of a conversation I had with one of the OG, he just plain has no idea of the troubles some here have gone through. Saying that, if he did he’d be more understanding of them. Then again he’s from the Mid-West, fellowships with the FBFI and ministers in the West, so the whole former SBC mind set is terra ingognita for him.[Rob Fall] Did this make any sense or is it so obvious that it need not be discussed, or is this comment so obscure no comment can be made, or…? I want to be part of the discussion on SI. But it’s hard when I don’t get any interaction.Rob,[Rob Fall] SNIP
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.
I hear what you are saying and think you may be on to something here. I am part of the group that lived through some of the foolishness of the OG that came out of the SBC…
Matthew
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Pastor Joe Roof] Clarification on disrespecting older preachers - I’m not sure I have seen this here. Any attempt at disrespect has been moderated from what I understand. Most people I know on SI have a great respect for godly older preachers.Hmmm… please re-read post #46 in this thread and ask if its language is respectful or disrespectful? Or try #47 and #48.
Not that I am personally frustrated by this or the job Aaron et al are doing. But you say you haven’t seen disrespect for older preachers here? Man, open your eyes!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The thing that I find interesting about all of this is how it demonstrates a problem with PR that the movement has. I would say that this problem is deep rooted in the fundamentalist culture and based on certain attitudes that we all detest but yet have too much of.
The reason it is interesting is because even the world understands PR better than we do. Contrast this article and following comments with another company fight a battle of public discontent (say BP for example).
* Would BP even loosely compare their critics with fools as the original article did? Behind closed doors, sure, but in a public statement?
* Would they imply that their critics don’t have anything better to do than look for faults? (“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.”)
* Would they aggressively demand “proof” and extended discussion from every critic publicly? In some cases, yes, but not in a way that makes them look like a bully.
The lesson Rehoboam learned about PR is still applicable. No one is above being called on the carpet by the people you serve.
The right tone should almost always be apologetic. Admit your real problems without sarcasm and jabs, ask for clarification gently (mostly privately), and ask for further suggestions. People respect that and they give second chances.
These things are not rocket science. These strategies are employed by basically every company in business. Why fundamentalism has such a problem with public relations is perplexing.
Aaron, when you start this comparing your critics to fools (not directly but certainly introducing that comparison), you can hardly expect things to go well. But I think your tone has improved considerably through this thread from the original post. In fact, I am very encouraged by many of the things that have been said since that.
The reason it is interesting is because even the world understands PR better than we do. Contrast this article and following comments with another company fight a battle of public discontent (say BP for example).
* Would BP even loosely compare their critics with fools as the original article did? Behind closed doors, sure, but in a public statement?
* Would they imply that their critics don’t have anything better to do than look for faults? (“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.”)
* Would they aggressively demand “proof” and extended discussion from every critic publicly? In some cases, yes, but not in a way that makes them look like a bully.
The lesson Rehoboam learned about PR is still applicable. No one is above being called on the carpet by the people you serve.
The right tone should almost always be apologetic. Admit your real problems without sarcasm and jabs, ask for clarification gently (mostly privately), and ask for further suggestions. People respect that and they give second chances.
These things are not rocket science. These strategies are employed by basically every company in business. Why fundamentalism has such a problem with public relations is perplexing.
Aaron, when you start this comparing your critics to fools (not directly but certainly introducing that comparison), you can hardly expect things to go well. But I think your tone has improved considerably through this thread from the original post. In fact, I am very encouraged by many of the things that have been said since that.
While I believe that respect is not to be handed out like party favors, but should be earned, it’s probably fair to say that we sometimes engage in unnecessary jabbing… perhaps some are just being facetious, while others intend to be insulting… it’s hard to tell without a facial expression or tone of voice to go with the post. The Comment Policy doesn’t allow for members to make personal attacks against other members, but there’s nothing that prohibits people from making derogatory comments about a general group of people, such as ‘the old guard’. I don’t know who the ‘old guard’ is to others. I have my own ideas about who the Godly and faithful older men were/are- the problem is IMO when we revere them to the extent that we can’t call some of their preaching or conduct into question. There were times when even the best of the best did things that were out of line, and it’s acceptable and even necessary to acknowledge that. What really gets under some people’s skin and causes them to be overly frustrated is the attitude that the ‘old guys’ are so sacred and admired that any critique at all is considered disrespectful.
I think some comments could be worded better, and I can think back to things I’ve said that weren’t prudent or charitable, and probably detracted from instead of forwarding the discussion. But I empathize with the frustration of others when they speak of power-mongering and ring-kissing by some of the celebrities of Fundamentalism- I’ve been in churches where it is regularly preached that you shut your mouth and obey the pastor, even if he tells you to stand on your head and spit wooden nickels, that the whoever is standing at the ‘sacred desk’ is God’s anointed and is beyond any form of criticism, etc… This is not Scriptural in any way, shape, or form, and allows for seriously dysfunctional churches to continue to control and intimidate their members into conforming instead of experiencing sanctification wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves sometimes if we aren’t doing the exact thing we despise so much in others. If we are upset about name-calling and intimidation, then we shouldn’t engage in it. If someone is preaching/teaching heresy, then we should deal with the doctrinal issues without all the sarcasm and insults, veiled and otherwise. Ack- that’s a toughy for me. Sarcasm is deeply embedded into my programming. Oy vey.
Something else that always catches my eye is when folks accuse someone of ‘being fooled by’ so-and-so whenever they give credit for or appreciate the insight of an author, preacher, ministry leader, etc. who isn’t a staunch Fundamentalist. I just can’t wrap my mind around that, because I feel like I learn something new every day from authors and speakers and pundits and bloggers, some of whom are not even saved… so how can I say I’ve learned from men and women who aren’t regenerate, but then toss Piper, McCarthur, Colson, etc. out the window because they aren’t our definition of Fundamentalist? There are many men of good character, who have wisdom and experience to share, but may be off in some area like cessationism or dispensationalism- why should I not absorb what is helpful and disregard what isn’t? I’m certainly not going to recommend a preacher who is has serious doctrinal issues to a young Christian who doesn’t know how to discern, but why not acknowledge what someone says that is helpful, point out what isn’t, and then go out for coffee and doughnuts and get on with life? Sometimes I picture the scowling face of someone who I perceive as hyper-critical and I want to say “Be careful or your face will freeze that way”. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry051.gif
I think some comments could be worded better, and I can think back to things I’ve said that weren’t prudent or charitable, and probably detracted from instead of forwarding the discussion. But I empathize with the frustration of others when they speak of power-mongering and ring-kissing by some of the celebrities of Fundamentalism- I’ve been in churches where it is regularly preached that you shut your mouth and obey the pastor, even if he tells you to stand on your head and spit wooden nickels, that the whoever is standing at the ‘sacred desk’ is God’s anointed and is beyond any form of criticism, etc… This is not Scriptural in any way, shape, or form, and allows for seriously dysfunctional churches to continue to control and intimidate their members into conforming instead of experiencing sanctification wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves sometimes if we aren’t doing the exact thing we despise so much in others. If we are upset about name-calling and intimidation, then we shouldn’t engage in it. If someone is preaching/teaching heresy, then we should deal with the doctrinal issues without all the sarcasm and insults, veiled and otherwise. Ack- that’s a toughy for me. Sarcasm is deeply embedded into my programming. Oy vey.
