Ideas, Not People
Should SharperIron serve as a place for people to out other people, especially leaders?
We don’t have a “final” answer to that question. What we do have is a clear idea of what SharperIron has been about so far and what it’s about right now. It is not about victim advocacy, justice, exposing coverups or holding evil-doers accountable.
For a few months (especially the last six weeks or so), conversations have been occurring in various places on the ‘Net expressing various levels of displeasure regarding SharperIron’s failure to “publish something about x” or “say something about y” or “hold z accountable.”
We’ve had a fair amount of discussion about that, and related matters, on the moderating team. Several of us have had conversations with concerned individuals outside the team.
The time seems right to try to clarify a couple of things.
Why SharperIron is not a place for “outing” people
1. No website can be about everything.
Though SI has “scooped” a story a few times in it’s six-plus years, that sort of thing has been more the exception than the rule. In almost every case, if something has turned out to be “big news” after it hit SI, it would have been big news anyway, because we learned of it through some published news outlet. So making news—especially about individuals—has not been “our thing.”
The site began with the publication of results of a survey of young fundamentalists. People wanted to talk about the issues on the minds of these men and women, the related theology, the history and direction of the fundamentalist movement, etc.
In short, the site began as a place to talk about ideas. Talk about individuals has had a role, as it often must in talking about ideas, but it wasn’t what we set out to do in the beginning and isn’t what we’re interested in doing now.
No website can be about everything, and each is free to decide what it wants to be about. We don’t want to be about outing leaders.
2. SI has no news division.
SharperIron is almost never in a position to do the kind of fact checking that a reputable investigative reporting site has to do. We have no full time staff at all, much less a professional reporting staff. Still, it might be helpful to compare us to a gigantic media conglomerate for moment. Take CBS. There’s CBS and then there’s CBS News. SharperIron is SI, and there is no SI News.
There’s a reason they do that. CBS News exists for the purpose of digging up info, sorting out conflicting claims and reporting. It’s operated by people who know more than “the TV business.” They have to know “the news business.”
We don’t have people like that.
Now if somebody with the skills and money wants to talk about launching that, we could definitely have a conversation or two. But we are not interested in publishing rumors about people. And if we cannot verify information or take it on faith in an institution that exists for that purpose (i.e., a news-gathering institution), it doesn’t matter how serious the charge is, how powerful the leader is or how “IFB” (Independent Fundamental Baptist, for those just tuning in) the leader or ministry is. The information is still rumor from our point of view.
Not only is SI free of any obligation to publish that sort of info. It’s got a Christian duty not to publish it.
You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord. (ESV, Lev.19:16)
Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices (Col. 3:9)
For “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit” (1 Pet. 3:10)
3. People don’t need that from us.
In the history of the world, it’s never been easier to publish information—widely and rapidly—exposing hidden evil, unraveling conspiracies, holding leaders accountable and bringing powerful thugs to justice.
If SharperIron is silent about one issue or another, the overall sound level of the published word is not affected in the least. Our saying “don’t post that here” stops no one from posting it somewhere else or calling a local newspaper or TV station (or “20/20”).
As far as Internet options go, lots of what we’d rather not host here would be more than welcome in other forums. If you’re seriously looking for options, we’d be happy to point you in the right direction. The site contact form is the easiest way to reach us.
4. Where the power is.
If SharperIron has any power at all, it lies in our being able post thought-provoking articles about the principles and values that shape the choices our readers make, in posting news of particular interest to you, and in providing a place where you can discuss practical, theoretical, spiritual or just experiential concerns.
Nobody ever asks us whom they should invite to speak at conferences or church events. Nobody consults us in deciding how much to pay their ministry leaders, or how to handle their organizational conflicts or what policies they should adopt. People don’t seek our permission when they’re hiring pastors or professors or presidents or paper shufflers. They don’t ask us whom they should fire.
In short, we don’t have any organizational or institutional power in fundamentalism (or anywhere else). In reality that sort of power is so distributed now that no individual or ministry has enough of it to do the kinds of things some people seem to think SharperIron should do. But we have pretty much zero power of that kind.
What you can do
In light of these four reasons (and probably others), if your desire is to expose the wrongdoing of some leader or ministry, don’t plan to post it here. Instead, here’s what you can do:
If a crime is involved, take the matter to the authorities. God “has people” for that kind of work (Rom. 13:1-5).
If an ethics violation (but not a crime) is involved, seek resolution within the organization where the wrongdoing has occurred.
If that’s impossible, get your facts together—including information about how they can be verified by third parties—and write a well documented exposé. We don’t promise to publish anything before we’ve seen it, but we’ll definitely look at it.
If a matter has already been reported in news outlets (which have, presumably done fact checking homework) you can send us a Filings tip or start a forum thread (in compliance with the Comment Policy).
If SI or some other site doesn’t want to publish, there’s always Facebook or Youtube—or you can start your own blog. In some cases, even though we may not want to run the story here, if the facts look solid, we may link to you and help in that way. We do have people who know how to start blogs. You might be surprised how easy it is.
What’s a “coverup”?
One more thing: “coverup” has recently become a popular term in some corners of the ‘Net in reference to “IFB.” Some have argued that if SI is not aggressive in unearthing information about this or that, it is participating in a coverup. But for a “coverup” to occur, three conditions must be met.
- You have information about the matter.
- You have a responsibiity to disclose the information to a third party (due to law, ethical principle or both). The “third party” may be an authority figure, law enforcement officials, or possibly the general public.
- You act to keep that information from getting to that third party (by lying, hiding the information, remaining silent, etc.).
It isn’t reasonable to define a coverup as “failure to do detective work and obtain information that a third party thinks you should give them.”
When it comes to handling sensitive information, our aim at SharperIron is to be biblically responsible both in the revealing of information and in the concealing of it.
Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered. (Prov. 11:13)
Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler. (Prov. 20:19)
Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ (Eph. 4:15)
- Aaron, Jim, Susan, Jay, Dave and some (but not all…yet!) other SI volunteers
I’m new to SI, having registered 6 months ago after visiting for a couple years. I very much like the “tone” here and what I perceive is a desire to exchange viewpoints on controversial areas without injury to the contributors of opposing views. How refreshing that is. The logic and analysis in this article coupled with detailed recommendations for alternate venue’s for addressing legitimate legal or ethical violations serves as an example of the quality of SI. A tip of the hat to the editors for maintaining the status quo.
Appreciate that, Dan.
We’re sincere about helping folks find a place to make their voice heard. I’m not in favor of silencing anybody. That isn’t my job (anybody’s?). But that isn’t the same as saying we want to bear responsibility for promoting every allegation or insinuation someone wants to make. If they can start their own blog or use Facebook, etc., the responsibility will be their own to bear. That seems fair to me.
Meanwhile, if there’s a millionaire out there who wants to help launch a SharperIron Ivestigative Reporting Division… well, again, we’d be really interested in talking about that. Nobody on the current team has the time and money to do that right (and it’s not the sort of thing that ought to be done poorly).
We’re sincere about helping folks find a place to make their voice heard. I’m not in favor of silencing anybody. That isn’t my job (anybody’s?). But that isn’t the same as saying we want to bear responsibility for promoting every allegation or insinuation someone wants to make. If they can start their own blog or use Facebook, etc., the responsibility will be their own to bear. That seems fair to me.
