Survey Update: Who's Talking and What are They Saying?
(Read the survey introduction.)
The ‘09-‘10 SI Reader Survey has been in progress for a few weeks now, and the results so far are quite interesting. The survey will continue for another month or so, but I’d like to share some results now in the hopes that first, many of you will find them interesting and second, many who have not yet taken the survey will take a few minutes to go to that.
At the moment, 428 have completed surveys. 55% of these are readers who signed up for membership after June 1 of this year. The rest are split about half and half between readers who used to have memberships at SI (but no longer do) and readers who have never been members.
Here are some survey results so far.
Demographics
- About half of SI readers are between age 25 and 44. About 38% are between 45 and 64.
- Vocationally, 38% are pastors, 13% are teachers, and about 19% chose “other.” (Note: this question allows multiple selections so there is overlap in the responses.)
- Education: 30% have earned Bachelor’s degrees from Christian institutions. 39% have earned Master’s degrees. 16% are currently doing Master’s degree work.
Use of SI and views about the site
- Patterns: the vast majority visit the Front Page when reading SI. A majority read the Filings. Less than half read the Forums, Foundry or Blogroll.
- Well over half of those who do not post often in the Forums say this is because they do not have time. 26% cited a wide variety of other reasons.
- Slightly more than half of those surveyed felt that SI should challenge the status quo in Fundamentalism about as often as it does now. 22% said it should do this more often.
Views on issues
- Fundamentalism: 50% identify with “the best of the Fundamentalist movement,” while 24% expressed distance from the movement but belief in “the idea.”
- 62% are multi-translational and prefer more literal translations over more “dynamic” ones. 3% believe it is wrong to use anything other than the KJV.
- On Calvinsim: 22% claim to be five pointers, another 22% claim to be four pointers. 34% do not claim “Calvinism,” though acknowledging some beliefs in common with it.
- Eschatology: 82% are pre-millennialist and pre-tribulational. 42% are confident of whatever position they take. (We’ll eventually “cross-tabulate” to see how many of the premillennial, pretribulational believers are confident, etc.)
What folks are saying
Below are samples from the “other” and comment portions of various questions. These have received many entries and I’ve selected the few that appear here with no conscious criteria in mind other than a vague sense of “that’s interesting” and some effort to balance negative with positive.
Why some do not post often in the forums
“The forums are dominated by New Evangelicals claiming to be fundamentalists.”
“I’m not a fundamentalist, therefore I can’t join.”
“I don’t want to offend.”
“Thought I had to be a member” [You do].
“Most of the contributors are too young to know if they are right, and the older ones aren’t open to change.”
“…It is apparent to me that being too honest on this site is not generally welcome by the new publisher and owner. BTW, the site has noticeably deteriorated in the past year in debate quality and thought-provoking information provided. Hence, even though I have considered posting, I have resisted. And to further clarify FYI, I do consider myself a historic fundamentalist even though I share a YF view.”
“I’m simply not as verbally skilled as the majority of the posters here.”
“I rarely have anything of value to contribute. The discussion tends to be more educational for me than for others to benefit from my input.”
“Some folks get very rancorous in forums. Not a battle worth fighting.”
“Mainly enjoy reading the dialogue.”
Does SharperIron give people who are ill-informed or ill-mannered too much influence?
“Ill informed people may post a lot, but the # of posts doesn’t = influence.”
“Maybe a little; when it first started, it seemed like many were trying to make a name for themselves on SI; such behavior seems to have dwindled.”
“Self-proclaimed ‘experts’ who take over discussions.”
“It often allows those that are ill-informed to have a place to post, but other posts usually point out their flaws.”
“At times. However, I dont know how one would monitor this differently.”
“It seems to me that the young computer geeks get all the space. Older gray beards who have thought through the issues and have the Bible knowledge are scared of computers. As a result it isn’t good balance.”
“You’re talking about censorship, you have moderators deciding who is ill-informed, and personal bias often gets involved, SI has a history of allowing non-Fundamentalists to join.”
“In the past there were times when accusations and slander against individuals being discussed was permitted; I haven’t seen it in a while.”
What changes would you welcome?
“It needs to be much more positive and Christ-centered—that’s why I lack interest—too negative and too many hills to die on—ugh!”
“I enjoy the site as is!”
