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
- 6 views
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
[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.
[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.
Featured Resource
Discussion