Seven Years and Counting
SharperIron launched in January of 2005 and is now seven years old.
For me, the experience has been broadly—and sometimes intensely—educational. In the early years, that experience involved writing monthly, reading weekly and dropping into the forums once in a while. In the spring of ‘08 my involvement increased steeply. SI quickly became a technical, financial, and interpersonal challenge. Though I’ve often felt a bit out of my league, the challenges have never failed to be interesting. They have also rarely failed to teach me things. I’m grateful for that.
The site has been on a journey from day one. The question I ponder fairly often lately is, where has it been headed and where is it headed now? If I can borrow a phrase from a real leader (George H. W. Bush), “the vision thing” often eludes me.
As with any new thing, a website only gets to make the Really Big Splash—the everybody quickly discovering it splash—once (if at all). And SI did have quite a splash in ‘05 and ‘06. We’re well past those days now and have to think more in terms of what long term contribution we can make to conservative Christianity in general and fundamentalism in particular.
Your thoughts on what that contribution should be are most welcome.
In its unique and relatively small way, the site can encourage (and has encouraged) accessible, thoughtful writing and discussion—as a means of believers sharpening one another. Beyond that, it isn’t clear to me what a website like this one can do. But I remain open to discovering more.
Something we need
Speaking of accessible, thoughtful writing, consider this an open casting call for writers. Though we continue to find some pretty good stuff in the work of various bloggers as well as some print publications (such as Baptist Bulletin and Voice), SI could use more work that is exclusive and arrives at regular intervals.
So if you’re tired of blogging on your own but would like an outlet once a month or once a quarter, send us a sample of your writing. The best stuff is concise, passionate, timely and accessible (no advanced theological education required)—yet pushes readers a bit into areas of study that are unfamiliar or only marginally familiar.
But we’re not solely interested in “issues” and cerebral content. Reflection on how truth applies personally—in experience—is no less important than thinking about assertions, arguments, and evidence. I happen to think the latter is undervalued in our age—and in fundamentalism in particular—but in our efforts to correct that imbalance, we shouldn’t create another by neglecting “the thinking of the heart.”
It’s all thinking, and, to me, that’s what SharperIron is about.
If you’ve never been interested in blogging but would like to get your writing in front of the Internet readership a bit, SI may be a good opportunity for you as well. We’ve never entirely fit the blog mold.
Some coming changes
Aside from cosmetic changes, the Forums at SharperIron have remained essentially unchanged for seven years. That’s something like half a century in Web years. The team reached a consensus some time ago that a forum relaunch would be a good idea.
Accordingly, look for that to happen sometime in June. The plan so far involves shutting the forums down for a while (not more than a couple weeks probably) to redesign and reopen—hopefully with a little fanfare (needed: experts in “the fanfare thing”).
Redesign ideas include shrinking the number of categories, introducing some new ones, giving users more ability to tag and interrelate threads, giving the forums more front page visibility and perhaps interfacing better with Facebook and Twitter—and of course, a visual update (including more industry-standard post-formatting tools; think WYSIWYG).
Your ideas on these improvements and other ways to improve the forum experience are most welcome.
In the months leading up to the Forum relaunch, expect to see some design updates to other parts of the site.
Identity questions
Along the way, critics have accused SI of having an anti-fundamentalist bias, of being a secretly neo-evangelical organization, etc. The criticism resembles truth in one respect: we’ve always had readers and forum participants who were not what some fundamentalists would include in their definition of “fundamentalist.”
And we’ve always been interested in helping fundamentalism by challenging it, rather than simply lauding it. (Certainly fundamentalists should understand the value of challenging people—it’s just that, as a movement at least, we’ve preferred to major on challenging those outside rather than those inside. But those days are pretty much over.)
One conversation the Team has had more than once concerns whether we should re-characterize the site from being “for” fundamentalists to being “hosted by fundamentalists.” It’s evident that this shift would involve some trade-offs. On the positive side, the change would free us from the perception that we need to define in some way who is a fundamentalist and who is not when we decide who may participate in discussions.
Also on the positive side, there can be little doubt that the segment of Christianity willing to openly style itself “fundamentalist” is shrinking. So, de-emphasizing the fundamentalist identity of those who participate in discussions has the potential to open us up to a larger field of potential joiners.
