A Few Answers to SharperIron Critics

Should we answer critics or ignore them? Though critics should not be lumped in with fools too hastily, Proverbs 26:4-5 might be of some help in answering this question. Apparently, sometimes we should not answer fools, but sometimes we should. Given the number of leadership experts who say, “Never answer the critics because…” as well as the number who say, “You have to answer your critics because…,” I’m guessing that what’s true of fools is also true of critics in this case: sometimes we shouldn’t answer them, but sometimes we should.

Of course, we should listen to our critics first and weigh their criticism. But when listening to a critic reveals a consistent pattern of factual error (and more than a little evidence of malice), further listening is poor stewardship of our time. That narrows the options to “tuning out” or responding.

Public criticism over an extended period of time narrows the options even further. The likelihood increases that people unfamiliar with the facts will encounter accusations and believe them. Actual damage could occur.

Eventually the question is no longer if we should answer the critics but how to answer them without further empowering them—or perhaps, how to answer them in a way that empowers them less than not answering them! One good way might be to target falsehoods without specifically targeting their source.

So here goes. In most cases, these are criticisms that have been leveled publicly against SI or the team for many months, but some more recent accusations receive attention here as well. I’ll put them all in question form.

Is SharperIron going to go under financially?

Sure—doesn’t everything eventually? But the site has not asked for money in over a year. Last August we had a fund drive to pay for 2009’s server costs. As we enter the third quarter of 2010, we’ve no need to do that this year. But what does that prove, either way? Sometimes the wicked prosper (Ps. 37:7) and sometimes the faithful languish (pretty much the whole book of Jeremiah) and sometimes vice versa.

Did SharperIron misrepresent its membership total?

In May of 2009, the membership database had over 4,000 accounts, many of which had been inactive for quite some time. On June 1, 2009, the site went live with new software we nicknamed “3.0.” Due to unexpected data migration problems, we couldn’t get those accounts into the new software in any timely way. So we gave up and asked everyone to register again. From that point on, we had two membership databases. The old one is still on the server.

For some time after June of ‘09, the membership reporting page still had the old ballpark number of 4,000. At some point, I updated the page with more precise wording distinguishing between the two databases. Now we just report the number in the new database (at this moment, 1,387).

To one critic, having the original “4,000” out there for a while was both dishonest and criminal. And more precise reporting as we continued the transition wasn’t good enough either. But one fact remains: the night before we went to “3.0,” SharperIron, LLC owned a database with more than 4,000 member accounts, and after the move it still owned that database—and still owns it today. “SharperIron 3.0” was a nickname for new software, not the name of a new organization. “3.0” does not have members and never will.

I’m still waiting for the FTC to prosecute me for my crimes. But I’m not holding my breath.

Do the SharperIron team members (publisher, moderators, etc.) beat up on non-calvinists?

I’ve been publicly accused (recently by name) of doing this. I’m tempted to offer a cash reward for anyone who can find a thread where I attacked someone for not being a Calvinist or for expressing views contrary to Calvinism. I don’t think I’ve ever even claimed to be a Calvinist. Since some of the critics seem to have too much time on their hands, I invite them to see if they can find any place where I declared my views on Calvinism. It’s possible that I’ve done that somewhere, but it would take a while to find.

In reference to the team, the situation is a little more complex. Many of the team members are more Calvinistic than not, and in the area of Calvinist soteriology, some are very passionate about their beliefs on one point or several. But that’s OK. At SharperIron, the moderators are allowed to have opinions and express them. We’ve officially said so in the “About” information (though it could probably be made clearer), and that’s been standard practice here since SI launched in 2005.

For the record, Arminians (and neither-nor’s!) are welcome here. The doctrinal statement does not exclude them and we’ve never banned anyone for those views. You will find that Arminian or anti-Calvinist views are greeted with passionate rebuttals, but you are welcome to offer passionate counter-rebuttals.

To any non-Calvinist who is being ganged up on at any time: contact me and cry foul. I can’t really help it if the ratio is such that you’re outnumbered—the membership is open in that regard—but we’ve no desire to gang up on anyone. If you’re a non-Calvinist and want more folks standing with you, recruit some buddies to join the site.

Is SharperIron in love with the conservative evangelicals?

That sort of depends on whether you’re talking about the membership, the readership or the leadership. Members are all over the map on that one. Judging from the ‘09-‘10 reader survey, readers would be even more so. But that accusation is often targeted at the site leadership. Where do we stand?