“A worldview among members which is actually consistant with fundamentalism, so you believe in the fundamentals of the faith, if you’re living like the world, so what?”
“Stay independent and don’t get sucked into being beholden to any school or group.”
“I can’t think of anything that should be changed. Online courses could be a good thing. Like I said earlier I am mainly using SI as a learning tool. Since we are out of the US, much of the controversial issues are in some ways new to me. Or rather I have missed the details. I have appreciated SI for how these things have been handled. The discussions have made me study my Bible more, so that is a good thing.”
“I would welcome more relevant articles on apologetics and true issues (like, personal holiness in regards to living out the Gospel), not bickering about things that are non-issues. It also seems like (especially in the Filings sidebar) that this blog is turning into one of those ‘watchblogs’ where all we like to do is talk about the evil in the apostate churches and the unregenerate world and get all excited about how terrible it all is. Why is that so exciting? Unsaved people are going to act unsaved. Not worth reading about.”
“While this survey might be helpful to you, the horse left the barn. You already lost virtually every non-Calvinist, balanced Fundamentalist. You have little idea how many have been driven away by your hosting, backing and running interference for Bauder. You aren’t going get any one back and the rest aren’t going to join SI as it is still moving toward evangelicalism and promoting those views and practices. You’re too late! No one believes SI can be returned to a balanced, biblical Fundamentalism because under Janz it never was in the first place and is still moving away under Blumer. You’re too late!”
“There’s too much ‘clutter’ on the front page, it’s hard to follow. I come here much less now, since the changes, just because it’s harder to follow. Perhaps getting rid of so much ‘stuff’ and streamlining things down would be helpful. When time is short, it’s easier to follow when there isn’t so much ‘stuff’. :)”
“Challenge assumptions.”
“Some comments on front page articles moderated before they post, according to the desires of the author, and only if this gains new authors.”
“Not much should change. You’ve got a good balance right now.”
“I wonder if you would consider allowing one forum category that specifically allows non-members to input comments, although they could be restricted from starting a new topic. This would allow opinions from outside fundamentalism, if anybody ever wanted them. You could consider having these comments moderated before posting them.”
On Calvinism
“The 5 points of Calvinism are in error but this does not void all of John Calvin’s works or license one to simply dismiss his contribution to theology seeing his works to not all revolve around the 5 points.”
“I am neither a calvinist nor an arminian; I believe both to be serious and damaging error and stick to scripture.”
“I have several beliefs in common with Calvinism, but I cannot explain or fully understand the biblical tension between points like free will and predestination. I am comfortable in rejecting any label and seeking to serve the Lord with what I do comprehend.”
“I was chosen bt a Soverign God before the foundation of the world. This substitutionary atonement dealt with every sin I’ve ever committed or will commit. Someone else will have add up my ‘points.’”
“Calvin was Catholic, Baptist killer, French and did I mention Catholic.”
“Dumb question. This is a human idea.”
“Defined historically, I do not accept any points of the so-called ‘five points.’ I believe that the Arminianism and Calvinism debate is a false dilemma (do not accept either).”
“The Bible proves both Calvinism and free will.”
Until next time
As you can see, weighing a boatload of feedback all at once is challenging! Our readers are all over the map on a number of things. But that does make the survey interesting (if sometimes pretty painful) reading. To those who have not yet taken the survey, please do it soon (click here). The more responses we collect the more valid the results. To the several hundred who have already taken the time, thanks so much for sharing your point of view. It is extremely valuable, and we’ll be reflecting on it for quite some time to come, I’m sure.
- 2 views
As a result, we tend to be the “face” of SI, while others simply read or rarely comment. Thus it is interesting to read the comments.
I was surprised that only 44% (total) claimed to be either 4 or 5 point Calvinists (I am a 4). Reading the posts, one would think that it would be more like 85%!
What REALLY surprised me was the eschatology figure. I am Premil/Pretrib, but I thought I was in the minority, based upon forum discussions and a seeming propensity to attack dispensationalism. Yet, according to the survey:
Eschatology: 82% are pre-millennialist and pre-tribulational.We certainly are a (mostly) silent majority!
I took the survey almost immediately, but I want to share one thing I have come to notice since that time. It used to be that more SI folks liked to talk interpretation of Bible verses or contexts. I remember talking about Egyptian chronologies and the Exodus, or obscure passages in Ezekiel.