Meanwhile, if there’s a millionaire out there who wants to help launch a SharperIron Ivestigative Reporting Division… well, again, we’d be really interested in talking about that. Nobody on the current team has the time and money to do that right (and it’s not the sort of thing that ought to be done poorly).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, thanks for explaining SI’s position and purpose so well with regard to this issue. It really helps clear up a few things.
I think it’s important to elaborate on two ideas that are implicit in your article, if not explicitly stated:
1). There is a difference between someone’s post and an SI article. Recently, I had a communication from someone complaining about your failure to publish the story about “X” in your article (I presume I know what you’re talking about), while continuing your persecution of Pastor Phelps. Of course, SI has not persecuted Pastor Phelps. Individuals have posted observations about one set of decisions out of many in his long years of ministry. They were relevant to the conversation at hand, but hardly an expose’ or even an accusation, much less a “persecution”.
2). Ideas and persons in SI threads will always be inter-linked. We discuss concepts, and the actions of persons are analyzed with regard to those concepts. Or a person acts in a certain way, which provokes a discussion of the philosophy behind or wisdom of those actions. People will always get injected into threads. But I prefer for SI to be about ideas rather than people, and I see that this is your intent. As I said in the discussion of the New Hampshire debacle, the goal should be to figure out what we can do better, not to crucify a pastor who we believe acted in an ill-advised manner.
I hope I haven’t bent your ideas in ways you didn’t want. These are just a few things I thought about as I read your article.
I think it’s important to elaborate on two ideas that are implicit in your article, if not explicitly stated:
1). There is a difference between someone’s post and an SI article. Recently, I had a communication from someone complaining about your failure to publish the story about “X” in your article (I presume I know what you’re talking about), while continuing your persecution of Pastor Phelps. Of course, SI has not persecuted Pastor Phelps. Individuals have posted observations about one set of decisions out of many in his long years of ministry. They were relevant to the conversation at hand, but hardly an expose’ or even an accusation, much less a “persecution”.
2). Ideas and persons in SI threads will always be inter-linked. We discuss concepts, and the actions of persons are analyzed with regard to those concepts. Or a person acts in a certain way, which provokes a discussion of the philosophy behind or wisdom of those actions. People will always get injected into threads. But I prefer for SI to be about ideas rather than people, and I see that this is your intent. As I said in the discussion of the New Hampshire debacle, the goal should be to figure out what we can do better, not to crucify a pastor who we believe acted in an ill-advised manner.
I hope I haven’t bent your ideas in ways you didn’t want. These are just a few things I thought about as I read your article.
Well, off and on, I’ve emphasized since I got involved heavily in ‘08 that I don’t think fundamentalism needs more focus on people. It could stand more thinking, though. Occasionally, real life examples help thinking. Human nature being what it is, and our culture being what it is—so much attention and energy is absorbed by fame and infamy.
I don’t see a lot of value in our contributing much to either of those two.
In the Phelps controversy, it was a lose-lose scenario for us pretty much from day one. Where emotions run hot, people “see” attacks and defenses whether they are there or not. My own experience through that has been interesting. Some have characterized a post as toting some defensive party line while others have characterized the same post as a vicious attack on the same character. Still others would read it as a personal attack on a third party (such as Tina A.) and still others as an endorsement of pedophilia.
One can either take all that seriously and pull his hair out or he can shrug and say hey, that’s how people are and not worry too much about it.
In any case, I think SI’s contribution is better in the areas of ideas than people whether it’s the forums or the front page. Not everybody on the team shares my degree of conviction on that point.
I don’t see a lot of value in our contributing much to either of those two.
In the Phelps controversy, it was a lose-lose scenario for us pretty much from day one. Where emotions run hot, people “see” attacks and defenses whether they are there or not. My own experience through that has been interesting. Some have characterized a post as toting some defensive party line while others have characterized the same post as a vicious attack on the same character. Still others would read it as a personal attack on a third party (such as Tina A.) and still others as an endorsement of pedophilia.
One can either take all that seriously and pull his hair out or he can shrug and say hey, that’s how people are and not worry too much about it.
In any case, I think SI’s contribution is better in the areas of ideas than people whether it’s the forums or the front page. Not everybody on the team shares my degree of conviction on that point.
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.
Would be some proper analysis from a fundamentalist point of view. I understand that you are just passing on reports of the case, but it all left me with lots of questions. What was wrong with what Pastor Phelps did? What could have been done different? And what should be our policies in cases of sexual abuse?
It is easy to see “bashing” in different areas. I’m also concerned about the “bashing” of some of the SI clientele. How is that regulated?
It is easy to see “bashing” in different areas. I’m also concerned about the “bashing” of some of the SI clientele. How is that regulated?
What was wrong with what Pastor Phelps did?We don’t know everything he did, so how do we comment intelligently and accurately on that? Not to mention that there is more than one version of events- it’s a veritable Golden Corral of speculations and theories.
What could have been done different?If we aren’t sure about the details of what was said and done, it’s still an exercise in speculation. It seems to me that when we start answering according to the general information we do have, we still end up tangled in missing particulars.
And what should be our policies in cases of sexual abuse?That is the most beneficial and productive question IMO, and the one that most needs to be answered.
I’m also concerned about the “bashing” of some of the SI clientele. How is that regulated?If you think a post has violated the http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] Comment Policy , you can ‘flag’ it (there is a link below each post for this purpose) and the mods will take a look at it. Many times people answer for themselves, and when they do, we tend to leave it alone unless intervention is requested or things get out of hand. Also, the mod team is composed of volunteers who check in at their convenience.
And what should be our policies in cases of sexual abuse?Actually, Mike Durning already started that thread, although it seems to have been forgotten or buried. It’s at http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-dealing-with-abusemolestation-prope….That is the most beneficial and productive question IMO, and the one that most needs to be answered.
In my opinion, the only really worthwhile thing to discuss at this point is how to prevent/handle allegations of this type in the future properly. Of course, that will vary state-to-state because of different laws and such, but if SI can at least get that conversation rolling for pastors and other churches, then we’ve done our job.
"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
Let’s not have another “Phelps thread,” eh? That would be sort of ironic given the topic of the article. ;)
But plenty can be learned from that and lots of other cases without focusing on the people involved and without ever coming to your own verdict about it. My mind’s more than a little woozy from travel today, so this may not be very clear, but I’ll give it a go…
Suppose there’s a scandal about a pastor who is accused of embezelling a bunch of money from his church. He says it was all an honest mistake. Others say it was outright theft. You hear both sides. Suppose you have trouble deciding whom to believe and say so… others tell you “Well it’s obvious that…” but opposite ideas are “obvious” to different people. You start to wonder, “Do I really have to pass judgment?” Somebody says, “But we need to learn lessons from this, so yes, you have to arrive at a verdict. You have to understand what really happened.”
But that’s actually not true. You can learn more if you don’t pass judgment. It works by playing “What if?” and then thinking through all the lessons of each possibility.
But plenty can be learned from that and lots of other cases without focusing on the people involved and without ever coming to your own verdict about it. My mind’s more than a little woozy from travel today, so this may not be very clear, but I’ll give it a go…
But that’s actually not true. You can learn more if you don’t pass judgment. It works by playing “What if?” and then thinking through all the lessons of each possibility.