I feel kind of silly answering this because I think the answer is obvious. But not everybody reads the forum threads, and some apparently read every fifth word or so (just enough to get things completely wrong). The attitude of everybody on the team that I’ve seen comment on the subject is that the McArthur, Mohler, Dever, Carson, Piper, Mahaney, etc. crowd has accomplished some really good things and appears destined to continue to do that. We appreciate much of these men’s work. I don’t know of anyone on the team who would deny that these men have some problems theologically and/or in their practice of separation. The “CEs” are not all the same, so it’s hard to generalize beyond that.

But in discussions about seeking closer ties with these leaders—and others like them—my own response has been pretty consistently tepid. I continue to not really understand why some are so passionate about seeking that kind of “emerging middle.” I’m not for lumping the CEs in with apostates, but my imagination doesn’t seem to be up to the task of envisioning what benefit there would be in “closer ties” (whatever exactly that means). I don’t see much to gain for fundamentalists, for the conservative evangelicals or for the body of Christ as whole. Since I’m not a believer in “bigger is better,” I tend to see larger coalitions as more dramatic but not more productive in any eternal sense.

“In love with the CEs”? Well, I don’t hate them. Maybe to the critics, that’s the same thing.

Has Aaron described the site as being for “fundamentalists of the conservative evangelical variety”?

I have to smile at that one. There’s a little switcheroo misquote there. In a few places I have described the site as being for, or consisting of, “conservative evangelicals of the fundamentalist variety.” I think in one place I went with “conservative evangelicals of the kind known historically as fundamentalists,” but that was pretty clunky. The aim in those descriptions is to help folks who know nothing at all about fundamentalism get some idea what the term means in reference to the site.

Since all who believe and promote the gospel are evangelicals (the term derives from euangelion, the Greek word for “gospel”), the site is certainly for evangelicals. Since our constituents are more conservative than most who claim the gospel, we’re also certainly conservative evangelicals. But since we’re also particular about separation (with varying understandings of the principle), we are in yet another subset: one called fundamentalists.

Maybe a diagram would be of some help.

Does the SI team unfairly moderate people they disagree with?

I don’t think we’ve ever had a “How we can moderate less fairly?” meeting. It’s our aim to be fair, and we put a lot of effort into looking for good balances, but we’d have to be fools to think we’re always successful. Sometimes the truth in a situation seems quite clear at the moment but looks very different a few days or weeks later. Sometimes the only thing that is clear is that we ought to intervene in a discussion, but we can’t work out among us what form that intervention should take. So sometimes we just have to pick an option and go for it, and hope for the best.

Everybody sees things through the filter of his or her own sympathies and prejudices. This is true of moderators but also of members posting in threads. So it’s all too easy for someone to believe he “got reffed” when a foul is called against him.

Interestingly, the most aggressive critic of our moderating efforts routinely and unilaterally removes—or refuses to post—comments at his own site if he doesn’t like what they say. At SI, your comment posts first and if there are issues, a team discusses them. Through that counsel, we seek to make wise choices.

We’re always looking for ways to do things better. One persistent goal is nurturing healthy tension while simultaneously reining in inappropriate or clearly unhelpful statements. But it’s an art, and none of us claim to be Michelangelo.

Conclusion

SI is not constantly under attack. As far as I know, the site’s enemies are few, and critics of the distorting or dishonest sort are even fewer. I don’t get angry phone calls (which kind of surprises me—but I certainly don’t mind!). If there are a whole lot of folks who think we’re a Very Bad Thing, they don’t seem to go out of their way to say so. To the few who seem determined to sling mud: well, sling if you must. I’m not slinging back—but occasionally we will rinse off a bit.


Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia and worked in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.

Discussion

Thanks Aaron for all that you do, and thanks also to the others who work with SharperIron to continue this great website. I appreciate it, and truly believe it is making a difference for good. I check the site usually multiple times per day.

SharperIron gives a voice to people who simply would not have had one 10 or 20 years ago, and — if nothing else — serves as a much-needed check on some of the excesses of fundamentalism for all who will hear — and, believe me, people are listening. That is very healthy.

I must say, however, that my greatest surprise in participating on SI is finding members who are willing to question things such as young-earth creationism or even free-market capitalism. Of course, this is not to mention a willingness to denigrate dispensationalism!