And “hosted by fundamentalists” rather than “existing for fundamentalists” has the additional advantage of more accurately describing how many of us see the status quo—that is, to a lot of us, the site has had not-quite-fundamentalists participating in various ways from day one.
The decision hasn’t been made yet (and really involves a pretty minor tweak to how we “brand” the site in any case). So consider this a not very subtle trial balloon. In any case, those who run the site are, and fully intend to remain, fundamentalists (in the strictly-peaceful, not hurt anybody or blow anything up sense!).
To sum up, from my point of view, it’s been a pretty interesting and fun seven years and I look forward to days as good—or better—ahead. Thanks to all of you who have been readers, writers, commenters, moderators, editors, and admins since ‘05. Thanks to the high-energy, entrepreneurial guys who got the site started. Thanks even to detractors who have prompted many team conversations that would have otherwise been pretty dull (though dull is really nice sometimes).
Most of all, thanks to God for putting us in such an interesting world, giving us minds, and encouraging us to imitate Him—in our small, weak ways—by thinking, creating, interacting, and persuading.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
I have learned much, been challenged much, and have been able to stay more abreast on what is going on in both the fundamental and greater evangelical world. I have been led to books I might not have heard of, articles I would never have read, and viewpoints that helped me understand other perspectives that came from men and women who respected the integrity of the Bible as much as I do.
For me, SI is a source of ongoing education and provides unique opportunity to fellowship with precious believers I have never met face to face.
Aaron, thank you for doing such a great job managing the site. I believe SI has more influence than any of us realize. Please, keep up the good work.
I am also encouraged that you are revamping the Forum categories. I agree that they need a reworking. Your other suggestions, like going to a “hosted by fundamentalists” description is excellent. I have found the term “embracing the fundamentals” to be useful when describing a doctrinal viewpoint or for those who will “sign” our doctrinal statement in the future.
Joel Tetrau (Joel, I miss your posts!) tried to serve us well by categorizing fundamentalists, but the term is still so ambiguous that the changes you suggest are good ones.
Please keep up the good work. For many of us, SI is our “home” on the web.
"The Midrash Detective"
Aaron,
Thanks for your diligent work at SI. I first came across SI two or three years ago, and read it for a year of so before signing on to comment. I, like many, grew up in a strong fundamentalist context, but became increasingly discouraged with much of present day fundamentalism. Without specifically intending it, I became increasingly distant from the fundamentalist scene. It just didn’t seem to matter much, and as I became more immersed in my own ministry demands, I invested less time in staying in touch with my fundamentalist friends.
SI brought me back in touch with my fundamentalist roots in a positive sense. It was never my desire nor intention to absent myself from fundamentalism, but circumstances were moving me in the direction. I owe a great deal to my background, and consider strong fundamentalists some of my greatest teachers and examples. My desire has always been to contribute to the health of this movement, if possible. SI has allowed me to become re-acquainted with the world of fundamentalism (or at least a portion of it), and for that I am thankful. Keep up the good work!
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
But in my experience, the really interesting people are the ones who are not quite what I am but not so different that can’t find any common interests. (IOW, even if we could have an SI where only fundamentalists of a particular kind take part, that would be kind of dull)
But adopting a broader doctrinal standard is not on the table (though making the current one more precise in some ways is a recurring theme), so “the fundamentals” themselves remain central to any future scenario… as does the belief that the fundamentals are worth defending and contending for.
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.
Keep it up 8-)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I grew up a Southern Baptist whose preacher dad subscribed to the Sword of the Lord. Back then most conservative SBC preachers did so. I now look forward to each copy of The Biblical Evangelist.
You guys (independent Baptists, Fundamentalists, etc.) have had an influence on the SBC Conservative Resurgence and the SBC in general (and, I would argue, evangelicalism in general). I appreciate the information and the work you put into this site. I appreciate any emphasis on the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. I enjoy getting the perspective of independent Fundamentalists. Keep up the good work.
David R. Brumbelow
-
Though I could welcome the input of a conservative who holds to the basic fundamentals, but does not call themselves a fundamentalist (Dever, Mohler, MacArthar, etal) I would want to structure it so that we do not have Universal Unitarians participating (though the Unitarian would certainly add a new dynamic to sharpening our iron, there are plenty of other blogs where we can interact with people who do not share much common thinking with us).