Something else that always catches my eye is when folks accuse someone of ‘being fooled by’ so-and-so whenever they give credit for or appreciate the insight of an author, preacher, ministry leader, etc. who isn’t a staunch Fundamentalist. I just can’t wrap my mind around that, because I feel like I learn something new every day from authors and speakers and pundits and bloggers, some of whom are not even saved… so how can I say I’ve learned from men and women who aren’t regenerate, but then toss Piper, McCarthur, Colson, etc. out the window because they aren’t our definition of Fundamentalist? There are many men of good character, who have wisdom and experience to share, but may be off in some area like cessationism or dispensationalism- why should I not absorb what is helpful and disregard what isn’t? I’m certainly not going to recommend a preacher who is has serious doctrinal issues to a young Christian who doesn’t know how to discern, but why not acknowledge what someone says that is helpful, point out what isn’t, and then go out for coffee and doughnuts and get on with life? Sometimes I picture the scowling face of someone who I perceive as hyper-critical and I want to say “Be careful or your face will freeze that way”. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry051.gif
[Steve Davis] I’m right and will start my own movement - righterism!Steve, it has a nice ring to it. :D (You might even pick up a few who think it’s about politics!)
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.
My two lira.
This site would never exist if “old school” fundamentalists were its administrators. While it might be their perception that old schoolers are treated with disdain (I do not believe this is the case, rather the willingness and responsibility to address past indiscretions and damaging beliefs and practices that were simply verboten to approach in the past is what has taken place because old schoolers were unwilling to do so) I am confident that many voices would be trampled and silenced, again, if they were the administrators. Old schoolers (whoever you are and I could be one of them for all I know) , I encourage you to post your thoughts and be willing to argue your cases which, if done effectively will enlighten other believers and if not be willing to admit to the weaknesses of your views and consider admitting you could be wrong.
Age. Age is not a license to demand people respect you or to treat younger people with condescension. I find often, that those who attempt to use trump cards to demand respect are the least willing to give it. But it does remain that maturity must be held with esteem. However, those of you who consider yourself “older”, you are to never use your age as a weapon for demands and when valid and serious thoughts are presented by youngers you are to treat them just as that, serious and valid without condescending remarks about their youth. There might be a time for a remark about one’s youth but not at such a point. And SI, it appears, does attempt to give voice to all adults. I did, unfortunately, read one moderator/administrator who considered anyone twenty years younger than himself a kid (which would make those having entered adulthood and even early grandparenting ages a “kid”!) which I believe reflects the attitude above in a certain way, but overall SI appears to do a good job of avoiding this kind of prejudice. But let me say again, it does remain that maturity must be held with esteem.
Susan is the best experience I have had with moderators in my years online on discussion boards. Her objectivity exceeds her counterparts and it is clear her desire to remain unbiased and unilateral is always present in her moderation. BTW, from my experience you have a great deal of latitude in PMs with moderators in expressing your discontent or praise as long as you are not inappropriate in your language. They may not agree with you and I personally do not view it as very likely anything will be done in your favor in protesting a moderator’s decisions but I have never had a moderator PM me back with the threat of being expelled because I expressed my dislike for something.
SI is fundie. The site is exceptional with respect to fundie sites and probably CE sites. SI is faithful to attempting give a hearing to all legitimate Christian voices that may contribute to our welfare. There are some cases of heavy moderation I do believe have pushed some people away. This probably is an inescapable reality of discussion boards. Maybe thicker hides on some that left might help. I did not see any specific case or admission of failure by SI in answering their critics, that is they defended themselves but aside from the general or generic “yeah we have made some mistakes” no admission of specific failures was forthcoming, that was disappointing. It might be due to a certain rule with this kind of forum that it is best such admissions are made privately or only when the event occurs. Thanks for SI Aaron and those who administrate and moderate.
This site would never exist if “old school” fundamentalists were its administrators. While it might be their perception that old schoolers are treated with disdain (I do not believe this is the case, rather the willingness and responsibility to address past indiscretions and damaging beliefs and practices that were simply verboten to approach in the past is what has taken place because old schoolers were unwilling to do so) I am confident that many voices would be trampled and silenced, again, if they were the administrators. Old schoolers (whoever you are and I could be one of them for all I know) , I encourage you to post your thoughts and be willing to argue your cases which, if done effectively will enlighten other believers and if not be willing to admit to the weaknesses of your views and consider admitting you could be wrong.
Age. Age is not a license to demand people respect you or to treat younger people with condescension. I find often, that those who attempt to use trump cards to demand respect are the least willing to give it. But it does remain that maturity must be held with esteem. However, those of you who consider yourself “older”, you are to never use your age as a weapon for demands and when valid and serious thoughts are presented by youngers you are to treat them just as that, serious and valid without condescending remarks about their youth. There might be a time for a remark about one’s youth but not at such a point. And SI, it appears, does attempt to give voice to all adults. I did, unfortunately, read one moderator/administrator who considered anyone twenty years younger than himself a kid (which would make those having entered adulthood and even early grandparenting ages a “kid”!) which I believe reflects the attitude above in a certain way, but overall SI appears to do a good job of avoiding this kind of prejudice. But let me say again, it does remain that maturity must be held with esteem.
Susan is the best experience I have had with moderators in my years online on discussion boards. Her objectivity exceeds her counterparts and it is clear her desire to remain unbiased and unilateral is always present in her moderation. BTW, from my experience you have a great deal of latitude in PMs with moderators in expressing your discontent or praise as long as you are not inappropriate in your language. They may not agree with you and I personally do not view it as very likely anything will be done in your favor in protesting a moderator’s decisions but I have never had a moderator PM me back with the threat of being expelled because I expressed my dislike for something.