My fear is that a new generation with a new freedom to question and criticize the abuses of fundamentalism’s past sometimes lacks the discernment to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Whereas the “fundamentalist rebels” of my college days were enamored with MacArthur and Swindoll, today it seems that a focus is placed on men like Piper who are not solid on either creationism, cessationism or prophecy but are highly regarded for holding to the “doctrines of grace.” Things like creationism and dispensationalism are seen by some as part of a “fundamentalist baggage” which needs to be discarded in favor of something more weighty.

Frankly, this scares the daylights out of me and leaves me wondering where my ecclesiastical home may be in 10 years.

(In a nutshell, I would argue that indeed something more weighty is needed than the excesses of the fundamentalism of the past — but that dispensationalism was never inherent to those excesses and Reformed Theology is not the answer.)

All of this is by no means the fault of SI — but I believe that SI has greatly brought this situation to light. I would love to hear the thoughts of others on these issues.

As always, please correct me if I am wrong :|

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

I know you didn’t start it, but thanks for running SI — despite the critics.

I count one of those critics among my friends, and we talk from time to time about this stuff. I say now what I said to him once:

You are doing a journalistic service here, on some level. You expose that which nobody was allowed to talk about at one time in certain institutions or groups or associations.

Some don’t like this. Some don’t like where it leads.

But a few benefits are this…

a). If there is any hope to stem the tide of exits from Fundamentalism, the foks inside the movement are going to have to answer questions and address misgivings. Some who have questions and misgivings will leave anyway. But the steady migration over the years has been partially a result of the suppression of free speech within certain groups. “Ask the wrong thing, and you’re out of our [insert club, institution, movement, association here].” No wonder people leave. Others left because “they were not of us”. So be it. But why throw away those who only want answers or clarifications?

b). There are some things that skulked in the dark in some parts of Fundamentalism. That which was done in secret can now be shouted from the housetop. That is uncomfortable for some. It is also diffucult to remember how to shout Biblically when you’re up there on the housetop. But in the end, the process should be good for the movement. As someone who once dwelled in those parts of the movement that had some skulking going on, I know where many bodies are buried (please, don’t take this too literally). It’s good to know that they can be dug up from their hiding place and given a decent marker in a good cemetery.

c). SI appears to lean leftward (toward CEhood) because that is one of the big issues now. Fundamentalism has always deemed that which was most like itself as the biggest threat. And culturally, rightly so. But the folks who are looking for those imaginary greener pastures are surely going to look over the fence next door before they start loading up Google Earth to look all over. CE is the issue, as much as anything else. That’s why it appears in the pages of SI so much. Same thing with Reformed Theology, or Covenant Theology, or other Milliennialisms than the one we all really know deep down is right. ;)

So keep on doing this, Aaron.

I agree, Bro. Scharf, that there’s a ‘double-edged sword’ that places like SI have supplied us with. Forums have given people a chance to voice questions that simply were not allowed in the past. It’s a place where folks can work things out out loud, so to speak, and with people of similar but not identical (the Doctrinal Statement here is quite broad IMO) doctrinal beliefs. I can think of many times that just a little blurb by someone like Bro. Durning or Bro. Aaron sent my mind off in a direction I didn’t even know it needed to go. I’ve read books I never would have known existed if not for men like Bro. Charlie and Bro. Joseph. I’ve read posts in opposition to some of my firmly held beliefs that have changed my mind, and others that actually served to strengthen those beliefs instead of weaken them. But it has also provided an unprecedented opportunity for heresy to flourish.

The problem I have with critics is when they offer no evidence to support their accusations. It’s often hearsay and invective, and I’m shocked when the brethren tolerate this online when they would never tolerate it in real life. I’ve attempted to answer blogs/comments on other sites only to have my comments removed. That does not happen here unless a post somehow violates the Comment Policy or Doctrinal Statement, which are posted for all to see. One quickly realizes when active on the internet if someone is not really interested in the truth, but in sowing strife and confusion. So if you read something critical of another person or website, just ask yourself if they’ve provided any proof of their assertions, or if it’s just mud-slinging. If you find that what you are reading is basically filth, then leave it in the pig trough where it belongs, mark that person as a railer and separate from them. There are plenty of good-hearted and honest people out there who want to have interesting and reasonable discussions about the hard issues, who are willing to admit to making mistakes, and to make public correction after having made a public mistake.