-
If the change is made, I would want some sort of doctrinal statement to continue (a certain amount of fundamentals that would have to be agreed to) so that it was not opened up to too wide a range of participants. I’m guessing you have already considered this, but I would like some further input from the moderators as to your thoughts. Thank you to all those who work behind the scenes to help us sharpen iron as we interact with one another.
To everybody: your responses have really encouraged me. Thx.
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.
So it’s the “only people who claim to be ‘fundamentalists’ can post here” idea that’s always been a bit shaky and maybe should just go away.
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.
Steve Davis
An alternative could be to say it is “for fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals”, but eventually you’ll have evangelicals who aren’t very conservative start to blur that line.
[Aaron Blumer] To JDMiller… nobody’s interested in lowering the doctrinal standard, so Unitarian Universalist et. al., is—well, over my dead body, as they say.To me, our doctrinal statement has been and will continue to be the defining factor. Moving to “hosted by” will likely attract other people JUST LIKE MANY OF US. I almost did not join because I was spooked by the fundamentalist label. In my neck of the woods, the type A’s have claimed exclusive right to the label and I am not a type A.
To everybody: your responses have really encouraged me. Thx.
Because of the baggage often associated with the label “fundamentalist,” the term has a wide spectrum of meaning. What won me over was the SI doctrinal statement’s definition of what the term meant HERE.
The bottom line is that the modest change in presentation will not alter the site much; it may bring in more type B’s and C’s (we cannot thank Joel Tetrau enough for his taxonomy!).
And Charlie, thanks for continuing to hang around. You are such a blessing to us.
Aaron, these changes can only make things better. As long as we keep the doctrinal statement, how can we not give you two thumbs up?
What I might suggest is a forum to discuss the meaning of specific Bible verses, or at least adding a description to a forum for that so we know where to post ‘em. Our love for the Word is (or should be) the hallmark of a healthy fundamentalism. Thanks for all you do!
"The Midrash Detective"
To me, it’s one of the many situations where disputes about terms and definitions gets in the way of talking about substance. The real differences in perspective on separation, relationship to culture, etc., are more important than what we call them (though I’d never say what we call them doesn’t matter… labels do matter— is it “pro choice” or “pro abortion” or “pro death” for example—It’s just that there are some situations where they only get in the way.)
If anybody knows a good web marketing expert—who might help out a bit for marginal (or no) compensation, we could use some help coordinating a nice “forum relaunch whoopydoo” (I can’t seem to find a correct spelling for whoop e do). I still think you only get to do the really big splash once but a little splash wd be nice. It’s one of the many things that are not my thing.
(Edit: actually Bob Hayton has some things going on marketing-wise, so I’ll pick his brain… but the more the merrier)
(Edit again: Occurs to me that I should mention that “hosted by fundamentalists” was not my idea. Someone on the team sprung that one a while back. … just don’t want to give the impression that all the ideas come from me… if you were at all inclined to think so.)
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 must be trying to inject humor. Normally we would take this to the parking lot:-) But since much of Fundamentalism takes a tighter line than the Bible I’ll let it slide.
Blessings,
Steve
It’s OK that we like our marshmellows a little different - JG being a little more of a “tough fundamentalist” no doubt likes his burnt. Steve - being on the more soft end likes his mushy. It’s all good - everyone’s enjoying koinonia and it always taste good no matter how you prepare it! Allow me to pour you both a nice cup of coffee. See…..this isn’t hard! :)
This is much nicer than when wer’re all “bothered” and throwing marshmellows at each other! I mean I know it’s sometimes fun but you do realize when we have those kinds of discussions the “outsiders” must think we’re all nuts……I’ll say nothing of the obvious implication there. :)
Straight Ahead gang!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
SI is far from perfect but it has been a place that has fostered some helpful conversations. It has been a place where God’s fundamentalist, Bible-believing people have been able to see that the Kingdom is bigger than their bubble. One of the things I have appreciated about this place is the numbers of men younger than I who are mature and passionate about picking up their crosses and following Jesus in reaching this world with his Gospel. You have been a challenge and a blessing to me. I have also re-connected with people I knew in college and seminary. What a blessing it has been to see some of you again and read about your efforts to serve God. One more highlight has been the new friendships. These friendships have been meaningful relationships where there is genuine care, patience, and challenges to sharper my iron.
