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
- 5 views
We’re sincere about helping folks find a place to make their voice heard. I’m not in favor of silencing anybody. That isn’t my job (anybody’s?). But that isn’t the same as saying we want to bear responsibility for promoting every allegation or insinuation someone wants to make. If they can start their own blog or use Facebook, etc., the responsibility will be their own to bear. That seems fair to me.
Meanwhile, if there’s a millionaire out there who wants to help launch a SharperIron Ivestigative Reporting Division… well, again, we’d be really interested in talking about that. Nobody on the current team has the time and money to do that right (and it’s not the sort of thing that ought to be done poorly).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think it’s important to elaborate on two ideas that are implicit in your article, if not explicitly stated:
1). There is a difference between someone’s post and an SI article. Recently, I had a communication from someone complaining about your failure to publish the story about “X” in your article (I presume I know what you’re talking about), while continuing your persecution of Pastor Phelps. Of course, SI has not persecuted Pastor Phelps. Individuals have posted observations about one set of decisions out of many in his long years of ministry. They were relevant to the conversation at hand, but hardly an expose’ or even an accusation, much less a “persecution”.
2). Ideas and persons in SI threads will always be inter-linked. We discuss concepts, and the actions of persons are analyzed with regard to those concepts. Or a person acts in a certain way, which provokes a discussion of the philosophy behind or wisdom of those actions. People will always get injected into threads. But I prefer for SI to be about ideas rather than people, and I see that this is your intent. As I said in the discussion of the New Hampshire debacle, the goal should be to figure out what we can do better, not to crucify a pastor who we believe acted in an ill-advised manner.
I hope I haven’t bent your ideas in ways you didn’t want. These are just a few things I thought about as I read your article.
I don’t see a lot of value in our contributing much to either of those two.
In the Phelps controversy, it was a lose-lose scenario for us pretty much from day one. Where emotions run hot, people “see” attacks and defenses whether they are there or not. My own experience through that has been interesting. Some have characterized a post as toting some defensive party line while others have characterized the same post as a vicious attack on the same character. Still others would read it as a personal attack on a third party (such as Tina A.) and still others as an endorsement of pedophilia.
One can either take all that seriously and pull his hair out or he can shrug and say hey, that’s how people are and not worry too much about it.
In any case, I think SI’s contribution is better in the areas of ideas than people whether it’s the forums or the front page. Not everybody on the team shares my degree of conviction on that point.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It is easy to see “bashing” in different areas. I’m also concerned about the “bashing” of some of the SI clientele. How is that regulated?
What was wrong with what Pastor Phelps did?We don’t know everything he did, so how do we comment intelligently and accurately on that? Not to mention that there is more than one version of events- it’s a veritable Golden Corral of speculations and theories.
What could have been done different?If we aren’t sure about the details of what was said and done, it’s still an exercise in speculation. It seems to me that when we start answering according to the general information we do have, we still end up tangled in missing particulars.
And what should be our policies in cases of sexual abuse?That is the most beneficial and productive question IMO, and the one that most needs to be answered.
I’m also concerned about the “bashing” of some of the SI clientele. How is that regulated?If you think a post has violated the http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] Comment Policy , you can ‘flag’ it (there is a link below each post for this purpose) and the mods will take a look at it. Many times people answer for themselves, and when they do, we tend to leave it alone unless intervention is requested or things get out of hand. Also, the mod team is composed of volunteers who check in at their convenience.
And what should be our policies in cases of sexual abuse?Actually, Mike Durning already started that thread, although it seems to have been forgotten or buried. It’s at http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-dealing-with-abusemolestation-prope….That is the most beneficial and productive question IMO, and the one that most needs to be answered.
In my opinion, the only really worthwhile thing to discuss at this point is how to prevent/handle allegations of this type in the future properly. Of course, that will vary state-to-state because of different laws and such, but if SI can at least get that conversation rolling for pastors and other churches, then we’ve done our job.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
But plenty can be learned from that and lots of other cases without focusing on the people involved and without ever coming to your own verdict about it. My mind’s more than a little woozy from travel today, so this may not be very clear, but I’ll give it a go…
But that’s actually not true. You can learn more if you don’t pass judgment. It works by playing “What if?” and then thinking through all the lessons of each possibility.