But all of this interaction can get quite messy at times. We have to ask ourselves- do we really want Sharper Iron to be pristine? Should we narrow the membership down to only those who think like ‘us’- whoever ‘us’ is? Do we want the Doctrinal Statement to outline every jot and tittle? Aaron posted a question about changing the DS to include a statement about 24/7 creation (if that’s not aboveboard, I don’t know what it, btw). The responses were really interesting, and I felt like I could see wheels turning as we considered what it means to narrow the focus of SI. What do we want to discuss, and what do we want to take for granted? What difficult and controversial questions should people see answered in this format? If we want stimulating conversation, we are going to have to put up with the mess- and that is what the moderators are for- to sweep up when the pile gets too high. :p

When it comes to moderation, the bottom line is that people who have never moderated a forum do not know what is involved. They don’t see the long discussions, the thought that goes into what kind of action to take, if any; the hateful emails we sometimes receive from people who are oh-so-spiritual in the forums but pull a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde when something happens they don’t like. When situations arise that may require moderation, there are many different perspectives that are offered, because the mod team consists of very different people with very different beliefs on many things. I think the only thing that all the mods have in common (other than agreeing with the DS) is that we believe places like SI are a good thing, and we’re willing to put our keyboards where our mouth is.
[Paul J. Scharf] My fear is that a new generation with a new freedom to question and criticize the abuses of fundamentalism’s past sometimes lacks the discernment to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This is where the mature and experienced can make somewhat of a sacrifice and get involved. What happens is that a thread gets messy and complicated and frustrating, and what most mature people do is walk away, because that is what one would do in real life. But on a forum, that just means the inmates get to run the asylum. Forums need the stability and wisdom of the spiritually mature and knowledgeable, but it takes time and effort, which is something we hesitate to spend online. I think as much as some of us use the internet, we still see prolonged interaction online as a waste of time. It’s a theory, but I think today our generation is in many ways setting the standard of the use of the internet for future generations. We have to decide if its an investment we want to make.

That’s my 2 shekels.

Paul… in the world of Drupal (the PHP software the site uses), they talk about “exposing” functions. What they mean is, getting capabilities of the software out in the interface where folks can click and find ways to use it. There are all kinds of possibilities that nobody can use until a programmer “exposes” them.

What I think SI can do for ministry leaders is expose thinking, not in the sense of “uncover something bad that folks are generally trying to hide” but rather get ways of thinking out where anybody who wants to influence thinking can see them, understand them and answer them. So I think the anti-capitalism and anti 6x24 (which is a pretty rare thing here, but you do see some questioning of particulars) and lots of other ways of thinking that might be surprising to some, are out there all the time but not answerable until they’re known and understood.

In the case of how Scripture and wisdom relate to economics, we who believe we understand the implications in that area have a very tough row to hoe because schools have not really taught economics very well for a couple of generations now and Christian schools have not done much better than the rest, as far as I can tell.

We have somewhat similar problems in the area of science because Fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism often speak very broadly and condemningly of “science,” as though the thing itself is somehow anti-Christian. That’s unfortunate and the attitude alienates the best brains that grow up among us… so they leave in search of a view of truth that is more coherent.

But anyway, it’s just a case in point that if you don’t know what folks are thinking, you can’t tell what you’d like to “fix.” And for those who are called do that sort of fixing (or attempt it) as part of whatever their official job is, that kind of knowledge is valuable (for the rest of us, it’s kind of a fun hobby). Of course, SI doesn’t reveal anything like a scientific sampling of what a generation is thinking, but it does provide some clues.

Mike, thanks for the encouragement and for putting in a good word for us among your friends.
[Mike] Fundamentalism has always deemed that which was most like itself as the biggest threat
I wouldn’t make that generalization, myself, but it does describe much of the movement in the last fifty years or so.
[Susan] willing to put our keyboards where our mouth is
I know what you mean, but I enjoyed trying to picture that! :D

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.

There is no such thing as a perfect place to read about issues and discuss them, but SI is a great place to do these things. Through this site, I have reconnected with friends I have not seen in years and I have met some wonderful new friends. I have been encouraged by some of the things I have read and challenged by other things. I’ve even been disgusted by some things a time or two.

Aaron is doing a wonderful job.