Oh, I had better mention the benefit of resources through SI. Because of the multi-faceted functions of this site, I have been able to access articles, ministry websites, books,and other resources that have helped me in the ministry.
It is a great place. I have worked with Jason and Aaron on that there are good and sound motives behind leading this site. I also interact with the moderators and know their desires to see this site used of the Lord.
[Pastor Joe Roof] One of the things I have appreciated about this place is the numbers of men younger than I who are mature and passionate about picking up their crosses and following Jesus in reaching this world with his Gospel.Joe,
Thanks for recognizing us younger guys. Didn’t know you were that old :-)
Steve
But we’re stuck with English for now I guess.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I now have a bit more clarity on where you are going with “hosted by fundamentalists” and I am quite open to the idea. I am learning that when I have a question about a position, that I need to ask questions and not just make assumptions about what someone else is saying. This site provides an excellent forum for doing just that. Again thank you to all those who work up front and behind the scenes at SI.
Aaron said:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whoop-de-do] whoop–de–do
we could use some help coordinating a nice “forum relaunch whoopydoo” (I can’t seem to find a correct spelling for whoop e do).
noun
\ˌh(w)üp-dē-ˈdü, ˌh(w)u̇p-, -tē-\
Definition of WHOOP-DE-DO
1: noisy and exuberant or attention-getting activity (as at a social affair or in a political campaign)
2: a lively social affair
3: agitated public discussion or debate
*****
If the change is made to “hosted by” and some major formatting changes will be made to the website/forums, perhaps an opportunity should be made available for current and former participants who might not be so “whoopy” about the new “do” to no longer be listed as registered users. This sort of “tidying up the rolls” would more accurately reflect the names of those in agreement with the new scope rather than grandfathering in the disaffected who have already left SI (figuratively) or current participants who might desire to do so if a change such as this is made. Or perhaps registrants could be given the choice to be designated as either “former” or “current” if it’s problematic to actually delete names.
But if there are some strong objections to focusing the fundamentalist identity on those hosting/leading the site vs. everybody who posts, I’d certainly be interested in hearing the whys and wherefores, as they say. So far, I haven’t gotten much to think about on that side of the question.
As for the whoopedoo… has more to do w/the forum relaunch, not the slight “brand adjustment”… which is probably not substantial enough to put the balloons and crepe paper up for.
(I should say too, that changes being explored to the site look and feel are not on the large scale… this one focuses on the forums and the rest is some cosmetic fine tuning)
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.
Thanks for the info regarding unregistering. That explains why when I tried to do a people search using the “former user” selection in the role category it didn’t list anyone. I thought that because it was a search option, there were actually people with that designation.
Edit: yes, there was a problem with multiple filters there so the “former” wasn’t showing hits. Working on it.
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.
[Shaynus] So the casting call for writers has come out. I foggily (is that a word?) remember that word documents need to be sent and formatted a certain way, ect. Does anyone have and SI writing template I could download?Shaynus-
I’m fairly sure that if you put it into a plain text or Word doc (no special features other than the standard bold, italics, and underline), our guy will take care of the rest. You can get more details at: http://sharperiron.org/writing-for-sharperiron
"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
In many Christian sects or denominations where material is used from outside sources, those hosting such use of this material will make sure to include where such Teachers depart from their sectarian values while still using its benefits to insure a protection of the students in the care, even in very loose forums or discussions. It is worth considering, in my view. It would serve to strengthen SI’s profile while enlarging their ability to use other materials.
This one’s too long, too, but it’ll have to do.
I don’t think we’re likely to post articles that are “outside the boundaries of fundamentalism” or with content that “crosses fundamentalist boundaries.”
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by the question.
I guess two scenarios that might be close come to mind:
1- articles that are about the boundaries of fundamentalism. Since there is a lot of disagreement on that topic, it’s likely that writing of that sort will put one boundary or another someplace that not all agree is the proper place (understatement!).
2- articles by people that not everybody would agree are fundamentalists.
I’m certainly comfortable communicating—if it needs saying—that not everybody who’s material we post would be considered a fundamentalist by everybody and that not every idea would be considered a fundamentalist idea by everybody. But isn’t that pretty obvious? I mean, to some, you’re not a fundamentalist if you ever say “Billy Graham” without also saying “the rotten compromiser,” or if you think the Sovereign Grace people have a few good songs.