SI is fundie. The site is exceptional with respect to fundie sites and probably CE sites. SI is faithful to attempting give a hearing to all legitimate Christian voices that may contribute to our welfare. There are some cases of heavy moderation I do believe have pushed some people away. This probably is an inescapable reality of discussion boards. Maybe thicker hides on some that left might help. I did not see any specific case or admission of failure by SI in answering their critics, that is they defended themselves but aside from the general or generic “yeah we have made some mistakes” no admission of specific failures was forthcoming, that was disappointing. It might be due to a certain rule with this kind of forum that it is best such admissions are made privately or only when the event occurs. Thanks for SI Aaron and those who administrate and moderate.
GregH, do you think the Bible is wrong to compare some people to fools? Do you ever think it is appropriate for us to do so?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Don Johnson]Don, sorry to barge in. I know you were addressing this to Pastor Joe.[Pastor Joe Roof] Clarification on disrespecting older preachers - I’m not sure I have seen this here. Any attempt at disrespect has been moderated from what I understand. Most people I know on SI have a great respect for godly older preachers.Hmmm… please re-read post #46 in this thread and ask if its language is respectful or disrespectful? Or try #47 and #48.
Not that I am personally frustrated by this or the job Aaron et al are doing. But you say you haven’t seen disrespect for older preachers here? Man, open your eyes!
Surely you must admit that “old school” is about style, method, and philosophy, not about how old they are? There are lots of guys who are younger in age who are Old School Fundamentalists (tradition-driven, enforcement-minded, ghost-dancing for the “glory days” of Fundamentalism). And there are lots of older guys (myself included) who want nothing to do with that stuff who are still loyal to the TRUE fundamentals of the faith and who are willing to do “battle royal” for them — without separating over issues of little import.
[Greg Long] GregH, do you think the Bible is wrong to compare some people to fools? Do you ever think it is appropriate for us to do so?You make my point very well.
[GregH]He did? ‘Cause I don’t get it- how did he make your point, and why didn’t you just answer his question?[Greg Long] GregH, do you think the Bible is wrong to compare some people to fools? Do you ever think it is appropriate for us to do so?You make my point very well.
Maybe I just need more coffee. And another pancake…
A question that starts with “Is the Bible wrong…” starts things off on a bad foot. It is guaranteed to infuriate someone who disagrees with you. No public company would be dumb enough to handle PR that way.
Regarding the second question, yes call people fools if you want. But you had better be very careful about it. And if you want to make friends, have influence, and/or have a successful site, you will find another way to do it.
Let me be clear. Everyone that criticizes SI is not a fool. The introduction of that comparison into this debate was a mistake. And continuing to defend that comparison is a mistake. It is over the top.
Regarding the second question, yes call people fools if you want. But you had better be very careful about it. And if you want to make friends, have influence, and/or have a successful site, you will find another way to do it.
Let me be clear. Everyone that criticizes SI is not a fool. The introduction of that comparison into this debate was a mistake. And continuing to defend that comparison is a mistake. It is over the top.
[GregH] The right tone should almost always be apologetic. Admit your real problems without sarcasm and jabs, ask for clarification gently (mostly privately), and ask for further suggestions. People respect that and they give second chances.I think the key word there is “almost.” As for asking for clarification… there would need to be something unclear to ask for clarification of.
There isn’t in this case. You also seem to be assuming that there hasn’t been all sorts of private back and forth. Believe me, a great deal of that has occurred for many months.
This piece is not a first-stage response, but a last stage one. A step not even considered until parties involved proved quite conclusively that they would not be factual and fair.
There is some intentional edge here and there in the piece. There is nothing biblical about pretending the absurd is reasonable.
Surely we can agree that sometimes people make absurd accusations? The piece has the weakness of not including the kind of detail that would make the absurdities more apparent. That was a necessary trade off, because I wanted to avoid further empowering those involved as well as avoid making the piece a counter-attack. The aim here, rather, was to lay out some facts and bring the truth into very sharp contrast with the false accusations in a few places.
[GregH] Aaron, when you start this comparing your critics to fools (not directly but certainly introducing that comparison), you can hardly expect things to go well. But I think your tone has improved considerably through this thread from the original post. In fact, I am very encouraged by many of the things that have been said since that.Glad to hear that. Hopefully I’m not undoing too much of that with this post. 2Cor. is pretty clear that we ought not to suffer fools gladly. But the point of the fool reference was to argue by analogy that sometimes you should answer and sometimes not. Felt I needed to briefly make that case because people have strong opinions about whether public critics should be answered or not. I didn’t want to write the whole piece about that question in particular, but felt the need to explain my take on it at least before diving in to an answering effort.
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.
Did anybody encounter any difficulty posting comments in this thread at any point after the article posted?
There is some talk that comments were initially closed but I’m not aware of that ever being the case. Nobody on the team is aware of that switch ever being flipped, so I’m just asking to see if there were any technical issues we didn’t notice.
Comments are open by default here so they aren’t closed on an article unless someone intentionally disables that or some technical glitch occurs (I’ve never seen a glitch close comments though)
Edit: Got an email from one observer who said that the button for commenting was not appearing for a while. However, we do have a test post in the thread timestamped 8:13 am (Central), so it was open at least by then, if not before.
There is some talk that comments were initially closed but I’m not aware of that ever being the case. Nobody on the team is aware of that switch ever being flipped, so I’m just asking to see if there were any technical issues we didn’t notice.
Comments are open by default here so they aren’t closed on an article unless someone intentionally disables that or some technical glitch occurs (I’ve never seen a glitch close comments though)
Edit: Got an email from one observer who said that the button for commenting was not appearing for a while. However, we do have a test post in the thread timestamped 8:13 am (Central), so it was open at least by then, if not before.
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.
[Mike Durning] Surely you must admit that “old school” is about style, method, and philosophy, not about how old they are?Of course.
All I am pointing out is that disrespect isn’t foreign to these here parts.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I hope I was clear earlier. I have seen disrespect of older Fundamentalists and it was wrong (and I have said so). Bob said it well ealier. It is sad when someone who is 80 is not treated with respect.
I have seent his both ways. Many older Fundamentalists have shown nothing but contempt for the younger. Some of them want people to follow them because they have earned the right. None of us have earned the right to not answer questions. None of us have earned the right to not give a Biblical response to our resuppositions. When we are questioned, we are all guilty of this and I think this is part of the reason we have seen this divide. Neither the YF or the OF have a corner on being right. We both blow it from time to time and often never repent of it. That needs to change.