I’ve taken a few beatings from critics for my participation in this site and I am thankful for them. God is teaching me to love critics, evaluate their legitimate concerns, ignore their unreasonable concerns, and to ultimately focus on Him in my walk and service whether people like what I am doing or not. That’s been good for this sensitive soul.

Here’s the neat thing, I have even watched some of the critics of SI become friends of SI!

God is good.

From time to time I read sharperiron, particularly if there is an article afoot that has caused a stir among the brethren. I have also posted comments from time to time, with varying responses. I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but some of the responses have been a bit condescending. I happily represent an older form of fundamentalism that isn’t fooled by John Piper, Rick Warren, and that crowd.

I have also noticed the attitude that the older preachers take toward SI. Whenever it comes up at pastors’ fellowships or just around the lunch table, most of the old guys roll their eyes and express discouragement over the lack of discernment so prevalent among the young. They not only dislike the left-leaning position of SI, but they also dislike the attitude. SI has the reputation of defaming godly men of the past in preference for “non-cessationist” (please read “charismatic”) compromisers of the present. (To even consider the possibility that one can be a fundamentalist and question creationism is absurd.)

One final thought about SI bias: Your diagram of evangelicalism and fundamentalism reveals your bias. You drew a clear oval separating “conservative evangelicalism” from “evangelicalism,” but you DID NOT draw any lines of separation between “conservative evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism.” Aaron, a picture is worth a thousand words!

Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com

SI has the reputation of defaming godly men of the past in preference for “non-cessationist” (please read “charismatic”) compromisers of the present.
Reputation is not fact. Reputation is based on perspective, personal experience, and bias. For example, if the only sermon you ever heard by Dr. Roloff was one where he spent 15 minutes on the evils of using aluminum foil, then your assessment of his ‘reputation’ would be that he had some… serious issues. However, I have listened to and read Dr. Roloff my entire life, and I can place his comments in context with his personality and ministry focus. I believe I can see what he did that was good, and where his foibles were. If anyone thinks that Godly men of the past didn’t have foibles and that if they did we shouldn’t acknowledge them, then that’s a problem.

I venture to say that some of this ‘consensus’ is based more on rumor and vague impressions than on actual participation or a thorough reading of the entire site, nor does it take into account what the purpose of forums are. If you have evidence of the defamation of Godly men, a preference for charismatic compromisers, and a left-leaning ‘position’ or ‘attitude’ here at SI, please feel free to present it.

[Monte] (To even consider the possibility that one can be a fundamentalist and question creationism is absurd.)
Nobody here has done that, to my knowledge. We have had some debate as to whether 6 24hr days is an essential for fundamentalism and given the early Gap Theorists in the movement, it’s obvious that this is not an absurd question.

As for the diagram. It is nothing more than three concentric circles. All three were created using exactly the same process. Made a circle, labled it, made another inside that, labeled it, made another inside that, labeled it. Simple as that.

About reputation… it’s easy to sample a few friends’ opinions and declare it to be a reputation. But if this consensus exists, it’s telling that I have not heard from any of these men (OK, maybe a couple in the space of two years).

Edit: one more thing about “the site leadership’s positions” on things. It’s likely that a 2nd tier doctrinal statement of some kind will post here sometime in the next few months. The team has talked about this a lot and we see several advantages in leaving the site DS as it is but putting out some things to clarify where the team stands on some issues.

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.

A few thoughts while reading this.

I am not sure what the purpose of this article is or what is driving it, but it comes across pretty strong. I have to wonder if a few cooling off days before posting it would have been wise.

Also, if one of the purposes of this article is to get feedback and improve, I would be very cautious on how you respond to the criticism. Demanding proof for the way people perceive the site is a bad idea Susan. People do not owe you that, and they do not have the time or desire to build a air tight case that will stand up in court. But if they have read the site for a few years, they have perceptions over time that may be accurate even though they will not go to the trouble to research and cite specifics.

My perception after several years (and no, I have no interest or time to research specific examples to prove my point) is that the site is just run in a too top heavy way to really work online. I am not saying it is wrong, but it is just not the way the online world works. I think the decrease in participation proves my point.

Here is one big reason why I do not post any more. If I post something a moderator doesn’t like, he/she can publicly attack me and my motives but give me no voice to defend myself. Your policy is that people can only question moderators privately about forum policy issues even though moderators can/do blast people publicly. This actually happened the last time I posted.