- What if the pastor is telling the truth? What lessons can I learn? (About handling funds, about documenation, about dealing with accusations, etc., etc.)
- What if the pastor is lying? What lessons can I learn? (About need for accountability, need for stronger emphasis on ministerial ethics in seminary, need for better procedures in churches, etc.)
Now what if you had passed judgment and then only considered what you could learn from that scenario? You learn roughly 50% less.
My point is just that what can be learned from analyizing real world cases can often be learned just as well by rigorous use of the imagination. And what can be learned by passing judgment in a situation where there are conflicting claims can often be learned just and well and then some by not passing judgment.
So a focus on ideas—and intentional employment of the imagination (using hypotheticals, etc.)—does not short change the learning process in the long run.
To quote lots of people smarter than me… Ideas have consequences.
Of course, “what we can learn” is a separate question from “how is justice going to be acheived?” A major point of the OP is that SI is not in a good position to pursue justice and our history is not a justice-pursuing history. We’re in a much better position to deal with “What can we learn?” That doesn’t help with justice problem, no—but since ideas have consequences, we should not underrate the impact of “what we can learn.”
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.
“You can learn more if you don’t pass judgment.”
Very well said. And it goes beyond simply the case of conflicting claims to the possibility that there are facts that no one is revealing, for good or bad reasons.
“Love believes all things.” That doesn’t mean we’re stupid, but it does mean we are commanded to believe the best we can about our brothers and sisters. And that means that we hold open the possibility that their actions are better than they look to us. That requires, as you’ve said, Aaron, imagination.
And as you’ve said, we’ll learn a lot more that way, as well.
Very well said. And it goes beyond simply the case of conflicting claims to the possibility that there are facts that no one is revealing, for good or bad reasons.
“Love believes all things.” That doesn’t mean we’re stupid, but it does mean we are commanded to believe the best we can about our brothers and sisters. And that means that we hold open the possibility that their actions are better than they look to us. That requires, as you’ve said, Aaron, imagination.
And as you’ve said, we’ll learn a lot more that way, as well.
I have been a poster on SI since almost the beginning. While I understand what you are saying, it seems odd. I want to respect the thread, but I have a question. Let’s take the issue that brought this thread up. If there is something to this new case, does that mean SI wont report it under filings? Does that mean we do not discuss it? I will do my best to respect the decision, but I don’t agree with it. I don’t think there is any real way to apply this, without it looking like we are ignoring sin our camp.
JG,
I agree with what you are saying. But if it is clear also clear that the most loving thing to do is to call out sin. My problem is that we have always lighter on are fellow Fundamentalists and harder evangelicals. IMO, it should be the other way around. We should hold each other accountable.
JG,
I agree with what you are saying. But if it is clear also clear that the most loving thing to do is to call out sin. My problem is that we have always lighter on are fellow Fundamentalists and harder evangelicals. IMO, it should be the other way around. We should hold each other accountable.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[rogercarlson] I have been a poster on SI since almost the beginning. While I understand what you are saying, it seems odd. I want to respect the thread, but I have a question. Let’s take the issue that brought this thread up. If there is something to this new case, does that mean SI wont report it under filings? Does that mean we do not discuss it? I will do my best to respect the decision, but I don’t agree with it. I don’t think there is any real way to apply this, without it looking like we are ignoring sin our camp.Roger-
I can’t speak for Aaron, but I believe that the team’s consensus is that if something is verifiable and true, we’ll consider it as a filing. If someone comes to us and says ‘rogercarlson is embezzling money from his church’ - we’re going to direct them to the police for investigation and not run it on SI. Now, once there’s an arrest and legal report, then we would run that as a filing. Does that illustration make sense?
We do not want to ignore “sin in the camp” at all - we just want to make sure we have facts for what’s reported as opposed to allegations of sin that aren’t verifiable but make for ‘hot’ gossip by people who are really just being busybodies (2 Thess. 3:11-12).
"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
Aaron,
Thanks for this post. I really appreciate the spirit here.
You mentioned that “ideas have consequences.” I like the idea that we can withhold judgment and learn more from a situation. I do. However, I would like to flip it around a little. If ideas have consequences, then consequences say something about ideas too. So sometimes we learn better when we can determine just what the consequences were. That way we can see what impact the effects of the idea had in real-world circumstances. Some may say this is could tend towards pragmatism or gossip, but ascertaining what happened (say, in an embezzlement) is important to how we learn from it.
Shayne
Thanks for this post. I really appreciate the spirit here.
You mentioned that “ideas have consequences.” I like the idea that we can withhold judgment and learn more from a situation. I do. However, I would like to flip it around a little. If ideas have consequences, then consequences say something about ideas too. So sometimes we learn better when we can determine just what the consequences were. That way we can see what impact the effects of the idea had in real-world circumstances. Some may say this is could tend towards pragmatism or gossip, but ascertaining what happened (say, in an embezzlement) is important to how we learn from it.
Shayne
[rogercarlson] I agree with what you are saying. But if it is clear also clear that the most loving thing to do is to call out sin.If it is clear, that is often true. Although the goal, when there is repentance, is not “calling out” but restoration. And I’m not sure what the first century equivalent of Internet condemnation was, but I don’t see a lot of it. Peter gets a mention, so do some others, but either those first century churches were really, really amazingly pure places, or there was a whole lot of sin running around that wasn’t called out. It’s obvious public rebuke has it’s place, especially with elders. But if we’re going to be calling out world wide sin on the world wide web, it seems we’re going to be pretty busy.
One problem is that, in an Internet age, we’re quick to “call out sin” when, at times, it was no worse than an error in judgment. Sometimes it isn’t even that. Appearances can be deceiving, someone jumps on it and makes accusations, and the person has done nothing wrong. There’s still lessons to be learned, either way, but if we’re “calling out sin” we’re doing our brother AND our Lord a grave disservice if we don’t have certainty.
When is it our place and our responsibility to do this? Every time someone sins and it becomes public knowledge? Obviously not, or we’d never do anything else. Yet, silence is hardly an option, sometimes. My own best guess as to the answer is that, if something is a danger to my congregation, either in tempting them wrongly or in drawing them towards wrong thinking, I need to speak out. So I guess I have a strong local church focus on this. And the “calling out” that we see in the NT is strongly local-church focused.
That’s my partially formed thoughts on this, for what they are worth.
[rogercarlson] My problem is that we have always lighter on are fellow Fundamentalists and harder evangelicals. IMO, it should be the other way around. We should hold each other accountable.I don’t agree. Isn’t this a “camp” mentality where we hold our own camp accountable? I’ll hold to, as some have said, the “idea” of fundamentalism rather than the movement. I’m just a nobody, anyway. The movement wouldn’t notice me if I joined it or left it or jumped up and down and yelled at them or tried to hold them accountable. So if I’m not a “movement” guy, then it seems I should try to be just as firm and charitable to believers whether they are in one camp, another, or none at all.
Yet, I do agree. I think the heart of what you are saying is that we shouldn’t be hypocritical just because we agree with someone. “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”
So really, I agree with you mostly, I just think the way you expressed it is an overreaction to a very real problem of “partiality”.