I have seent his both ways. Many older Fundamentalists have shown nothing but contempt for the younger. Some of them want people to follow them because they have earned the right. None of us have earned the right to not answer questions. None of us have earned the right to not give a Biblical response to our resuppositions. When we are questioned, we are all guilty of this and I think this is part of the reason we have seen this divide. Neither the YF or the OF have a corner on being right. We both blow it from time to time and often never repent of it. That needs to change.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Some might find this interesting. I just did some searching in the old database.
When the old database went offline at the end of May, 2009:
To compare 6/1/09 to 6/1/10: we’re all aware that posting activity was down over the year before (though I don’t have a number) and we know about 1300 people logged on.
So what does this prove? Not much. In a year where we asked everybody to create a new account, about 500 less actually created one than had one and used it (in the sense of “logged on to the site”) in the preceding year. Given that many of those with accounts never post, there is a percentage of those who had accounts in ‘08-‘09 and logged on who are still reading the site in ‘09-‘10 but have not made a new account.
And the trend since 6/1/09 (which started at all zeros pretty much) as been increasing forum activity and growing membership.
I kind of doubt we’re going to see 4595 again. We have no spam accounts, have more membership requirements than before, and are no longer the “amazing new thing” we were in 2005 (it did take about 4 yrs to get to 4595 even then).
To those who say the site is in decline: that’s certainly possible, but no huge shift occurred in ‘09. And I think a more likely evaluation is that we’ve moved out of our adolescence and are entering “middle age.”
But I’m personally not numbers driven. I never even ran these particular reports until today, and rarely look at any report that isn’t automatically generated. Other things being equal, of course, we’d love to see the site grow like a noxious weed, but I’m not personally interested in seeing it be a noxious weed in order to accomplish that!
The forums have definitely been going through a different stage in the last couple years while we all figured out what the culture was going to be under the new ownership (the new ownership had to figure that out, too). The sense I get from our team discussions now is that we’ve figured a whole lot of that out now and members are getting more comfortable with it as well. Time will tell.
I’ve always felt that quality is much more important than quantity, but I believe the quantity will continue to slowly increase for a while yet (and we have a number of very interesting ideas brewing.)
It may be that eventually we’ll want to actually advertise the site a little.
When the old database went offline at the end of May, 2009:
- 4595 member accounts existed in the database*
- 1851 member accounts had logged on since 6/1/08
- 572 accounts had posted since 6/1/08
- 2939 accounts had never posted any comments since 2005
- 907 accounts had posted more than 5 comments since 2005
To compare 6/1/09 to 6/1/10: we’re all aware that posting activity was down over the year before (though I don’t have a number) and we know about 1300 people logged on.
So what does this prove? Not much. In a year where we asked everybody to create a new account, about 500 less actually created one than had one and used it (in the sense of “logged on to the site”) in the preceding year. Given that many of those with accounts never post, there is a percentage of those who had accounts in ‘08-‘09 and logged on who are still reading the site in ‘09-‘10 but have not made a new account.
And the trend since 6/1/09 (which started at all zeros pretty much) as been increasing forum activity and growing membership.
I kind of doubt we’re going to see 4595 again. We have no spam accounts, have more membership requirements than before, and are no longer the “amazing new thing” we were in 2005 (it did take about 4 yrs to get to 4595 even then).
To those who say the site is in decline: that’s certainly possible, but no huge shift occurred in ‘09. And I think a more likely evaluation is that we’ve moved out of our adolescence and are entering “middle age.”
But I’m personally not numbers driven. I never even ran these particular reports until today, and rarely look at any report that isn’t automatically generated. Other things being equal, of course, we’d love to see the site grow like a noxious weed, but I’m not personally interested in seeing it be a noxious weed in order to accomplish that!
The forums have definitely been going through a different stage in the last couple years while we all figured out what the culture was going to be under the new ownership (the new ownership had to figure that out, too). The sense I get from our team discussions now is that we’ve figured a whole lot of that out now and members are getting more comfortable with it as well. Time will tell.
I’ve always felt that quality is much more important than quantity, but I believe the quantity will continue to slowly increase for a while yet (and we have a number of very interesting ideas brewing.)
It may be that eventually we’ll want to actually advertise the site a little.
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.
[rogercarlson] I hope I was clear earlier. I have seen disrespect of older Fundamentalists and it was wrong (and I have said so). Bob said it well ealier. It is sad when someone who is 80 is not treated with respect.This was actually the thought I took away from http://sharperiron.org/article/few-answers-to-sharperiron-critics#comme…] James K’s post , even though he used very strong language to convey his thoughts. I can certainly understand that, having experienced the spiritual blackmail prevalent in some branches of Fundamentalism (as in other places because we are talking about a foible of human nature here, not something endemic to IFBism). I can’t see respecting a man who uses his education, status, reputation, or age to manipulate, dominate, and control others. I think it is fine to call someone on the carpet or warn others when they exhibit the kind of behavior condemned in 1 Cor. 5:11 and yet expect to escape accountability because of their age, status, or the good they did 15, 20, 30 years ago.
I have seent his both ways. Many older Fundamentalists have shown nothing but contempt for the younger. Some of them want people to follow them because they have earned the right. None of us have earned the right to not answer questions. None of us have earned the right to not give a Biblical response to our resuppositions. When we are questioned, we are all guilty of this and I think this is part of the reason we have seen this divide. Neither the YF or the OF have a corner on being right. We both blow it from time to time and often never repent of it. That needs to change.
GregH, this is a forum for (apparently young and liberal) fundamentalists. This is not a neo-evangelical forum run by George Barna and Rick Warren. They don’t care about public relations or how things are done in the business world, things that largely exist to make money off larger society by giving larger society what it wants, which is usually to feel good, and especially to feel good about itself whether it needs or deserves these good feelings or not. Instead, the young liberal fundamentalists who have all sorts of trouble with using pink/green/blue-shaded concentric ovals are trying their best to run this forum according to the Bible and its standards that the business world, that public relations people REJECT. If they were out to make friends, influence people, have a “successful site” then they’d be a “relevant/hipster Christianity site” looking for gospel messages in the latest George Clooney movie or Lady Gaga video, and promoting conferences on how Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists and fundamentalists can all unite around creation-care environmentalism.