That kind of authoritarian approach may work in real life, but I don’t know it will work in this setting. Moderators and such should be invisible, handling problems quietly rather than doing public executions. They should not be anxious to always remind people they have power over them (which is the opposite of my perception here).

[Pastor Marc Monte] I have also noticed the attitude that the older preachers take toward SI. Whenever it comes up at pastors’ fellowships or just around the lunch table, most of the old guys roll their eyes and express discouragement over the lack of discernment so prevalent among the young. They not only dislike the left-leaning position of SI, but they also dislike the attitude. SI has the reputation of defaming godly men of the past in preference for “non-cessationist” (please read “charismatic”) compromisers of the present. (To even consider the possibility that one can be a fundamentalist and question creationism is absurd.)
Where’s the proof? I’d like to see where we did that.

I do recall someone writing a letter from “Richard Clearwaters” and passing it off as their own, which got them into trouble, but SI actively defaming godly men of the past? I don’t think so. It certainly isn’t planned or discussed by the mods/admin team.

On second thought, if you mean that we’re not going to cover up the moral failures of men like Jack Hyles ( http://www.biblicalevangelist.org/jack_hyles_chapter3.php] who was disqualified from ministry many times over ), then I’d like to know why we should. After all, http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-28-10/14386] if Piper can get crushed on this site for taking an 8 month leave of absence , then how much more so a guy who kept his own mistress on staff at his church?

FWIW, I agree with you. I don’t think that a Fundamentalist - as rightly defined - could be anything other than 6x24 literal creation. As for the discernment factor - well, maybe some of those older men should be here to tell us when we’re wrong. Iron sharpening iron and all that. ;)

"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

[GregH] Demanding proof for the way people perceive the site is a bad idea Susan. People do not owe you that, and they do not have the time or desire to build a air tight case that will stand up in court. But if they have read the site for a few years, they have perceptions over time that may be accurate even though they will not go to the trouble to research and cite specifics.
This raises the question of how we participate online being different than how we operate in real life. IOW, we’d not receive an accusation IRL without some proof, but we can do it on the internet? If you have an impression, then you can certainly state it as such, but I believe making an accusation requires more than just “Because I think so”.
Here is one big reason why I do not post any more. If I post something a moderator doesn’t like, he/she can publicly attack me and my motives but give me no voice to defend myself. Your policy is that people can only question moderators privately about forum policy issues even though moderators can/do blast people publicly. This actually happened the last time I posted.
I’ve noticed some confusion on the roles of moderators. Unless a post is headed with something like “MODERATOR NOTE” or “Official Moderator Action”, then that post is simply a post by another member. It is not an attempt to enforce site policy. I put my mod hat on to act as a mod, but then I take it off to post like everyone else. You are free to reply to those posts as you would with any other member. If you have a concern or question about official moderator action, then you simply email or PM that moderator or Forums Director Peet, or the site publisher Aaron Blumer. We take all such communications seriously and discuss them at length.

We also handle most moderating actions quietly. There are very few times when we take action publicly, but sometimes our actions are visible, and there’s nothing in the software that allows us to be completely invisible… and sometimes it is a good thing to act publicly so that folks know what is and isn’t expected. We have never claimed to be perfect, and the poll we did recently showed that folks are evenly split over 1) we moderate too heavily and 2) we don’t moderate enough. So we act in good conscience and let the chips fall where they may.

The ‘leadership’ here is not that of a pastor or elder, and SI is not a church. People who view a Christian forum as if it is a church-by-proxy are going to be very confused by how we handle things, that’s for sure.
Monte, Thank you for your comments
  • About Creationism: I agree with you on this point: “To even consider the possibility that one can be a fundamentalist and question creationism is absurd.” (By the way I am a Y/E creationist. Haven’t always been but for the last 38 years or so that has been my position - in my very early years I believed in ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism] the Gap “)
  • Cessationism: Bauder http://www.sharperiron.org/article/now-about-those-differences-part-ele…] cited in one of his “About those differences” articles that one major difference between fundamentalism and C/E is over this issue. I agree with him. I personally am a cessationist. I’m aware of some who participate on S/I who are not
To Jay C
I don’t think that a Fundamentalist - as rightly defined - could be anything other than 6x24 literal creation.
Many early fundamentalists believed in the gap theory. B Ramm (in the link above to “the Gap”: “The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings.” (c. 1954)

[Jim Peet] Many early fundamentalists believed in the gap theory.
One could argue that this is a good illustration of the fact that fundamentalism as a movement was inherently flawed.