If there are Biblical steps to follow (and there are) when there is a need for admonition, rebuke, confrontation… then we are obligated to follow those steps. It only makes sense that those directly involved in and affected by a situation are in the best place to engage in those steps. Even in the case of a ‘well-known’ person, there is still an inner circle of family, friends, and fellow church members who have an actual real-life relationship with them. Reading someone’s book or seeing them preach on YouTube does not equal a relationship, nor does it put one in a position to minister to that person and those they’ve wronged. And that should be our first thought- to not only seek justice if it is called for, but to minister and restore all parties involved.
The focus here is whether SI can and should ‘break news’ of criminal, moral, and ethical violations, try cases in the court of public opinion, and hold people accountable. I don’t think so.
Now, with heretical or problematic teachings, it is usually fairly easy to establish what was said, as it has very often been preserved in print or audio for folks to examine for themselves (in context, mind you) and draw a fair conclusion. We do that all the time around here, based on actual writings and available audio/video. Even though a variety of opinions are offered, they are perspectives on the same easily procurable information. Plus it isn’t yet illegal to be wrong or even stupid, or half of Congress would be behind bars. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif
If someone has knowledge of misdeeds, then they are bound by Scripture and our legal system to follow certain protocols. I think if each one of us were more focused on the needs in our own families and churches, there would be fewer problems all around. It’s always easier to point out what’s wrong from a safe physical and emotional distance. But the problems we see in Christianity at large exist in our homes and our local churches, and not just big name universities and churches with national recognition.
That is why the best recourse is to consider our own bit of earth for Godly standards of conduct, better protections and preventions, and Biblical counseling and correction. We can help each other with that here- just think of all the years of experience and wisdom that could be brought to bear on some of these issues that grieve us. That is why IMO we need to focus on ideas, and not trying to be the Christian version of the National Enquirer.
The focus here is whether SI can and should ‘break news’ of criminal, moral, and ethical violations, try cases in the court of public opinion, and hold people accountable. I don’t think so.
Now, with heretical or problematic teachings, it is usually fairly easy to establish what was said, as it has very often been preserved in print or audio for folks to examine for themselves (in context, mind you) and draw a fair conclusion. We do that all the time around here, based on actual writings and available audio/video. Even though a variety of opinions are offered, they are perspectives on the same easily procurable information. Plus it isn’t yet illegal to be wrong or even stupid, or half of Congress would be behind bars. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif
If someone has knowledge of misdeeds, then they are bound by Scripture and our legal system to follow certain protocols. I think if each one of us were more focused on the needs in our own families and churches, there would be fewer problems all around. It’s always easier to point out what’s wrong from a safe physical and emotional distance. But the problems we see in Christianity at large exist in our homes and our local churches, and not just big name universities and churches with national recognition.
That is why the best recourse is to consider our own bit of earth for Godly standards of conduct, better protections and preventions, and Biblical counseling and correction. We can help each other with that here- just think of all the years of experience and wisdom that could be brought to bear on some of these issues that grieve us. That is why IMO we need to focus on ideas, and not trying to be the Christian version of the National Enquirer.
Roland,
I think I have been pretty consistent with my posts. I have only posted on things that are in print, either from the court records, reputible news sources our the people themselves. I am saying judgment begins at home, you are correct. When I have disagreed with anyone I have called that out, whether it is any of the names you mention. Yes, I do have more of a problem with the Sexton/Chappell wing of Fundementalim than with the Doran/Bauder wing. I think I have been clear on my I disagree. But that is a side note. But I would be saying the same thing no matter where the scandal is within our movement.
All,
If as SI we are saying that we are not going to do this with anyone, I have no problem. But it seems to me (and others) that we are setting up an a standard that is different for our group. Maybe I am just totally missing the point of the new policy, but it seems that we are saying question anything within our movement. I think that is dangerous. What I have done here is no different than what my fundy fathers did reguarding Billy Graham. What I have done makes little difference to the party involved, but I believe it is the only way to honor God through seperation.
I also say that we should apply this same standard to the alleged victims. That was not done in this case. There was alot of questioning her character and her actions while minimizing actions of those in leadership. Is she not a sister in Christ?
Again, someone please show me where I, personally, have said something that was not based on facts. I have never intended to participate in gossip.
I think I have been pretty consistent with my posts. I have only posted on things that are in print, either from the court records, reputible news sources our the people themselves. I am saying judgment begins at home, you are correct. When I have disagreed with anyone I have called that out, whether it is any of the names you mention. Yes, I do have more of a problem with the Sexton/Chappell wing of Fundementalim than with the Doran/Bauder wing. I think I have been clear on my I disagree. But that is a side note. But I would be saying the same thing no matter where the scandal is within our movement.
All,
If as SI we are saying that we are not going to do this with anyone, I have no problem. But it seems to me (and others) that we are setting up an a standard that is different for our group. Maybe I am just totally missing the point of the new policy, but it seems that we are saying question anything within our movement. I think that is dangerous. What I have done here is no different than what my fundy fathers did reguarding Billy Graham. What I have done makes little difference to the party involved, but I believe it is the only way to honor God through seperation.
I also say that we should apply this same standard to the alleged victims. That was not done in this case. There was alot of questioning her character and her actions while minimizing actions of those in leadership. Is she not a sister in Christ?
Again, someone please show me where I, personally, have said something that was not based on facts. I have never intended to participate in gossip.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
This thread isn’t about anyone in particular, and while its necessity may have been brought to a point by recent events, the topic has been discussed many, many times by the mod team.
All we are saying is that SI won’t print rumors, and that SI isn’t in a position to hold anyone ‘accountable’ (‘Who’ is SI anyway? Aaron? The mod team? The blogroll? All users?). SI isn’t participating in a Grand IFB Conspiracy by refusing to publish the contents of private communications which we cannot verify as genuine, and especially not without the permission of all participants. Does anyone here want other users or the mods to publish private communications? I trow not.
The mod team, when online, attempts to preserve the topic of each thread, and not allow arguments that are little more than name-calling and questioning one another’s intelligence/Christianity/ancestry. But- we can’t and won’t limit discussions to things that we all agree on. Snoozeville, and nobody don’t learn nothin’.
Here’s a question- if we don’t do anything about (what some would consider to be, by their standards) objectionable comments, and allow them to stand and be argued, does that mean SI is ‘supporting’ the content of those comments? This is a forum, for those of you in Rio Linda- a ‘public’ meeting place for open discussion within rather broad guidelines, IMO. Abide by the DS and CP, and now we are reiterating the importance of folks sticking to verifiable facts when discussing specific incidents.
Here’s the disconnect- how to discuss the issues surrounding an incident in hypotheticals when one does not possess all the facts, and have folks understand as you speculate that you aren’t trying to present what you think actually happened in that case, but what you think is possible in similar situations so that you can properly address them if they arise in your own life.
All we are saying is that SI won’t print rumors, and that SI isn’t in a position to hold anyone ‘accountable’ (‘Who’ is SI anyway? Aaron? The mod team? The blogroll? All users?). SI isn’t participating in a Grand IFB Conspiracy by refusing to publish the contents of private communications which we cannot verify as genuine, and especially not without the permission of all participants. Does anyone here want other users or the mods to publish private communications? I trow not.
The mod team, when online, attempts to preserve the topic of each thread, and not allow arguments that are little more than name-calling and questioning one another’s intelligence/Christianity/ancestry. But- we can’t and won’t limit discussions to things that we all agree on. Snoozeville, and nobody don’t learn nothin’.