- What if the pastor is telling the truth? What lessons can I learn? (About handling funds, about documenation, about dealing with accusations, etc., etc.)
- What if the pastor is lying? What lessons can I learn? (About need for accountability, need for stronger emphasis on ministerial ethics in seminary, need for better procedures in churches, etc.)
Now what if you had passed judgment and then only considered what you could learn from that scenario? You learn roughly 50% less.
My point is just that what can be learned from analyizing real world cases can often be learned just as well by rigorous use of the imagination. And what can be learned by passing judgment in a situation where there are conflicting claims can often be learned just and well and then some by not passing judgment.
So a focus on ideas—and intentional employment of the imagination (using hypotheticals, etc.)—does not short change the learning process in the long run.
To quote lots of people smarter than me… Ideas have consequences.
Of course, “what we can learn” is a separate question from “how is justice going to be acheived?” A major point of the OP is that SI is not in a good position to pursue justice and our history is not a justice-pursuing history. We’re in a much better position to deal with “What can we learn?” That doesn’t help with justice problem, no—but since ideas have consequences, we should not underrate the impact of “what we can learn.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Very well said. And it goes beyond simply the case of conflicting claims to the possibility that there are facts that no one is revealing, for good or bad reasons.
“Love believes all things.” That doesn’t mean we’re stupid, but it does mean we are commanded to believe the best we can about our brothers and sisters. And that means that we hold open the possibility that their actions are better than they look to us. That requires, as you’ve said, Aaron, imagination.
And as you’ve said, we’ll learn a lot more that way, as well.
JG,
I agree with what you are saying. But if it is clear also clear that the most loving thing to do is to call out sin. My problem is that we have always lighter on are fellow Fundamentalists and harder evangelicals. IMO, it should be the other way around. We should hold each other accountable.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[rogercarlson] I have been a poster on SI since almost the beginning. While I understand what you are saying, it seems odd. I want to respect the thread, but I have a question. Let’s take the issue that brought this thread up. If there is something to this new case, does that mean SI wont report it under filings? Does that mean we do not discuss it? I will do my best to respect the decision, but I don’t agree with it. I don’t think there is any real way to apply this, without it looking like we are ignoring sin our camp.Roger-
I can’t speak for Aaron, but I believe that the team’s consensus is that if something is verifiable and true, we’ll consider it as a filing. If someone comes to us and says ‘rogercarlson is embezzling money from his church’ - we’re going to direct them to the police for investigation and not run it on SI. Now, once there’s an arrest and legal report, then we would run that as a filing. Does that illustration make sense?
We do not want to ignore “sin in the camp” at all - we just want to make sure we have facts for what’s reported as opposed to allegations of sin that aren’t verifiable but make for ‘hot’ gossip by people who are really just being busybodies (2 Thess. 3:11-12).
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Thanks for this post. I really appreciate the spirit here.
You mentioned that “ideas have consequences.” I like the idea that we can withhold judgment and learn more from a situation. I do. However, I would like to flip it around a little. If ideas have consequences, then consequences say something about ideas too. So sometimes we learn better when we can determine just what the consequences were. That way we can see what impact the effects of the idea had in real-world circumstances. Some may say this is could tend towards pragmatism or gossip, but ascertaining what happened (say, in an embezzlement) is important to how we learn from it.
Shayne
[rogercarlson] I agree with what you are saying. But if it is clear also clear that the most loving thing to do is to call out sin.If it is clear, that is often true. Although the goal, when there is repentance, is not “calling out” but restoration. And I’m not sure what the first century equivalent of Internet condemnation was, but I don’t see a lot of it. Peter gets a mention, so do some others, but either those first century churches were really, really amazingly pure places, or there was a whole lot of sin running around that wasn’t called out. It’s obvious public rebuke has it’s place, especially with elders. But if we’re going to be calling out world wide sin on the world wide web, it seems we’re going to be pretty busy.