I have noted an obsession with talking about fundamentalism and education, but much less interest in talking Bible content. I suspect the “Bible content” contributors no longer participate, and that saddens me. A couple of verses that have long guided me in ministry philosophy is Psalm 119:99-100
I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Your precepts.It would be great if we could focus on the Bible more. I really miss that. Other Bible forums either do not have the clientele or they do not approach matters from a fundamental/conservative evangelical position.
I also think SI should advertise itself as a “Fundamentalist/Conservative Evangelical” site to attract more participation.
"The Midrash Detective"
As for talking Bible content, it’s true we used to have a handful of folks who really enjoyed discussing exposition and these are, for whatever reason, not participating anymore.
I’m not sure advertising ourselves differently is the solution, but I agree that actively recruiting more in the “Bible talk” arena would be a good idea, and I’d be more than happy to see more that kind of discussion.
One surveyee commented about sermons that used to be posted. I don’t remember ever seeing those, but perhaps giving something like that some high visibility would be a good way to strengthen that part of the site.
I think it’s easy for the pastors who participate or read to forget that though they are the largest single “vocation block,” the majority of readers are not pastors.
I’d also really like to see us “reboot” our ministry to women. No clue yet on how to do that so suggestions welcome.
I didn’t mention it in the main post, but there was also alot of votes for structured debate with selected participants. So that idea has promise.
The challenge there is finding people with the right qualities to participate:
- Real knowledge of the subject
- An irenic—um, rational? disposition (outstanding ability to keep one’s cool and not ‘go personal’)
- Willing
- At least two participants with substantially different views on the question
- A little experience with how debates work (I’d love to see an old fashioned resolution-negative-positive-cross ex format) But that part’s not really all that hard to explain.
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.
Maybe that’s just where we are at culturally, but it seems like an unusually high percentage. Maybe Fundamentalists are an exceptionally educated group. That would be a nice smack in the face to a lot of cultural commentators …
[Joseph] The education figures were striking, don’t you think? When you add them up, a huge majority of the people who read/post have college degrees.I think, Joseph, that it is more likely that the type of fundamentalist that participates on SI either has a degree or is willing to think.
Maybe that’s just where we are at culturally, but it seems like an unusually high percentage. Maybe Fundamentalists are an exceptionally educated group. That would be a nice smack in the face to a lot of cultural commentators …
Like a church, intentionally or — more often— unintentionally, birds of a feather flock together. This site has attracted people who are willing to think, and that is one of the things I have enjoyed about it. I have learned much.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek]This surprised me at first, but I suspect that Calvinism has not deeply penetrated into lay Fundamentalists, partly because many Fundamentalist pastors either intentionally keep quiet about it or use terms like “doctrines of grace” or “sovereignty of God” or even “Reformed,” and many laypeople don’t realize it’s just an alternative label. For example, not long ago, a church secretary at a large, influential Fundamentalist church in Greenville was outraged that someone would suggest that a seminarian from her church was a Calvinist. What she didn’t realize is that her entire pastoral staff is composed of 4-pointers and just about every young adult is a 5-pointer. I think we’ve seen just the tip of the iceberg of Calvinism in Fundamentalism.
I was surprised that only 44% (total) claimed to be either 4 or 5 point Calvinists (I am a 4). Reading the posts, one would think that it would be more like 85%!
[Ed Vasicek]Agreed. Although, if trends in evangelicalism are accurate indicators (and they have been for just about everything else), the next few decades will see a massive shift to historic premillennialism. As an a/postmill guy, I regard that with a bit of indifference.
What REALLY surprised me was the eschatology figure. I am Premil/Pretrib, but I thought I was in the minority, based upon forum discussions and a seeming propensity to attack dispensationalism. Yet, according to the survey:
Eschatology: 82% are pre-millennialist and pre-tribulational.
[Ed Vasicek]I suspect that part of this is because SI spends more time discussing trends, systems, the history of Fundamentalism, and global issues. Threads about specific passages are great, but usually aren’t that relevant to the purpose of SI. Really, how much can the label “Fundamentalist” change exegesis? Almost all of my exegesis textbooks at BJU were by evangelicals.