Here’s a question- if we don’t do anything about (what some would consider to be, by their standards) objectionable comments, and allow them to stand and be argued, does that mean SI is ‘supporting’ the content of those comments? This is a forum, for those of you in Rio Linda- a ‘public’ meeting place for open discussion within rather broad guidelines, IMO. Abide by the DS and CP, and now we are reiterating the importance of folks sticking to verifiable facts when discussing specific incidents.
Here’s the disconnect- how to discuss the issues surrounding an incident in hypotheticals when one does not possess all the facts, and have folks understand as you speculate that you aren’t trying to present what you think actually happened in that case, but what you think is possible in similar situations so that you can properly address them if they arise in your own life.
Some examples might be more helpful…
SI could have decided against linking to discussions on the Phelps/Trinity/Anderson issue entirely.
SI could have decided against linking to the http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9859] Danny Sweatt issues / discussion in 2009, but we ran it.
SI could have decided http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-17-11/18345] against linking to BJUNumbers in the filings a couple weeks ago, but the team decided to put it out there anyway.
So if we are ‘covering up’ for IFB’s, I’d say we’re doing a lousy job of it.
SI could have decided against linking to discussions on the Phelps/Trinity/Anderson issue entirely.
SI could have decided against linking to the http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9859] Danny Sweatt issues / discussion in 2009, but we ran it.
SI could have decided http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-17-11/18345] against linking to BJUNumbers in the filings a couple weeks ago, but the team decided to put it out there anyway.
So if we are ‘covering up’ for IFB’s, I’d say we’re doing a lousy job of it.
"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
I have not said it was a conspiracy. I just said it was odd that we are now doing this when we never have before. I know I personally never said anything based on inuendo (if I did, please show it to me).
Roland,
It is up to local churches and organizations to deal with the parties at hand. But I, as an individual pastor, can chose to break fellowship with any individual that my conscience wont allow me to fellowship with. That is what I am doing in this case.
All,
I hope we apply to the same standard to the victim. There have been people that have called her character into question over and over. Yet, the courts have determined that she was speaking the truth. I am not bringing this up to rehash. I only bring it up for us to remember that in any future case. If we care going to wait until the facts are in (BTW, I only commented as they came in), then we need to do the same with the alleged victim. There should never be an assumption of “an ax to grind” with the victims either.
Roland,
It is up to local churches and organizations to deal with the parties at hand. But I, as an individual pastor, can chose to break fellowship with any individual that my conscience wont allow me to fellowship with. That is what I am doing in this case.
All,
I hope we apply to the same standard to the victim. There have been people that have called her character into question over and over. Yet, the courts have determined that she was speaking the truth. I am not bringing this up to rehash. I only bring it up for us to remember that in any future case. If we care going to wait until the facts are in (BTW, I only commented as they came in), then we need to do the same with the alleged victim. There should never be an assumption of “an ax to grind” with the victims either.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Someone who lurks at SI sent me an email. He alleged that SI is terribly inconsistent with this policy in a couple of ways. They publish more critically of Fundamentalists than Conservative Evangelicals. They published, he says, “unprovoked attacks” by Dr. Bauder on other leaders of Fundamentalism. And their failure to publish stories like Aaron’s aforementioned “X”, “Y”, and “Z” is not consistent with their behavior in other cases, such as the ongoing persecution of Pastor Phelps that is tolerated here.
A few thoughts based on my reply to him are perhaps useful for this discussion. They are relevant to the discussion happening here.
I believe it is appropriate that people who self-identify as Fundamentalist and who come from that heritage be more concerned to critique themselves than others. The whole premise of the movement is to separate from and criticize the other guy – but few have the integrity to criticize their own movement.
Before the internet at large, and before SI in particular, some parts of Fundamentalism had become nearly morally and ethically bankrupt. They adopted a circle-the-wagons, good-old boy approach to dealing with internal problems. It’s endemic to all movements, but it had been raised to an art-form by some.
One of the things that made SI valuable from the very beginning is that the forums provided a platform from which to hold the Fundamentalist Movement’s leaders’ feet to the fire. Before SI, nobody had the platform to do that. A University & Seminary president or large church pastor could do wrong or engage in abusive leadership, and nobody short of someone else at the same “influence level” had a voice to call attention to it before SI existed. Accountability is good, for everyone. So if SI is nipping at the heels of Fundamentalist leaders, I see it as a service to the movement. We ought to be self-cleansing.
Quite frankly, sites like SI can potentially be part of the cure for the “Independence” question discussed so much after the 20/20 piece. “How can we have accountability and local church autonomy at the same time?” Answer: SI and other sites like it give a mechanism for a leader’s behavior to be compared with Scripture by the entire movement, rather than only those under the direct influence of a particular leader. Since the days of the apostles, no such mechanism has existed among churches with a Biblical polity of inter-church relations.
What some take as “unprovoked attacks” on Fundamentalist leaders mounted at SI, I take as healthy observations about problems in the movement – problems that ought to be fixed.
As for publishing about story “X” (the lurker who emailed me mentioned a specific matter) vs. the supposed character assassination of Pastor Phelps, a few things must be observed:
“X” is entirely rumor. There is no verifiable source of any kind. Nobody knows what happened, except for a vague accusation. There is nothing to report on except “there is a rumor going around” – much more worthy of a Hollywood Rag than a serious site. By contrast, the 20/20 piece played an interview with a young lady who clearly believed she was wronged by Pastor Phelps’ handling of her situation, as well as Pastor Phelps’ personal response. Pastor Phelps subsequently created a website to give further information. Even taking only the confirmed statements on the public record, without any judging of motives, there is room for discussion as to the appropriateness of his actions. And that discussion has value in the realm of ideas itself, so that we may carefully plan how we would handle such situations. No personal animosity toward Pastor Phelps need be assumed.
In short, posting about “X” would be a post about uncertainties. It is appropriate to wait until more information (if any) is forthcoming.
A few thoughts based on my reply to him are perhaps useful for this discussion. They are relevant to the discussion happening here.
I believe it is appropriate that people who self-identify as Fundamentalist and who come from that heritage be more concerned to critique themselves than others. The whole premise of the movement is to separate from and criticize the other guy – but few have the integrity to criticize their own movement.
Before the internet at large, and before SI in particular, some parts of Fundamentalism had become nearly morally and ethically bankrupt. They adopted a circle-the-wagons, good-old boy approach to dealing with internal problems. It’s endemic to all movements, but it had been raised to an art-form by some.
One of the things that made SI valuable from the very beginning is that the forums provided a platform from which to hold the Fundamentalist Movement’s leaders’ feet to the fire. Before SI, nobody had the platform to do that. A University & Seminary president or large church pastor could do wrong or engage in abusive leadership, and nobody short of someone else at the same “influence level” had a voice to call attention to it before SI existed. Accountability is good, for everyone. So if SI is nipping at the heels of Fundamentalist leaders, I see it as a service to the movement. We ought to be self-cleansing.
Quite frankly, sites like SI can potentially be part of the cure for the “Independence” question discussed so much after the 20/20 piece. “How can we have accountability and local church autonomy at the same time?” Answer: SI and other sites like it give a mechanism for a leader’s behavior to be compared with Scripture by the entire movement, rather than only those under the direct influence of a particular leader. Since the days of the apostles, no such mechanism has existed among churches with a Biblical polity of inter-church relations.