One problem is that, in an Internet age, we’re quick to “call out sin” when, at times, it was no worse than an error in judgment. Sometimes it isn’t even that. Appearances can be deceiving, someone jumps on it and makes accusations, and the person has done nothing wrong. There’s still lessons to be learned, either way, but if we’re “calling out sin” we’re doing our brother AND our Lord a grave disservice if we don’t have certainty.
When is it our place and our responsibility to do this? Every time someone sins and it becomes public knowledge? Obviously not, or we’d never do anything else. Yet, silence is hardly an option, sometimes. My own best guess as to the answer is that, if something is a danger to my congregation, either in tempting them wrongly or in drawing them towards wrong thinking, I need to speak out. So I guess I have a strong local church focus on this. And the “calling out” that we see in the NT is strongly local-church focused.
That’s my partially formed thoughts on this, for what they are worth.
[rogercarlson] My problem is that we have always lighter on are fellow Fundamentalists and harder evangelicals. IMO, it should be the other way around. We should hold each other accountable.I don’t agree. Isn’t this a “camp” mentality where we hold our own camp accountable? I’ll hold to, as some have said, the “idea” of fundamentalism rather than the movement. I’m just a nobody, anyway. The movement wouldn’t notice me if I joined it or left it or jumped up and down and yelled at them or tried to hold them accountable. So if I’m not a “movement” guy, then it seems I should try to be just as firm and charitable to believers whether they are in one camp, another, or none at all.
Yet, I do agree. I think the heart of what you are saying is that we shouldn’t be hypocritical just because we agree with someone. “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”
So really, I agree with you mostly, I just think the way you expressed it is an overreaction to a very real problem of “partiality”.
The focus here is whether SI can and should ‘break news’ of criminal, moral, and ethical violations, try cases in the court of public opinion, and hold people accountable. I don’t think so.
Now, with heretical or problematic teachings, it is usually fairly easy to establish what was said, as it has very often been preserved in print or audio for folks to examine for themselves (in context, mind you) and draw a fair conclusion. We do that all the time around here, based on actual writings and available audio/video. Even though a variety of opinions are offered, they are perspectives on the same easily procurable information. Plus it isn’t yet illegal to be wrong or even stupid, or half of Congress would be behind bars. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif
If someone has knowledge of misdeeds, then they are bound by Scripture and our legal system to follow certain protocols. I think if each one of us were more focused on the needs in our own families and churches, there would be fewer problems all around. It’s always easier to point out what’s wrong from a safe physical and emotional distance. But the problems we see in Christianity at large exist in our homes and our local churches, and not just big name universities and churches with national recognition.
That is why the best recourse is to consider our own bit of earth for Godly standards of conduct, better protections and preventions, and Biblical counseling and correction. We can help each other with that here- just think of all the years of experience and wisdom that could be brought to bear on some of these issues that grieve us. That is why IMO we need to focus on ideas, and not trying to be the Christian version of the National Enquirer.
I think I have been pretty consistent with my posts. I have only posted on things that are in print, either from the court records, reputible news sources our the people themselves. I am saying judgment begins at home, you are correct. When I have disagreed with anyone I have called that out, whether it is any of the names you mention. Yes, I do have more of a problem with the Sexton/Chappell wing of Fundementalim than with the Doran/Bauder wing. I think I have been clear on my I disagree. But that is a side note. But I would be saying the same thing no matter where the scandal is within our movement.
All,
If as SI we are saying that we are not going to do this with anyone, I have no problem. But it seems to me (and others) that we are setting up an a standard that is different for our group. Maybe I am just totally missing the point of the new policy, but it seems that we are saying question anything within our movement. I think that is dangerous. What I have done here is no different than what my fundy fathers did reguarding Billy Graham. What I have done makes little difference to the party involved, but I believe it is the only way to honor God through seperation.
I also say that we should apply this same standard to the alleged victims. That was not done in this case. There was alot of questioning her character and her actions while minimizing actions of those in leadership. Is she not a sister in Christ?
Again, someone please show me where I, personally, have said something that was not based on facts. I have never intended to participate in gossip.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Discussion