The people who run this Bible-based site do not have to apologize for using Bible verses to describe conduct. The Bible is not a PC, sensitive book written with the goal of selling Rolex watches and compact cars in mind. And though I am not a KJV-Only sort, one of the reasons why I am “KJV-preferred” is because I hate how the newer translations have softened the language to make things seem “not so bad.” But allow me to say that a lot of the agenda-driven axe-grinding that goes on at SI and in the Christian blogosphere in general DEFINITELY falls under Proverbs 26:4-5. The Proverbs 26:4-5 shoe fits a lot of people, and they either need to wear it or change their conduct so that they can take it off. It isn’t the person who wields Proverbs 26:4-5 and uses it to correct someone that needs to be careful, it’s the person who is acting that way and being corrected that needs the caution. Because it doesn’t stop with people not wanting to be called a fool. People don’t want to be called fornicators, adulterers, liars, witches, idolaters, murderers, heretics, apostates … you name it.
Incidentally, Aaron never claimed that everyone who criticized SI was a fool. And it was your claim that Aaron ever did so that was not only a mistake, but an attempt to bully Aaron and take advantage of his confrontation-averse nature into abandoning his position and use of scripture. This isn’t some site for people looking for Joel Osteen “Your Best Life Now” or Joyce Meyer “Enjoying Everyday Life” nonsense where the ONLY thing that is ever challenged is “those narrow-minded, judgmental Pharisee fundamentalists!” We should not be declaring applications of Bible texts off limits just because the strong language hurts people’s feelings.
The people who run this Bible-based site do not have to apologize for using Bible verses to describe conduct. The Bible is not a PC, sensitive book written with the goal of selling Rolex watches and compact cars in mind. And though I am not a KJV-Only sort, one of the reasons why I am “KJV-preferred” is because I hate how the newer translations have softened the language to make things seem “not so bad.” But allow me to say that a lot of the agenda-driven axe-grinding that goes on at SI and in the Christian blogosphere in general DEFINITELY falls under Proverbs 26:4-5. The Proverbs 26:4-5 shoe fits a lot of people, and they either need to wear it or change their conduct so that they can take it off. It isn’t the person who wields Proverbs 26:4-5 and uses it to correct someone that needs to be careful, it’s the person who is acting that way and being corrected that needs the caution. Because it doesn’t stop with people not wanting to be called a fool. People don’t want to be called fornicators, adulterers, liars, witches, idolaters, murderers, heretics, apostates … you name it.
Incidentally, Aaron never claimed that everyone who criticized SI was a fool. And it was your claim that Aaron ever did so that was not only a mistake, but an attempt to bully Aaron and take advantage of his confrontation-averse nature into abandoning his position and use of scripture. This isn’t some site for people looking for Joel Osteen “Your Best Life Now” or Joyce Meyer “Enjoying Everyday Life” nonsense where the ONLY thing that is ever challenged is “those narrow-minded, judgmental Pharisee fundamentalists!” We should not be declaring applications of Bible texts off limits just because the strong language hurts people’s feelings.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[Bob T.] Sharper Iron takes on the characteristics of its posting members and its active moderators.You may not be a militant Calvinist/Reformed, but you are certainly militant and dogmatic about your own beliefs. You find it “sad and frustrating” that people don’t simply drop their beliefs and adopt yours? And you accuse others of seeking to know it all yet you happily toss around ” fail to see the clear errors of … I find that sad and frustrating”, “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” … wow. What about 80 year old Christians with Ph.D’s in theology and/or church history who disagree with you also? What of those people?
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).
Incidentally, Christianity is supposed to be a fellowship, not a caste system according to age, educational attainment, spiritual gifts or anything else. The elders are the ones who should lead, but this leadership is to be in the form of service. I disagree with the general approach and tone of the rejoinder given by James K in http://sharperiron.org/article/few-answers-to-sharperiron-critics#comme…] comment 46 , but I do state that if the Internet results in a more level playing field and gets us away from the artificial, often unjustified stratification that exists in other contexts, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
- There is a segment in Fundamentalism that wasn’t heard from as often or was even looking for an opportunity to be heard.
- There is interaction between people from broader elements of Fundamentalism that hadn’t been anywhere as frequent or publicly visible on an organizational level n the past- say, people from a midwest GARBC influence interacting with people with a southern BJU influence. There is much shared in common, but there are also subtle and different emphases.
- There are headstrong younger people who lack discernment and are quick to act before thinking.
- There are grumpy older people who lack patience and can be quick to condemn.
- We are all (young or old) capable of flaws.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
When I came back to this topic I noticed the verse on the right-hand side: James 5:9. A sincere thanks (to the admins for the feature; to God for His providence)!
Greg: I think you are correct on several counts, some of which I had not considered. However, the “perception” of which I have spoken is not mine alone. Many of my preacher brethren have voiced concerns about SI for several years now. Before anyone asks for a list of names or insists that these men contact headquarters, let me say that I’m not going to publish a list of names and that these men are not likely to get online and address the issue. Most of them are grieved, but they ignore SI, hoping it will go away.
As far as SI being a place where different segments of fundamentalism brainstorm, that may have been somewhat true in the past; but the site does not presently have a strong representation of the more conservative IFB men. It’s not that they’re not out there in great numbers. In fact, the conservative wing of the movement is growing steadily! It’s just that they’re not participating for some reason. (Some of them are reading the posts. They frequetly contact me privately when I’ve posted something.) Part of the reason for their hesitation is that they don’t want to take any lumps from guys who pounce on the conservatives or treat them like idiot chidren.
Some may argue with the accuracy of my perception and my interpretation of the perception of others. That’s fine. I KNOW what these men are saying because they are my friends. I’ve never had touble interpreting when someone is grieved over something; and many of these good men are grieved.
I’m actually not asking SI to change; but I am pointing out that a lot of guys feel alienated and even intimidated. My comments are merely perception—mine and many others. Take them for what they’re worth. Dismiss them if you like. Or, consider them a “heads up” on a situation that really exists out in the real (non-cyber) world.
As far as SI being a place where different segments of fundamentalism brainstorm, that may have been somewhat true in the past; but the site does not presently have a strong representation of the more conservative IFB men. It’s not that they’re not out there in great numbers. In fact, the conservative wing of the movement is growing steadily! It’s just that they’re not participating for some reason. (Some of them are reading the posts. They frequetly contact me privately when I’ve posted something.) Part of the reason for their hesitation is that they don’t want to take any lumps from guys who pounce on the conservatives or treat them like idiot chidren.
Some may argue with the accuracy of my perception and my interpretation of the perception of others. That’s fine. I KNOW what these men are saying because they are my friends. I’ve never had touble interpreting when someone is grieved over something; and many of these good men are grieved.