What some take as “unprovoked attacks” on Fundamentalist leaders mounted at SI, I take as healthy observations about problems in the movement – problems that ought to be fixed.
As for publishing about story “X” (the lurker who emailed me mentioned a specific matter) vs. the supposed character assassination of Pastor Phelps, a few things must be observed:
“X” is entirely rumor. There is no verifiable source of any kind. Nobody knows what happened, except for a vague accusation. There is nothing to report on except “there is a rumor going around” – much more worthy of a Hollywood Rag than a serious site. By contrast, the 20/20 piece played an interview with a young lady who clearly believed she was wronged by Pastor Phelps’ handling of her situation, as well as Pastor Phelps’ personal response. Pastor Phelps subsequently created a website to give further information. Even taking only the confirmed statements on the public record, without any judging of motives, there is room for discussion as to the appropriateness of his actions. And that discussion has value in the realm of ideas itself, so that we may carefully plan how we would handle such situations. No personal animosity toward Pastor Phelps need be assumed.
In short, posting about “X” would be a post about uncertainties. It is appropriate to wait until more information (if any) is forthcoming.
[rogercarlson] I just said it was odd that we are now doing this when we never have before.Yes, we have. This is just the first time an article has been posted on SI to directly address the issue and lay out guidelines. But this decision (what to allow/not allow) is discussed and implemented quite often from ‘behind the curtain’.
@ Bro. Durning-
I appreciate that response. Inconsistency often boils down to “I say tomato, you say tomahto”. But I would also acknowledge that there have been and are going to be times where we aren’t consistent in the forums. I think the Front Page articles- the content that SI purposefully promotes- IS consistent. But the forums? We are never going to be perfectly consistent in the forums.
One of the things that made SI valuable from the very beginning is that the forums provided a platform from which to hold the Fundamentalist Movement’s leaders’ feet to the fire. Before SI, nobody had the platform to do that. A University & Seminary president or large church pastor could do wrong or engage in abusive leadership, and nobody short of someone else at the same “influence level” had a voice to call attention to it before SI existed. Accountability is good, for everyone. So if SI is nipping at the heels of Fundamentalist leaders, I see it as a service to the movement. We ought to be self-cleansing.I think alot of squawking is from leadership who see their ability to dominate others crumbling in light of the laymen’s new ability to compare and contrast teaching and methodology. When I was a kid, we lived in the country and had an outhouse (we didn’t have indoor plumbing until I was 14). I never gave it a second thought- doesn’t everybody have an outhouse? But when I started going to a private school in a nice suburb, I discovered that having an outhouse was rather unique. Well, whatdya’ know.
The day where you could live your whole life in a certain ‘branch’ of Christianity, naively thinking ‘this must the way it is everywhere’, is gone. I’ve personally seen my own outlook change drastically in the last decade or so, because I now have easy access to such diverse perspectives as those of Kent Brandenburg and Dave Doran and Mark Minnick (and boiled down, they aren’t all that diverse IMO). And on a forum, I can write a post and receive a response that tells me how my expressed thoughts are being perceived. I mean, I know what I’m thinking when I post, but all others have is words on a screen. If my post is cloudy, maybe my thinking is as well. I have a chance to re-examine my thought process and my choice of words. This is A Good Thing. For all of us.
I was talking with a preacher the other day about how much we take for granted. We go to seminary/Bible college, and learn from a group of people in whom we have often unreservedly placed our trust. But in the real world, when asked questions about our basis for such-and-such, we may suddenly realize that the only reason we believe that is because “Dr. Snodgrass taught it that way”. There seems to be an underlying current that it is ill-mannered to examine or question anything an elder, especially a beloved one, taught us. And because Dr. Snodgrass is such a wonderful person, we wouldn’t ever consider putting his teachings under a microscope, as this feels like an attack on his character.
But the apostle Paul seemed to welcome the examination of his teachings, because it meant people were studying and thinking. Why should anyone expect others to simply accept your word, or be insulted when they want to verify something for themselves? We should be thrilled when people search the Scriptures to see if what we say is so.
I believe we want SI to be a thinking place, and IMO many are going to find that threatening to the status quo, and probably their livelihoood.
My access to the Web is limited this week. Vacationing a bit.
A few points that might clarify.
Will we still pay attention to news stories via Filings?
Yes. There is a point about that in the What You Can Do section of the OP. As in the past, we may or may not have discussion. Depends on multiple factors. The team is still talking alot, off and on, about Filings and the boundaries of what we use in them. We have a tradition of posting references to blogs there, so it’s not always going to be “a reputable newsgathering organization” that is the source of content there, but we are interested in developing clearer guidelines on what sort of sources we should not draw attention to. The goal with that isn’t protecting anybody who’s in the wrong but in fulfilling the biblical obligation to avoid spreading rumors, etc.
Is SI changing?
The intent of the OP is to explain why we are not changing though there has been pressure lately to do that.
What’s up with the timing?
The timing is alluded to in the OP. It has to do with mounting pressure to move the site toward being a place to seek justice by exposing alleged wrongdoing by fundamentalist leaders. The time seemed right to explain why we do not intend to yield to that pressure.
Is there value in real-live situations vs. hypothetical ones?
Yes, on multiple levels. Real life failures, crimes, etc. serve to ignite the imagination in working through scenarios, principles and “what we can/should learn.” Also, sometimes a portion of “What we can learn” has to do with cause and effect and what actually happened. That said, there are always trade offs because in real life scandals so much energy goes into staking out and fighting for positions on who’s in the wrong and how much and who’s version of events is true, partly true, etc., etc.
Should SI be harder on evangelicals in general than we are on fundamentalists?
This is a tougher question than it may seem. If you organize a forum/article site for bowlers, does it make it sense to focus on the problems and weaknesses of bowlers there? (or how much better human beings nonbowlers are than bowlers?)…especially if there are already dozens of other sites devoted to bowler bashing?
On the other hand, I do believe a “grown up” organization/movement must be self-criticial, that fundamentalism has lacked that, and that SI can help.
But is there likely to be a shortage of criticism of fundamentalism if we don’t do a ton of it here? I think not! But there is likely to be a quality shortage. Mature fundamentalists can more accurately identify the movement’s weaknesses than many who are far, far outside of what we’re about and don’t understand our values, convictions, distinctives, emphases, history, etc.
A few points that might clarify.
Will we still pay attention to news stories via Filings?
Yes. There is a point about that in the What You Can Do section of the OP. As in the past, we may or may not have discussion. Depends on multiple factors. The team is still talking alot, off and on, about Filings and the boundaries of what we use in them. We have a tradition of posting references to blogs there, so it’s not always going to be “a reputable newsgathering organization” that is the source of content there, but we are interested in developing clearer guidelines on what sort of sources we should not draw attention to. The goal with that isn’t protecting anybody who’s in the wrong but in fulfilling the biblical obligation to avoid spreading rumors, etc.
Is SI changing?
The intent of the OP is to explain why we are not changing though there has been pressure lately to do that.
What’s up with the timing?
The timing is alluded to in the OP. It has to do with mounting pressure to move the site toward being a place to seek justice by exposing alleged wrongdoing by fundamentalist leaders. The time seemed right to explain why we do not intend to yield to that pressure.
Is there value in real-live situations vs. hypothetical ones?