I took the survey almost immediately, but I want to share one thing I have come to notice since that time. It used to be that more SI folks liked to talk interpretation of Bible verses or contexts. I remember talking about Egyptian chronologies and the Exodus, or obscure passages in Ezekiel.
I have noted an obsession with talking about fundamentalism and education, but much less interest in talking Bible content. I suspect the “Bible content” contributors no longer participate, and that saddens me.
[Ed Vasicek] I also think SI should advertise itself as a “Fundamentalist/Conservative Evangelical” site to attract more participation.But it would only attract a certain kind of participant, the kind that is comfortable sharing ground with CE’s. It’s not likely to draw in more people from Hyles, PCC, Crown, West Coast, Ambassador, etc. And, if you say that you’d rather have CE’s than those kinds of Fundamentalists, you’ve really raised the question whether SI Fundamentalists are distinguishable from CE’s.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Ed Vasicek] It used to be that more SI folks liked to talk interpretation of Bible verses or contexts. I remember talking about Egyptian chronologies and the Exodus, or obscure passages in Ezekiel. I have noted an obsession with talking about fundamentalism and education, but much less interest in talking Bible content. I suspect the “Bible content” contributors no longer participate, and that saddens me. A couple of verses that have long guided me in ministry philosophy is Psalm 119:99-100
Ed — You raise a good and thought-provoking point.
Obviously, it is easier and more tempting to write a response about some trend in fundamentalism than it would be to provide a substantive comment on a passage. Perhaps some of us are also still enjoying the feeling of freedom to express ourselves about some of these issues — and a forum in which to do so effectively. Let’s not forget how “new” this all still is.
But you make a great point, and one worth considering. I think sometimes we can get ourselves riled up about responding to one another when really it may be more an issue of semantics than real disagreement.
Also, this is purely my opinion — but I get discouraged sometimes when there is a thread on a theological/exegetical topic and someone posts a LONG, detailed response — as if to announce, “Thanks for asking, now that I have the floor, I will provide the answer to all of your questions.”
And yet, how else would you deal with an exegetical issue such as you raise in this type of forum??
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Charlie]Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think that there are all that many SI Fundamentalists who would want to be differentiated between Cons. Evangelicals, and I’m not really sure how we’d need to differentiate between the two from an admin point of view.[Ed Vasicek] I also think SI should advertise itself as a “Fundamentalist/Conservative Evangelical” site to attract more participation.But it would only attract a certain kind of participant, the kind that is comfortable sharing ground with CE’s. It’s not likely to draw in more people from Hyles, PCC, Crown, West Coast, Ambassador, etc. And, if you say that you’d rather have CE’s than those kinds of Fundamentalists, you’ve really raised the question whether SI Fundamentalists are distinguishable from CE’s.
The Doctrinal Statement asks that members verify that they hold to ten things:
[Doctrinal Statement]I doubt that any self proclaimed CE [re: someone who does not take the “Fundamentalist label”] would have a hard time disagreeing with any of the above. That said, I’m not really sure that it’s possible to draw a line of demarcation between the two here, and I’m not sure that this site really NEEDS to.
1. The plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life.
2. The Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. The essential, absolute, eternal Deity and the real and proper, but sinless, humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
4. His birth of the Virgin Mary.
5. His substitutionary, expiatory death, in that He gave His life “a ransom for many.”
6. His resurrection from among the dead in the body in which He was crucified, and the second coming of this same Jesus in power and great glory.
7. The total depravity of man through the fall.
8. Salvation, the effect of regeneration by the Spirit and the Word, not by works, but by grace through faith.
9. The everlasting bliss of the saved, and the everlasting suffering of the lost.
10. The real spiritual unity in Christ of all redeemed by His precious blood.
11. The necessity of maintaining according to the Word of God, the purity of the Church in doctrine and life.
"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
[Jay C]I don’t think I’m entirely understanding what you’re saying. If SI Fundamentalists cannot be differentiated from CE’s, then one of two things must be true. 1) SI Fundamentalists are really CE’s, not Fundamentalists, or 2) CE and Fundamentalist are at least partially overlapping terms. If #1, then SI’s posturing as a site for Fundamentalists is a farce. If #2, then SI is operating with a vocabularly significantly different than most Fundamentalist institutions. Would Bauder, Doran, or BJU not be able to distinguish themselves from CE’s?
Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think that there are all that many SI Fundamentalists who would want to be differentiated between Cons. Evangelicals, and I’m not really sure how we’d need to differentiate between the two from an admin point of view.
…
I doubt that any self proclaimed CE [re: someone who does not take the “Fundamentalist label”] would have a hard time disagreeing with any of the above. That said, I’m not really sure that it’s possible to draw a line of demarcation between the two here, and I’m not sure that this site really NEEDS to.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Anyway…
1. All the cultural stuff. Most Fundamentalists are still want way more scrutiny of, and distance from, the current culture than most CEs
2. Secondary separation… most Fundamentalists sill believe in separating more aggressively than most CE’s in areas of “disobedience” (intentional or just due to incorrect understanding)
If those are, roughly, the differences, then the line is difficult to maintain at SI because (a) many here are not in the same place as their forbears in their attitude toward the cultural questions and (b) there really isn’t opportunity here to practice ecclesiastical separation.
We could make something of what you claim to believe about these things, but not what folks actually do. The doctrinal statement has never been strong on these points nor have the statements in the FAQ and other places where fundamentalism was referred to in descriptive ways.
In short, if at this stage we started using a definition of “Fundamentalist” that etches a crisp line between “Fundamentalist” and “Conservative Evangelical,” we would be switching horses mid stream. The site’s working definition has always been (and I think intentionally) very fuzzy around the edges. I’m pretty sure part of the aim on day one was that Fundies and CE’s would talk to eachother here. As far as membership goes, they do so under a pretty broad “Fundamentalist” label.
I may have to revise some of this later. Gotta run.
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.
[Charlie]Those are not the only valid inferences to be drawn, which means it’s fallacious to present the options as a stark dilemma.
If SI Fundamentalists cannot be differentiated from CE’s, then one of two things must be true. 1) SI Fundamentalists are really CE’s, not Fundamentalists, or 2) CE and Fundamentalist are at least partially overlapping terms. If #1, then SI’s posturing as a site for Fundamentalists is a farce. If #2, then SI is operating with a vocabularly significantly different than most Fundamentalist institutions. Would Bauder, Doran, or BJU not be able to distinguish themselves from CE’s?
It’s perfectly possible that, “from an administrative point of view,” on a forum like SI the differences between CE’s and Fundamentalists are not relevant, cannot be discerned, or simply do not come into play.
What SI very helpfullly shows people - and this is one of its great services, in my view - is that what they think they are can a distortion. People often have rather unnuanced views of themselves, so if they think of themselves as “Fundamentalists,” then they can think everything about themselves qua Christian is part of being a Fundamentalist. This is nonsense, though very common. People like me on SI show people that, no, in fact, being commited to the idea of Fundamentalist, or historical Fundamentalism, is compatible with a whole range of sensibilities, dispositions, and non-Fundamental doctrinal differences.
As I’ve have always said, if J. Gresham Machen was a Fundamentalist, then its a broader, deeper, more substantive, and therefore more accomodating term than many people think it is or want it to be. Everyone who knows anything about Machen knows he would make most “Fundamentalists” feel uncomfortable, just as any highly cultured, well educated person can make people with less culture and education feel awkward, even if this reflects no viice on anyone’s part; differences can be uncomfortable. I always bring up Machen because of how different he was, not just as an academic, but as part of the old Southern arisocracy, from most of us today, especially in our sensibilities.
Finally, another response to Jay C. is that there may in fact be no substantive doctrinal differences between CE and Fundamentalists, which I think is the often case. Cultural issues are not doctrinal issues, and gross distortions result when we try to equate the two, e.g. when we try to somehow squeeze music or clothing into the set of beliefs that divide us from liberals, heretics, etc. The very desire to attempt this reflects deep problems in our theology.
The fact is, having heard people like Minnick talk about or to CE’s, there simply is not a good reason to not have these groups associate with each other formally; the differences are real, but they are not substantive doctrinal differences. They are differences in sub-culture, academic outlook, cultural disposition, and other factors which often are far more noticable and bothersome to us than theology.
I personally differ as much with CE’s as with Fundamentalist (in the movement) in terms of my dispositions and sensibilities on some matters; but that never makes me think, “hmm, maybe I don’t believe all this doctrine anyway.” I know, generally, pretty well where the differences arise, and they are intellectual and cultural, not theological - and I try to resist the temptation to make every issue “theological” in some overt sense.