I’m actually not asking SI to change; but I am pointing out that a lot of guys feel alienated and even intimidated. My comments are merely perception—mine and many others. Take them for what they’re worth. Dismiss them if you like. Or, consider them a “heads up” on a situation that really exists out in the real (non-cyber) world.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
Marc,
I understand what you are saying about alienation and intimidation. That being said, SI has had a lot of prominent personalities in its history who are not as frequent, for a variety of reasons. One of them would likely be practical- a simple matter of time. Another might be level of effectiveness.
SI also has a variety of people who come from different perspectives. Your presence here in this discussion (as well as others in the past). Look at RPittman. Don Johnson (Jer 33:3). Bob Hayton. Larry Rogier. They all have different ways of seeing things. Which of them is definitive of “SI”?
But another thing to consider- many of your friends, I imagine, are pastors. They are used to speaking publicly in monologue. This is desirable, but it can be disconcerting when that is what you are accustomed to, and you say something online and someone responds with a contradictory view. I don’t think that venue is ideal for Sunday preaching. But SI isn’t a preaching forum- for better or worse, it is a discussion forum.
There are things that ought to be considered as far as how that discussion is conducted. There are things that have been assumed that perhaps ought to be challenged, though too- if for no other reason than to strengthen the perception that the thing still has merit. Better it be challenged here and you consider and offer a careful counter than you enter into controversy at a local ministry level blindsided and unprepared.
I understand what you are saying about alienation and intimidation. That being said, SI has had a lot of prominent personalities in its history who are not as frequent, for a variety of reasons. One of them would likely be practical- a simple matter of time. Another might be level of effectiveness.
SI also has a variety of people who come from different perspectives. Your presence here in this discussion (as well as others in the past). Look at RPittman. Don Johnson (Jer 33:3). Bob Hayton. Larry Rogier. They all have different ways of seeing things. Which of them is definitive of “SI”?
But another thing to consider- many of your friends, I imagine, are pastors. They are used to speaking publicly in monologue. This is desirable, but it can be disconcerting when that is what you are accustomed to, and you say something online and someone responds with a contradictory view. I don’t think that venue is ideal for Sunday preaching. But SI isn’t a preaching forum- for better or worse, it is a discussion forum.
There are things that ought to be considered as far as how that discussion is conducted. There are things that have been assumed that perhaps ought to be challenged, though too- if for no other reason than to strengthen the perception that the thing still has merit. Better it be challenged here and you consider and offer a careful counter than you enter into controversy at a local ministry level blindsided and unprepared.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg LInscott]….many of your friends, I imagine, are pastors. They are used to speaking publicly in monologueThe internet will either help reform fundamentalism or kill it.
Example: 40 years ago. I asked my Pastor what was wrong with interracial marriage (a question about a comment in one of his messages). HIs response was something like this - It’s obvious …. they even smell different.
As a new Christian I had one spiritual point of reference. Now Christians have thousands.
I was a Pastor. I would make make pronouncements (none of them as stupid as the one above). I didn’t like to be questioned. I suppose that is human nature.
Marc,
I don’t discount the perception of your friends (or mine). But I think if men are going to be critical, they should at least contact Aaron directly. I stand by that. My record here has been pretty clear. If I have a problem with someone, I go to them directly. It has helped me make many friends in the process. :) Even if I didn’t gain one friend, it is still right. I think Jim’s comments are helpful here. Non of us like being challenged, but it is helpful for us to be challenged. But it should be done in a kind and loving way. I think that is something all of us need to work on.
I don’t discount the perception of your friends (or mine). But I think if men are going to be critical, they should at least contact Aaron directly. I stand by that. My record here has been pretty clear. If I have a problem with someone, I go to them directly. It has helped me make many friends in the process. :) Even if I didn’t gain one friend, it is still right. I think Jim’s comments are helpful here. Non of us like being challenged, but it is helpful for us to be challenged. But it should be done in a kind and loving way. I think that is something all of us need to work on.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
with Marc. I sought to adress the same issues in my posts on this thread.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Many of my preacher brethren have voiced concerns about SI for several years now…these men are not likely to get online and address the issue. Most of them are grieved, but they ignore SI, hoping it will go away.So- these men do not like Sharper Iron, it does not benefit them in any way, they do not wish to contact the admin with concerns, advice or insight, they have no intention of ever using the site, they ‘ignore’ it- but yet they discuss the site with others in less-than-favorable terms because the presence of this site grieves them and thus they want it to ‘go away’.
Just checkin’.
Susan, you rightly understood my post.
Right now there are people who will not post on SI anymore, but will announce to the 10s of people who read their site information regarding SI. Steady updates are posted about what goes on over here. These people perfectly act out exactly what I was saying in my first post. They no longer control information. They no longer have a mindless army to command. These types are using the blogs to recruit fellow bitter and disenfranchised people. So more and more people feel wronged and so they post their big resignations and then go shout from behind their walls. This is not a strategic retreat, this is cowardice.
I have no personal anger toward these people. I truly am saddened that so many within fundamentalism refuse to understand the actual roots and causes of the movement. It is no longer actually about theology, it is about preserve a movement at all costs. SI undermines them, so they flee. Their blogs have become refugee camps for those too lazy to understand the scriptures, fundamentalism, and history. Those who have a heart to fight, will fight themselves when there is no one else.
Right now there are people who will not post on SI anymore, but will announce to the 10s of people who read their site information regarding SI. Steady updates are posted about what goes on over here. These people perfectly act out exactly what I was saying in my first post. They no longer control information. They no longer have a mindless army to command. These types are using the blogs to recruit fellow bitter and disenfranchised people. So more and more people feel wronged and so they post their big resignations and then go shout from behind their walls. This is not a strategic retreat, this is cowardice.
I have no personal anger toward these people. I truly am saddened that so many within fundamentalism refuse to understand the actual roots and causes of the movement. It is no longer actually about theology, it is about preserve a movement at all costs. SI undermines them, so they flee. Their blogs have become refugee camps for those too lazy to understand the scriptures, fundamentalism, and history. Those who have a heart to fight, will fight themselves when there is no one else.
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.
JobK, just letting you know I read your post so you know you did not write it in vain. I found it quite entertaining, but am not going to respond to it.