Yes, on multiple levels. Real life failures, crimes, etc. serve to ignite the imagination in working through scenarios, principles and “what we can/should learn.” Also, sometimes a portion of “What we can learn” has to do with cause and effect and what actually happened. That said, there are always trade offs because in real life scandals so much energy goes into staking out and fighting for positions on who’s in the wrong and how much and who’s version of events is true, partly true, etc., etc.
Should SI be harder on evangelicals in general than we are on fundamentalists?
This is a tougher question than it may seem. If you organize a forum/article site for bowlers, does it make it sense to focus on the problems and weaknesses of bowlers there? (or how much better human beings nonbowlers are than bowlers?)…especially if there are already dozens of other sites devoted to bowler bashing?
On the other hand, I do believe a “grown up” organization/movement must be self-criticial, that fundamentalism has lacked that, and that SI can help.
But is there likely to be a shortage of criticism of fundamentalism if we don’t do a ton of it here? I think not! But there is likely to be a quality shortage. Mature fundamentalists can more accurately identify the movement’s weaknesses than many who are far, far outside of what we’re about and don’t understand our values, convictions, distinctives, emphases, history, etc.
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.
Because we who are committed to Scripture believe truth so passionately, we have a tendency to let our passions kick our words in gear before we have time to reflect upon what we are saying and writing. I have been in the GARBC since 1966, and have witnessed both heat and light. When we come to times of controversy and difficulty, I remember the counsel of a godly man who is a generation older than myself. Here is a summary of his words, to the best of my recollection :
The world is wide, and there are many lost to be won. If our convictions do not permit us to work together in organized harmony, let us each minister in the areas of God’s field where He leads us, and let us learn to treat each other with kindness and respect as brothers.
A second statement the Lord brings to my mind is attributed to John Newton in his later years. “I am a great sinner, and I have a great Savior”
The longer I live and relfect upon the Word, and see myself in the mirror of the Word, the more I am convinced of the need for a balance of grace and truth in my words and ministry. As we speak the truth, let us remember admonitions of Ephesians 4 to make that truth couched in balanced, Biblical love. I trust I am more passionate about God’s Truth now than when I first started, but that I have learned how to express disagreements and concerns wtih others in a way that builds bridges for ministry, not walls of isolation.
The world is wide, and there are many lost to be won. If our convictions do not permit us to work together in organized harmony, let us each minister in the areas of God’s field where He leads us, and let us learn to treat each other with kindness and respect as brothers.
A second statement the Lord brings to my mind is attributed to John Newton in his later years. “I am a great sinner, and I have a great Savior”
The longer I live and relfect upon the Word, and see myself in the mirror of the Word, the more I am convinced of the need for a balance of grace and truth in my words and ministry. As we speak the truth, let us remember admonitions of Ephesians 4 to make that truth couched in balanced, Biblical love. I trust I am more passionate about God’s Truth now than when I first started, but that I have learned how to express disagreements and concerns wtih others in a way that builds bridges for ministry, not walls of isolation.
Dick Dayton
Brother Dayton,
I agree that we need to speak the truth in love. And we need to do the same for these vitcims. There have been many on the blogs that were quick to judge the victim…..we really (as pastors) need to rethink this wicked-thought process
I agree that we need to speak the truth in love. And we need to do the same for these vitcims. There have been many on the blogs that were quick to judge the victim…..we really (as pastors) need to rethink this wicked-thought process
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Roger,
I absolutely affirm that we must support the victims. Church and home should be safe places, and, when that safety is violated, it is a terrible thing. Proverbs 18 cautions us to learn as much information as possible before making judgments. I have used the “in the multitude of counselors there is safety” principle by involving godly leaders to help me sort out situations. In Iowa, even a consensual relationship between an authority figure and a subordinate (such as counselor/counselee who are both of age) is seen as exploitation. From my understanding of the New Hampshire situation, it was an adult and a teen, which is definitely a situation of exploitation. In the account in John of the woman taken in adultery, how did they know it was “in the very act” if they had not set her up ? Again, it was a misuse of power.
It is tragic that we must face these things in our churches, but let us remember that, though believers are forgiven and cleansed, we still are sinners desperately in need of the grace and guidance of God.
I absolutely affirm that we must support the victims. Church and home should be safe places, and, when that safety is violated, it is a terrible thing. Proverbs 18 cautions us to learn as much information as possible before making judgments. I have used the “in the multitude of counselors there is safety” principle by involving godly leaders to help me sort out situations. In Iowa, even a consensual relationship between an authority figure and a subordinate (such as counselor/counselee who are both of age) is seen as exploitation. From my understanding of the New Hampshire situation, it was an adult and a teen, which is definitely a situation of exploitation. In the account in John of the woman taken in adultery, how did they know it was “in the very act” if they had not set her up ? Again, it was a misuse of power.
It is tragic that we must face these things in our churches, but let us remember that, though believers are forgiven and cleansed, we still are sinners desperately in need of the grace and guidance of God.
Dick Dayton
Could you please share with the class why Jay’s ‘camp’, if he has one, is relevant to this discussion?
Brother Pittman you asked Jay not me but I will self-identify on the issues you raised
[RPittman][Jay C.] Some examples might be more helpful…Yes, Jay, you are willing to take on IFB’s but I have one simple question? Do you publicly align or identify yourself as being in the same camp of Fundamentalism as the aforementioned?
SI could have decided against linking to discussions on the Phelps/Trinity/Anderson issue entirely.
SI could have decided against linking to the http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9859] Danny Sweatt issues / discussion in 2009, but we ran it.
SI could have decided http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-17-11/18345] against linking to BJUNumbers in the filings a couple weeks ago, but the team decided to put it out there anyway.
So if we are ‘covering up’ for IFB’s, I’d say we’re doing a lousy job of it.
- On Phelps / Anderson case: While I did not say much publicly, I support that Sharper Iron posted Filings on the case. I never saw the trial as Phelps on trial. (You can dig through whatever comments I’ve made about on S/I to validate)
- On Sweatt. Support that S/I posted filings
- On BJU numbers filing. I filed it myself. I consider myself a BJU supporter and feel very positive about the school. But have no official association with the school. Not sure if folk know this but many of the S/I team are BJU grads: Jay, Joe, Dan M, Aaron, Monty, Larry. It’s pretty obvious to me that that website (BJU numbers ) has its own agenda but the numbers (that particular post) are interesting
[Aaron Blumer]Fundamentalists are evangelical, they just have a different spin on a few issues. SI has helped me to think about a ton of things over the years, without constant evaluation, there wouldn’t be anything to this site. Nobody cares about what goes on here other than fundamentalists, the so-called CE’s are not affected by statements made here.
Should SI be harder on evangelicals in general than we are on fundamentalists?
formerly known as Coach C
[RPittman]Your question IMO is completely irrelevant to his point and this discussion. In face, if pursued it will derail the topic into Twaddleville. The idea of needing to ‘publicly align’ or ‘identify with a camp’ is insipid.[Jay C.] Some examples might be more helpful…Yes, Jay, you are willing to take on IFB’s but I have one simple question? Do you publicly align or identify yourself as being in the same camp of Fundamentalism as the aforementioned?
SI could have decided against linking to discussions on the Phelps/Trinity/Anderson issue entirely.
SI could have decided against linking to the http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9859] Danny Sweatt issues / discussion in 2009, but we ran it.