So if we started rating the fundamentalist authenticity of every idea or writer, wouldn’t we be trying to prescribe for everybody what real fundamentalism is or isn’t? We exist to debate those sorts of things, not to prescribe them.
That said, we do claim by our doctrinal statement that fundamentalism is not less than certain things. It’s the “how much more than that is it?” part that is debated, and we wouldn’t want to stifle that discussion (or just make a lot of unnecessary work for ourselves by weighing in on it every time).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I don’t think we’re likely to post articles that are “outside the boundaries of fundamentalism” or with content that “crosses fundamentalist boundaries.”So, may I understand that when you published Steve Davis’ articles both disagreeing with historical fundamentalism’s acceptance and teaching of cessationism and asserting a form of non-cessationism you, or at least SI collectively, believes it is an unsettled boundary within fundamentalism?
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by the question.
Of course Steve is not what I had in view, it was a general question but since you pressed for what I believe some might consider an example, here is one that immediately comes to mind.
But what I had in view, more extensively, was those things SI might normally link to which are not published by SI, which might contain a substantial worthwhile treatment of a doctrine minus a point or two which needs editorial clarification or qualification. In that way you can model for other believers how to use other sources with discernment. It is just an idea for what might be more broad SI published articles while integrally preserving their own boundaries.
As far as our boundaries go, we did publish some time ago a number of http://sharperiron.org/leadership-doctrinal-distinctives] doctrinal distinctives that the mods and admins hold to , which includes young earth 6x24 creation.
About Filings.. they’ve continued to be confusing to people. Still don’t really understand why. But, in any case, there is already a disclaimer in the Filings header. I don’t see much value in trying to weigh in on every Filings post and tell the world what we think of it. We already do that fairly often in the comments section… which is what the comments section is for.
Occasionally, we do editorialize a little in the Filings, but I think it would be impractical to create that expectation. Usually, when we’re posting Filings, we’re noting something interesting and potentially important that just hit the news. There’s no way the team is going to discuss each of these and arrive at a unified voice on what we think of each of these items so that we can post them with an official SI position. A good bit of the time, there would be no consensus on the team.
Again, SI has not bean—and isn’t going to be—yet another fundamentalist entity that is making a (implicit) claim to speaking with authority on issues. This is place to think about questions, not decree answers.
As for short disclaimers about evangelical leaders to say “SI does not support all of the ideas and practices of so and so” and the like… That’s so tedious and should go without saying by now. Maybe we’ll add a blanket Mother of All Disclaimers in the About pages somewhere: “SI does not support all of the ideas and practices of anybody. No exceptions.”
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.
"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
Thanks, I am indeed well aware of that. My comments, though, were not with that interest in mind. But thank you for the reminder, I am sure for everyone who might not be aware of that.
[Aaron Blumer] The discussion on the article you mentioned showed that not all fundamentalists see 6x24 as a boundary of fundamentalism. Who’s right or wrong about that… SI’s purpose is to have interesting conversations about matters like these, not to try to exercise an authoritative voice on them.Thanks Aaron, so before I conclude, I do want to be clear in understanding that from your post the take away (not the only take away of course) with respect to the issue of cessationaism vs non-cessationism, you, or SI more specifically, does not consider this a settled issue in fundamentalism resulting in it being part of a clear identifying feature of a fundamentalist, though you or SI or other fundamentalist might have their own settled position?
The fact that articles or discussions about boundary questions occur on SI should not be taken to mean that SI considers the matters being debated to be non-essential to the identity of fundamentalism.
I’m sure I can say that more concisely but time presses. Class in like 15 seconds.
The boundaries not open for discussion would be pretty much those in the doctrinal statement…. though there might even be ways talk about (and invariably debate) how they function as boundaries and what they mean, etc.
I mean, if even one person and only one questions whether idea x is really an essential for fundamentalist identity, there could be good reasons to have a conversation about it. The conversation doesn’t mean that the point is really a non-essential.
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.
As a charismatic fundamentalist I sometimes feel I am amongst other fish who do not find my presence in their tank totally comfortable
but I have nevertheless been well blessed by the spiritual food on which I been fed. What I can’t digest, I leave but have not been left malnourished.
Richard Pajak
I’m kidding. I’m sure you do find yourself in a small minority in discussions here, but I’m glad to hear you’ve found the experience helpful (and apparently not too brutal).
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.
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.


Discussion