One could also argue that in the light of 50 years of the modern creation movement, this position, though perhaps once allowable, is now completely untenable.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

I wrote this for another thread, but it seems to be needed here as well, so I’ll repost (in it’s entirety so people can submit feedback here). I’m not going to recreate every link, since I’m already doing so in the Title field, and I’m not going to carry over over things like smilies and the “edited by” info. That stuff is easy enough to see and doesn’t alter the substance of what I originally wrote. In retrospect, the term “Administrative Interjection” probably wasn’t best - Personal Interjection was probably better. As I noted, this wasn’t (and is not currently) an official mod. action…it’s a peek behind the walls, so to speak.
http://sharperiron.org/article/ethos-statement-fundamentalism-evangelic…] Administrative Interjection
[Bob T.] SI needs to allow for normal and reasonable discussion or it will continue to lose people who desire to post here. Perhaps there needs to be more real conviction to allow normal expression and stop trying to over superintend all discussions. This thread involved most all Pastors, theologians, and teaching professionals. Do they really need to have the term heresy defined for them just because some moderator or administrator doesn’t like it? Lets get some old fashioned back bone that allows discussions to proceed with expressing convictions with back bone. Again, the statements of Central faculty on this thread were much stronger than mine. This thread should have been allowed to proceed without any remarks by Aaron or Susan as to language used. There were strong convictions expressed but within acceptable Christian conduct.
I’m going to stick my head in here to try and provide a clearer understanding of who/what the mods and staff are and also explain what SI does and doesn’t allow. I’m hoping to assuage some concerns that might be prompted by this thread or other discussion.

1. SI does NOT permit people who hold to an inspired King James position to remain on this site (if we’re talking about the position that only the KJV is without error).

2. None of the admins / staff hold to a re-inspired KJV position.

3. SI HAS, in the past, asked people to leave who did hold to an inspired translation position.

4. SI does try to provide a place for serious and scholarly discussion of the KJV issue http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forums/english-bible-text-debate] in this forum .

5. Anyone http://sharperiron.org/writing-for-sharperiron] who would like to write an article for either side is welcome to do so , although I can’t guarantee it will get published - I’m in the wrong department. Smile People who interact on this site, especially on this issue, should expect to be challenged.

6. SI is not trying to redefine Fundamentalism or doctrine. We are a place for orthodox Christians - both Fundamentalist and Evangelical - http://sharperiron.org/about-si] to discuss doctrine and other matters . We are not the Oxford English Dictionary of Fundamentalism, and really don’t want to be. We try to be a ‘republic’ in terms of this site, not a dictatorship that establishes all the ‘rules’ of Fundyism.

7. SI isn’t perfect. We promise that we can’t always be as consistent as we might like to be, and we can’t always please everyone - including all the mods/staff.

8. We reserve the right to modify our policies, and people who have suggestions for our policies are welcome to contact Jim or Aaron to provide their input.

9. There’s no law keeping anyone here or keeping anyone from leaving. There’s also no law keeping anyone from starting their own SI or moving to http://www.baptistboard.com/ BaptistBoards.com or the http://www.fundamentalforums.com/ FFF .

10. Mods and Admins are allowed to express opinions and interact. Otherwise, they wouldn’t enjoy their jobs as much and probably wouldn’t want to do them.

11. edit - added after posting - If anyone feels unfairly moderated - and this post is NOT an official mod. action - they have the right to complain to Aaron, Jim, or any other mod who is not directly involved.

Personally, I’ve argued that we shouldn’t host the English Text Forum on this site, because I think it provides a platform for spreading error, and that should be easy enough to verify. However, we work as a team, and the other members of the team do not feel that way, so it stays. If it becomes a serious issue (as it was in the ‘06-‘07 years, IIRC), then we’ll revisit that.

So, I hope that’s helpful. If not, please contact myself, Jim, or Aaron. I now return you to the regularly scheduled debate between Bob and Aaron. :)

"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

The concentric circles: the Fundamentalist one is in a very pastel green color that doesn’t stand out against the pale tan color of the next size larger circle. So I can see how if your screen isn’t displaying colors well, or if you’re not paying too close attention, the diagram would look like it doesn’t have a separate circle for Fundamentalists.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.