Anyway … carry on.
[Joseph]I’ve been reflecting on my earlier post, and I believe you are correct. As Aaron said, part of SI’s identity is an intentional ambiguity in the term Fundamentalist. I don’t know why that struck me as unusual when I read Jay’s post. On that note, I wonder if that’s one of the reasons many Fundamentalists don’t want to participate on SI. They have very concrete ideas about what constitutes a Fundamentalist and are therefore constantly irritated by the ambiguities of the site. SI represents a mild rebuke to many Fundamentalist institutions. For example, BJU students (generally) aren’t allowed to attend PCA or Southern Baptist churches, yet we have members of those bodies in good standing here. From their point of view, it must look like SI is intentionally compromising. As uncomfortable as it may be to be around people with different beliefs, it is even more uncomfortable to be around people with different beliefs when they insist on sharing a label with you.
It’s perfectly possible that, “from an administrative point of view,” on a forum like SI the differences between CE’s and Fundamentalists are not relevant, cannot be discerned, or simply do not come into play.
What SI very helpfullly shows people - and this is one of its great services, in my view - is that what they think they are can a distortion. People often have rather unnuanced views of themselves, so if they think of themselves as “Fundamentalists,” then they can think everything about themselves qua Christian is part of being a Fundamentalist. This is nonsense, though very common. People like me on SI show people that, no, in fact, being commited to the idea of Fundamentalist, or historical Fundamentalism, is compatible with a whole range of sensibilities, dispositions, and non-Fundamental doctrinal differences.
Perhaps, then, some stricter Fundamentalists might be more comfortable on SI if it did advertise itself as a forum for CE’s and Fundies. To use the recent Manhattan Declaration as an example, I’m sure many more Protestants would have supported it if it hadn’t so strongly implied that all the participants belonged to a single genus.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie]Charlie,[Jay C]I don’t think I’m entirely understanding what you’re saying. If SI Fundamentalists cannot be differentiated from CE’s, then one of two things must be true. 1) SI Fundamentalists are really CE’s, not Fundamentalists, or 2) CE and Fundamentalist are at least partially overlapping terms. If #1, then SI’s posturing as a site for Fundamentalists is a farce. If #2, then SI is operating with a vocabularly significantly different than most Fundamentalist institutions. Would Bauder, Doran, or BJU not be able to distinguish themselves from CE’s?
Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think that there are all that many SI Fundamentalists who would want to be differentiated between Cons. Evangelicals, and I’m not really sure how we’d need to differentiate between the two from an admin point of view.
…
I doubt that any self proclaimed CE [re: someone who does not take the “Fundamentalist label”] would have a hard time disagreeing with any of the above. That said, I’m not really sure that it’s possible to draw a line of demarcation between the two here, and I’m not sure that this site really NEEDS to.
Joseph did a good job in explaining my rationale; so much so that I need only make one minor comment.
Lots of religious people talk about ‘being one’ [echoing John 17] , but what SharperIron does is to make this a semi-reality. Not because there are no differences between the two camps, but because the list of things to believe in order to post here is pretty much limited to just the ten doctrinal items that I referred to above, and to agree that the writer/poster is a “Fundamentalist”. I think that most ‘harder-core’ Fundies won’t associate with us because the site allows discussion of [what I see as] peripheral issues like the Bible Version debate [as opposed to everyone just using the KJV] , music, et cetera [and some of that will be clear once Aaron opens up all the rest of the survey results, I’m sure] , and so they see us as ‘compromised’ and won’t associate with us. Some proof of this may be found in someone’s comment in the original post about “the horse leaving the barn”. So the site LOOKS like it leans more to the left than it might if, say, BJU hosted it. [I’m not picking on BJU, just using them because they are pretty much the only one with the resources to pull this type of thing off if they wanted to.]
So as long as the registration is doctrinal specific and not “sphere of influence” specific [I went to BJU, I went to Detroit, I went to TMS] , I don’t know how we could split the two categories apart. Furthermore, as long as the registration remains doctrinally specific and not culturally issue specific, we can’t tell. There are some here from denominational churches / affiliations that in whole are theologically liberal, but a few people reject their denomination’s teaching and still hold to the doctrinal core that we ask all members to, so they are allowed to be here.