SI could have decided http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-17-11/18345] against linking to BJUNumbers in the filings a couple weeks ago, but the team decided to put it out there anyway.
So if we are ‘covering up’ for IFB’s, I’d say we’re doing a lousy job of it.
The fact is that SI is not involved in covering up events, but is endeavoring to handle information as it comes our way in a Biblical manner. That is the topic of this discussion.
I think it’s apparent to anybody who’s followed the site for a while, that SI’s never been very “campy.” I’m pretty sure the desire from the start was to define “fundamentalism” vaguely enough that all of the many late 20th century splinters (the “fundamentalisms”) could interact here.
But the larger point there is that when we criticize “evangelicalism” here, we are usually including a good bit of fundamentalism as well, and vice versa. If you scan articles for where the terms appear together, we are often talking to both because they face so many of the same issues.
For my part, “what camp are we criticizing the most?” has never been a part of the thought process. It’s a question I have no interest in at all. Rather, it’s about faithfulness to the gospel and its implications in the times we live in and trying to encourage peopel to engage thoughtfully with the problems of our day. Whatever gets “hit” most, gets hit most.
Short version: the politics of wooing or alientating “camps” is so far from my thinking that it would never occur to me at all without other people bringing it up. I know some (most?) on the team pretty much feel that way about it too.
[Joshua C] Fundamentalists are evangelical, they just have a different spin on a few issues. SI has helped me to think about a ton of things over the years, without constant evaluation, there wouldn’t be anything to this site. Nobody cares about what goes on here other than fundamentalists, the so-called CE’s are not affected by statements made here.First part of that: solid point. I used “evangelicals” above in contrast to “fundamentalists” as many do, but I do see fundamentalism as a subset of evangelicalism—not in terms of organizations (because we withdrew from all of those) but because we believe in the evangel, the gospel. And other things we have in common.
But the larger point there is that when we criticize “evangelicalism” here, we are usually including a good bit of fundamentalism as well, and vice versa. If you scan articles for where the terms appear together, we are often talking to both because they face so many of the same issues.
For my part, “what camp are we criticizing the most?” has never been a part of the thought process. It’s a question I have no interest in at all. Rather, it’s about faithfulness to the gospel and its implications in the times we live in and trying to encourage peopel to engage thoughtfully with the problems of our day. Whatever gets “hit” most, gets hit most.
Short version: the politics of wooing or alientating “camps” is so far from my thinking that it would never occur to me at all without other people bringing it up. I know some (most?) on the team pretty much feel that way about it too.
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.
[Susan R]Susan, I think if you bundle this with Roland’s post # 34, his point becomes more clear. I’m not saying I agree. I just see why he’s asking it.[RPittman]Your question IMO is completely irrelevant to his point and this discussion. In face, if pursued it will derail the topic into Twaddleville. The idea of needing to ‘publicly align’ or ‘identify with a camp’ is insipid.[Jay C.] Some examples might be more helpful…Yes, Jay, you are willing to take on IFB’s but I have one simple question? Do you publicly align or identify yourself as being in the same camp of Fundamentalism as the aforementioned?
SI could have decided against linking to discussions on the Phelps/Trinity/Anderson issue entirely.
SI could have decided against linking to the http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9859] Danny Sweatt issues / discussion in 2009, but we ran it.
SI could have decided http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-17-11/18345] against linking to BJUNumbers in the filings a couple weeks ago, but the team decided to put it out there anyway.
So if we are ‘covering up’ for IFB’s, I’d say we’re doing a lousy job of it.
The fact is that SI is not involved in covering up events, but is endeavoring to handle information as it comes our way in a Biblical manner. That is the topic of this discussion.
Roland, this is a Fundamentalist site. For some, that means association with the Movement of Fundamentalism, for others, it means they value the idea of Fundamentalism. Still others are concerned for the Fundamentals of the Faith alone, and couldn’t care less about movements or even the idea (which is, largely, separatism). When a person who in some way embraces the name Fundamentalist sees someone else who embraces the name behaving in a way that endangers the good name of the movement, erodes the idea of the movement, or rejects a Fundamental of the faith, they should feel free to speak out, whether they are from that exact camp or not.
[Aaron Blumer]The terms are not all the same. ‘Evangelical’ is not the same as ‘evangelicals’ or ‘evangelicalism’. ‘Evangelical’ refers to ideas which, I think, all Bible believing Christians embrace. The other terms all have to do with politics.[Joshua C] Fundamentalists are evangelical…First part of that: solid point. I used “evangelicals” above in contrast to “fundamentalists” as many do, but I do see fundamentalism as a subset of evangelicalism—not in terms of organizations (because we withdrew from all of those) but because we believe in the evangel, the gospel. And other things we have in common.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[RPittman]Maybe “nobody cares” was the wrong way to put it, but I’m not sure that so-called CE”s are going to adjust their practice based on SI. However, the average pastor of an IFB-type church might very well change practice/conviction based on what happens on this site.[Joshua Caucutt]Coach C, I think you’re mistaken. There’s quite a bit of crossover, especially with the MacArthur circle. CE’s do read SI.[Aaron Blumer]Fundamentalists are evangelical, they just have a different spin on a few issues. SI has helped me to think about a ton of things over the years, without constant evaluation, there wouldn’t be anything to this site. Nobody cares about what goes on here other than fundamentalists, the so-called CE’s are not affected by statements made here.
Should SI be harder on evangelicals in general than we are on fundamentalists?
formerly known as Coach C
I asked Jay if he was willing to identify with the folks that he listed as examples of IFB’s critiqued by SI. If he is unwilling to say,”Yeah, these are my friends and people with whom I identify,” then it seems to me his point loses it punch. After all, I understand that his point is we critique our friends as well as our enemies. Is Jay’s list, which he gives in support of his point, a list of friends and those with whom he identifies or a list of other IFB’s?I read this post and still fail to see its relevance, mostly because the ‘we’ of SI is individuals who for the most part do not know each other IRL. Even the admin and mod team, while we work together on SI, are not part of the same ‘camp’.
What if you asked me if I identify with Sweatt, Phelps, BJU, or the guy who posted a graph at bjunumbers. Guess what? I never heard of Sweatt or Phelps until those links and articles were posted here. I don’t identify with BJU, because my only connection with BJU is that the high school I graduated from used their curriculum for science, and possibly social studies.
So- ‘camp’ is completely irrelevant, and for some of us, it doesn’t even exist. I not only don’t agree with the question, I can’t for the life of me figure out why it would be asked at all, much less in this thread.
Should we try to be fair, even-handed, and consistent with articles and links that are critical or expose wrong-doing? Well, yeah- but we don’t control who happens to be in the limelight. Who is publishing books with problematic teachings? Who said something asinine while the mic was on and the camera rolling? Who decided to do something criminal, immoral, or unethical this week? Do we believe the only people relevant to Christianity in society are Fundies and CEs? What about Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and cults? And do we want to spend most of our time talking about the latest screw up?
I certainly hope not. While heresy, moral failings, and mistakes must be dealt with, I’m for a more positive approach- like the ‘Christian urban legend’ of bank tellers being trained to spot counterfeit money by only handling real money. Even though this is not true, (and if you’ve ever used this as a sermon illustration, sorry to pop that bubble) I’d rather spend time learning about what’s right than dishing about what’s wrong.
Discussion