Susan, Bingo! You got it! That’s exactly what I said. An astoundingly perfect interpretation of the reality I know! These dear pastors—great men with decades of ministry experience—feel exactly that way: grieved but unwilling to do anything directly about it for a variety of reasons. Unless my perception is faulty, I get the idea that you don’t exactly believe me. That’s O.K. I only shared this perspective in an effort to help. Sometimes it’s important to face a PR problem. Sometimes it’s easier to pretend it isn’t there. I really don’t mind that you question my perception, however, I hope you do not question my integrity in this matter. I am only an occasional contributor to SI and I have no real reason to grind an axe. I just thought my personal “on the ground” observations could be helpful to those seeking to chart the future course of SI. It’s awfully hard to tell the emporer he has no clothes.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
[Pastor Marc Monte] Susan, Bingo! You got it! That’s exactly what I said. An astoundingly perfect interpretation of the reality I know! These dear pastors—great men with decades of ministry experience—feel exactly that way: grieved but unwilling to do anything directly about it for a variety of reasons. Unless my perception is faulty, I get the idea that you don’t exactly believe me. That’s O.K. I only shared this perspective in an effort to help. Sometimes it’s important to face a PR problem. Sometimes it’s easier to pretend it isn’t there. I really don’t mind that you question my perception, however, I hope you do not question my integrity in this matter. I am only an occasional contributor to SI and I have no real reason to grind an axe. I just thought my personal “on the ground” observations could be helpful to those seeking to chart the future course of SI. It’s awfully hard to tell the emporer he has no clothes.I can only speak to one case. I think he skimmed though once or twice; disliked the atmosphere (though this may have been in the more heated days of yore). The brother in question has enough on his plate that he can not afford the time to post here. ‘Sides, writing effectively is a different talent than speaking (preaching) effectively. I was trained to extemporaneously preach from an outline and still do. That’s a different skill set than faceless corresponding here on SI. The men I know have no problems in carrying on challenging face to face conversations. Again, another case of tarring a whole generation with the folly of a subset.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
I really do not mean to belittle anyone—much less an entire demographic—when I say this, but all this vague back and fourth about “preachers I talk to” and “older generation” etc. is pointless. Until they tell me what I ought to do differently and why, I simply have nothing to work with and it’s as simple as that. I’m quite comfortable moving on. It’s not like everybody has to like SI. If a few dozen or a few hundred don’t see much value in it (or worse yet, think it’s toxic) that’s OK. They have no obligation to even care about what happens here.
But if they do, the contact form is there. I have nothing more to say than that.
But if they do, the contact form is there. I have nothing more to say than that.
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 don’t question your perception or integrity- it helps me to pin down ideas I’m not quite sure I understand to reiterate them. Thanks for confirming some things for me.
Pastor Monte,
What do you do when someone in your church comes to you and says, “There’s a bunch of people who don’t like your preaching/leadership/style/haircut. They’re not comfortable talking to you about it, but I just thought you should know.”
What do you do when someone in your church comes to you and says, “There’s a bunch of people who don’t like your preaching/leadership/style/haircut. They’re not comfortable talking to you about it, but I just thought you should know.”
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Greg: In 23 years of pastoral ministry, that has never happened. If I hear of an individual who is concerned about something, I go to that person. If they don’t want to reveal who they are, I consider the facts of the problem as I understand them and upon them (or not) as I think I should. If I think a problem is arising in the church, I address it firmly from the pulpit. SI is a not a church. It is an information website. It is in the best interest of the website to understand what its constituency or potential constituency is thinking. If they’re thinking negatively, it is the decision of the owner to act as he will with that information. The resturant I ate at last night had me fill out a survey of my opinion. They’re interested in how I felt as a customer. That is legitimate. I had no idea that sharing the true attitude of my friends about SI would engender such discussion.
It was my perception that the SI staff was interested in finding out what people are thinking about the site. I have accurately shared the attitudes of my ministry brethren. That’s all. I certainly don’t want to offend anyone or unnecessarily hurt anyone’s feelings. It was my thought that the SI management wanted to know the information I shared. I’m just trying to be a blessing!
It was my perception that the SI staff was interested in finding out what people are thinking about the site. I have accurately shared the attitudes of my ministry brethren. That’s all. I certainly don’t want to offend anyone or unnecessarily hurt anyone’s feelings. It was my thought that the SI management wanted to know the information I shared. I’m just trying to be a blessing!
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
Here at SI and in other places, I believe there are many of us who simply do not believe that was it being passed off as “old school” fundamentalism is truly from the old school. In the old days of fundamentalism, there was a greater spirit of unity in spite of differences. Some of the people that claim “old school” today just do not believe you can have the unity that existed in early fundamentalism.
[MMonte] It is in the best interest of the website to understand what its constituency or potential constituency is thinkingYes. And we’ve given folks lots of opportunities to communicate. Until they do, the whole matter is moot.
I’m not going to chase ghosts.
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.
What I have always appreciated about SI is how there is a level field here. We speak to each other as equals. That doesn’t mean some of us may have more education or less education, more experience or less experience, more disernment or less, etc… However, as we interact our comments have to stand on their own reasoning and consistency. Yes there are times others will respond wrongly to me, or I will respond wrongly to others….but then a brother or sister or moderator will challenge me privatly (or not) and then I have a chance to grow in my communication skills. Yes, it’s often messy - but then again we are often messy. It’s part of hanging with the body of Christ. I appreciate Bob and Monty in that they speak on behalf of some men who scoff at SI. I don’t know that I’ve ever disagreed with Monty. I have disagreed often with Bob. But at least they’re here. As a matter of fact they demonstrate they care for the SI community in that they participate. I would ask especially Monty to encourage those brothers to get an account with us and share from time to time. They don’t have to do it every day. For that matter they could just share once in a while. If they really love us and think that we as a group should be more Biblically-oriented or clear-headed, why not risk whatever it is that they feel they risk and share that with us? Frankly it adds to the SI community to have a variety of views…If truth is effective, why not throw their hat in the ring instead of boycot? I can’t judge the motive of why a brother would not participate here and then complain about SI, but I suspect that more than a few leaders are not used to the playing field that SI is. Some who don’t like us are used to coming into a room and automatically have a “higher standing” because they have done this or that, or they knew he or she, or because they are so-in-so. That smacks of elitism - of course only God knows the heart. Let me speak about a different group of SI critics. Warning - I’m going to really step on the end of a branch for a few of you….let me be….dare I say….psychological for just a moment. SI represents a new “feel” in a cyber-oriented community. Like it or not - agree with it or not - SI has been the face of “young fundamentalism” in the eyes of many. Change is hard, especially for those who relish the “good ol’ days.” My guess is - when I’m Bob’s age, I’ll have the same kind of reservations others in his group might have towards a new “group” or new “feel” like SI has to come off to some of these brothers that Monty refers to. I think what would help us is to speak with respect about dear brothers who truly love the Lord, love his body but who have reservations about what SI is. If they never come to a place of wanting to participate here we ought to reach out to them as much as we can in our private sphere’s of fellowship. The only way they will find out that we are indeed not liberal, not the newest edition of Billy Graham or not whatever…..is for them to get to know us. The only way that’s usually going to happen is for us to reach out to them. My experience has been that usually they will meet you for coffee and once they get to know and trust you, it’s a better picture. In other words nothing is helped when we react to SI critics with an equal critical spirit. Let’s assume the best. Let’s also remember this. Many of these older men remember that newevangelicalism of the 50’s created theological confusion like Daniel Fuller. NE and other break-offs (at least in there minds) from what they know as fundamentalism often resulted in compromised Christianity. Can we not for one moment respect those fears? I think we can and must! It frankly is OK for these men to warn younger men of what has happened in the past. It frankly is stupid for those of us who are younger to ignore the wisdom of older men who love us and love the Lord. You don’t have to agree with everything they say, but we better listen to what they say. A few thoughts. At 42 I’m starting to ramble…..hmmmm.
Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - As Joe noted we really should pass the cider and break some bread together around the campfire. Nothing better than the koinonia man!
Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - As Joe noted we really should pass the cider and break some bread together around the campfire. Nothing better than the koinonia man!
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[Joel] we really should pass the ciderLeave it to Tetreau… Somehow at SI, it always comes down to Music, Separation, Bible Versions, and ALCOHOL… :D
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
I think this comment section provides a good microcosm of fundamentalism as it stands today. Someone presents an opinion on an issue and everyone draws their knives to attack them. The arguing and bickering here and with the article associated with the Central Seminary Ethos statement demonstrate why many younger folks are not satisfied with fundamentalism as it has been the last 30 years - it seems to be more about who we don’t like than what we are for. Why does there have to be so much emotion and anger in every comment thread on this site? Why can’t we focus our arguments on what the Scriptures say and stop the petty bickering?
[Pastor Marc Monte] Greg: In 23 years of pastoral ministry, that has never happened. If I hear of an individual who is concerned about something, I go to that person. If they don’t want to reveal who they are, I consider the facts of the problem as I understand them and upon them (or not) as I think I should. If I think a problem is arising in the church, I address it firmly from the pulpit. SI is a not a church. It is an information website. It is in the best interest of the website to understand what its constituency or potential constituency is thinking. If they’re thinking negatively, it is the decision of the owner to act as he will with that information. The resturant I ate at last night had me fill out a survey of my opinion. They’re interested in how I felt as a customer. That is legitimate. I had no idea that sharing the true attitude of my friends about SI would engender such discussion.I don’t mean to interrupt, but Greg preempted me. All I have to say is, Wow. In less than a decade of pastoral ministry, that has happened quite a few times to me. Perhaps this is due to different styles of leadership; I don’t really know. All I know is that it is maddeningly frustrating, and I would appreciate an older, seasoned pastor to share some wisdom on this. What do I do? Should I ignore it completely until people have the guts to speak to me face-to-face? Should I take it at face value and act accordingly? Should I give a shotgun blast in the next sermon, hoping to hit those who are disaffected? Should I politely encourage my informer to a) deliver a message for me, b) bring one of the “offendees” to meet with me, or c) stop listening to gossip? And what do I do when I find out - as I have in the past - that the “some people” of whom I am being informed, really only amount to 2 or 3? (Please take these as sincere questions.)
It was my perception that the SI staff was interested in finding out what people are thinking about the site. I have accurately shared the attitudes of my ministry brethren. That’s all. I certainly don’t want to offend anyone or unnecessarily hurt anyone’s feelings. It was my thought that the SI management wanted to know the information I shared. I’m just trying to be a blessing!
And so, I want to question you about these men. They are upset about SI and the segment of fundamentalism represented here, but they have not addressed “us?” Why not? I know you said that they were afraid of being shouted down, and others have examined that bit of reasoning. But I want to know: have they just given up? Surely they desire God’s glory through the preachers and Christians and families represented here, but they believe that we have forsaken the old paths. If SI matters so much to them that they feel the need to discuss it, then why won’t they step up and try to make a difference?
I don’t mean to be jumping into the fray and taking the place of others; I just want to know more about your friends. I’m pastoring in a lone outpost (of fundamentalism) in SW Alabama, and I have questions, thoughts, and ideas. SI has been a great place to challenge my assumptions, question my conclusions, and encourage different tracks of thought. Frankly, it’s discouraging to hear of so many brothers who disapprove of the general trend of my generation but will not share their wisdom. So, who are these guys? What help do they offer?
Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.
I said in an earlier post:
So in any case, I was wrong, and I’d like to thank the person who pointed it out. Kudos to you.
edit - fixed link.
[Jay C.] 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.Someone who is no longer a member here pointed out that what I wrote didn’t jibe with http://sharperiron.org/article/lets-get-clear#comment-11042] what Aaron said on the matter . I don’t exactly recall the whole ordeal (it took place in March), but I’m glad that this person brought it to my attention. Aaron is correct and that the attribution of the “letter” wasn’t as much of an issue for the admin / mod team, but the tone and personal attacks contained in it were. I know that I felt it wasn’t clear enough that the letter was written by another person (not Clearwaters); the personal tone was something that others (rightly) picked up on and that wound up being the ‘actionable’ offense.
So in any case, I was wrong, and I’d like to thank the person who pointed it out. Kudos to you.
edit - fixed link.
"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
It is interesting to me to read this discussion through in one setting. Let me first say that I enjoy reading SI. I do not post much because of the time that it takes, but I enjoy reading the discussion that goes on, and I appreciate the owner and moderators and all that they do - thank you!
I think it is important to remember why Sharper Iron was started. When Jason put together the survey and announced the blog at the conference many years ago now, the whole purpose was to give young fundamentalists and place to go to discuss ideas and their thoughts. My take on it was that at the time it was really hard for the YF’ers to have an opportunity to share their concerns about the movement (especially without being told to sit down and be quiet because we were too young to understand). So is it a surprise that there are some of the “Old Guard” that don’t like SI? Greg (or another original) can give a better history lesson than I, but I do think that it is important to remember why it is that this site was started.
I think it is important to remember why Sharper Iron was started. When Jason put together the survey and announced the blog at the conference many years ago now, the whole purpose was to give young fundamentalists and place to go to discuss ideas and their thoughts. My take on it was that at the time it was really hard for the YF’ers to have an opportunity to share their concerns about the movement (especially without being told to sit down and be quiet because we were too young to understand). So is it a surprise that there are some of the “Old Guard” that don’t like SI? Greg (or another original) can give a better history lesson than I, but I do think that it is important to remember why it is that this site was started.
Discussion