"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
So, speaking from a DBA point of view, SI and the software that runs it either does not have the capacity to break out those numbers or the site chooses not to use it. As I said, I don’t think we need to.
"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
Interesting thoughts. I’m inclined to think you’re right about SI making a lot of Fundies uncomfortable. I’m not sure about the shift in image/advertising, particularly because I’m not sure if Conservative Evangelical isn’t more of a Fundamentalist term than one a large group uses to self-identify, etc.
Groups, like individuals, are partally constituted by their level of self-consciousness, and sensitive groups incorporate others’ perceptions of themselves into their own awareness, which in turn shapes the way that group portrays itself and acts.
Fundamentalists have historically not been very self-conscious in a serious sense, and this has a lot to do with its general disregard of serious intellectual activity. The results in this area have been consequential, although seemingly not well recognized. It’s perhaps easier to see this by looking at Evangelicalism. Prior to the Neos, Fundamentalists Protestants largely existed as if serious cultural and intellectual discussions were not happening - this is one consequence of removing oneself from power centers like universities, urban centers, etc. New Evangelicals were brilliantly successful at changing the state of consciousness on intellectual matters, even if some of their gains came at high prices. A result of this is that one technically non-doctrinal “thing” that separates many theologically educated Evangelicals from many comparably educated Fundamentalists is that the Evangelicals will probably have a broader perspective, been required to read more critical and secular scholarship, etc. In short, the evangelical seminarian will have a qualitatively different kind of consciousness than the Fundamentalist seminarian (saya Trinity M.Div and a BJU M.Div). This is what produces one of the most notable differences between the groups, in my view, and it’s not something that is well captured in a survey or on paper. You can hear it by comparing Minnck and Dever; Dever, granted he’s exceptionally well educated and well read, just comes off (in general) as a broader, more deeply read, and less polemical kind of guy. Now, this happens to be literally true, and it hardly reflects poorly on Minnick - Dever, as I said, is an exceptional pastor.
But I think it represents a fairly accurate ideal-typical construction of one difference between even a conservative Evangelical and a Fundamentalist, viz. given comparably educated and intelligent Fundamentalists and CEs, the latter will reflect a different degree of self-consciousness, in many ways deeper (culturally and intellectually), than the former. I’m not talking about regular pew-sitters here, I’m talking about the theologically self-conscious seminarian types. One could continue this kind of ideal-typical analysis with the Dutch Reformed, Presbies, etc. but that isn’t my point.
The point is that SI contributes to changing Fundamentalists’ identity by deepening and expanding their degree of self-consciousness as “movement members,” or self-identified Fundies. I don’t think we’ll see Evangelicals move towards us in a formal, self-conscious way; they may get more conservative, but they will not become “Fundamentalists,” again; I think that’s a kind of historical impossibility, given the history of 20 C American religion. So, the group that will move, self-consciouslly, will be Fundies. That’s a good thing in my view, and SI is contributing to it.
You can hear it by comparing Minnck and DeverThis is a most interesting comment to me. Can you give us some insight as to your comparison method? What did you compare? How did you do it? Can you be more specific?
A few other thoughts, so long as I am here.
I am not sure conservative evangelicals (which, BTW, I don’t think is a fundamental designation according to something I was reading recently and I can’t recall exactly which source, but it is at my office) … I don’t think conservative evangelicals have this self-consciousness that you speak of. Perhaps at the upper levels they do, but then as you seem to admit, the fundamentalists do as well. I think the rank and file evangelical pastor is largely fairly clueless on a lot of important matters (as is the rank and file fundamentalist pastor).
My experience with MDiv grads from evangelical institutions has not revealed much self-consciousness at all. They seem completely unaware as to where they fit, either historically or contemporaneously. They do not seem to have a better grasp on theological matters than do the grads of fundamentalist institutions. It is interesting in my interaction with them how little awareness they show of anything outside of raw pragmatism. I could give examples t
You say that you don’t think evangelicals will move towards fundamentalist in a “formal, self-conscious way.” But I think they already have. I think the last decade or two has shown a pulling back from a lot of what the NE agenda was (though it is still alive and well). I think many insiders are of the view that McCune summarized as “Promise Unfulfilled” and that dates prior to his writing. I think back in the 60-70s NEs were already seeing major problems that drew some back towards the fundamentalist position.
Featured Resource
Discussion