Observations About Those Who Are Still Here

Don, I’m really surprised by your recent posts.

I wrote:

And if the FBFI does go that way, it would be a tragedy…but it would be one of their own making, which makes it so much worse. And I would grieve at that as well.

To which you replied:

What you all are saying is quite predictable. You dredge up every possible slight you can find from the past and use it to attack the FBFI. Most of it, as far as I can tell, is from quite some time ago. Who, exactly, is living in the past?

How on earth can you say that we’re “dredging up every possible slight…and using it to attack the FBFI” when I just noted that it would be a tragedy for the FBFI to collapse?

TylerR mentioned that he got together with you in person and you had a great time of fellowship. In some ways, he’s been harder on the FBFI than I have. Is he ‘attacking’ the FBFI as well?

I’m all for interaction, but it seems like you continually take the most critical and most inflammatory interpretation of comments here that you can. Why is that?

[Jay]

Don, I’m really surprised by your recent posts.

I wrote:

And if the FBFI does go that way, it would be a tragedy…but it would be one of their own making, which makes it so much worse. And I would grieve at that as well.

To which you replied:

What you all are saying is quite predictable. You dredge up every possible slight you can find from the past and use it to attack the FBFI. Most of it, as far as I can tell, is from quite some time ago. Who, exactly, is living in the past?

How on earth can you say that we’re “dredging up every possible slight…and using it to attack the FBFI” when I just noted that it would be a tragedy for the FBFI to collapse?

The reply “What you all are saying…” is not directly to you, I don’t think. You may have posted just above it, but I wasn’t replying to that post. I was replying to the whole thread. And I suppose it is an over-generalization, but basically is a reaction to the usual tired old complaints that keep being brought up again and again.

In any case, I did not intend to imply that I was replying directly to your post at all.

My apology for not making that clear.

Since I don’t think they are valid criticisms, I’ll continue to ignore them.

As for the resolutions, I believe we published a note when we changed our terminology to the effect that past resolutions were retained for a historical record, but that not all past resolutions were necessarily current positions. I’m paraphrasing and going from memory, so don’t hold me to that exact wording. I am not sure where that document has gotten to, I’ll look into it and see if it can be published.

Not seeing the need to apologize for an organization’s/institution’s public statements/actions and ignoring criticism because it’s not seen as valid is nothing new.

Since I don’t think they are valid criticisms, I’ll continue to ignore them.

Don,

If that is the collective assessment of the board, that may well be the inscription on the tombstone.

I understand if some of what gets said is dismissed as internet chatter. But if you collectively are really wondering why enrollment is in decline, and you ignore what people who are with you on core principles are saying (it isn’t as if all your critics are all DoRight or IFBSurvivors kind of people), well, I don’t know what else to say.

I have had my share of critics in local church ministry through the years. Most of it has been distorted, in my assessment. But I have also found some of it has been based in truth and there have been things I could change to improve the situation.

Not all of what is being said may need to be changed. But surely there is something to be evaluated, some kind of adjustments you could make.

What is that KJV rendering in James 3:17? “Easy to be entreated?” Perhaps your critics don’t deserve that kind of response. But are we only to conduct ourselves properly to those who have treated us well?

Is there something in this thread that is seriously a problem that needs to be addressed?

It is either extremely old news or not even the FBFI’s problem. It is hard to take this kind of criticism seriously. And if the FBFI’s survival depends on a thread of chatter on SI? Well, then we are seriously a lot weaker than I thought.

[Don Johnson]

…if the FBFI’s survival depends on a thread of chatter on SI? Well, then we are seriously a lot weaker than I thought.

Don,

If that were all it was, that might be the case. But how many of your contributors to the last issue are even members? You have enrollment issues from people who should be joining. You have to ask why.

These criticisms here (and by the way, these aren’t the only places I’ve seen them) may not be all of your problem, but you have to ask if they contribute.

Do with it what you will. But these are symptoms you can ignore or address. It’s up to you. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is not usually a wise approach, though.

You can be swift to hear, or quick to dismiss. It’s in your court.

The reply “What you all are saying…” is not directly to you, I don’t think. You may have posted just above it, but I wasn’t replying to that post. I was replying to the whole thread.

OK, fair enough. I didn’t think you were replying to just what I said, but if you feel that the thread is that way, then I understand. Thanks for clarifying.

As for the resolutions, I believe we published a note when we changed our terminology to the effect that past resolutions were retained for a historical record, but that not all past resolutions were necessarily current positions. I’m paraphrasing and going from memory, so don’t hold me to that exact wording. I am not sure where that document has gotten to, I’ll look into it and see if it can be published.

I think I remember seeing something along those lines as well, and want to say that the notice was carried on SI as well with a link to the source, but I can’t seem to find it. I’m not sure why it’s important to note the difference if the FBFI has explicitly stated that they are moving away from what they did in the past.

As for the last go-around between Don and Greg, well, I would encourage Don to at least consider some of these claims since he is a Board Member and is explicitly tasked with looking out for the best interests of the organization. Otherwise, it seems to me Greg’s assessment is correct - there’s nothing else to be done other than watch it dwindle and close.

I found the statement that Don was referring to - or at least a public statement on what the FBFI intends their position statements to convey. We did run it here back in 2009; here’s the link.

I’ve taken the liberty of bolding the appropriate segments, but the article says:

Note to the Readers:

Resolutions are applications of the core values of the FBFI at a particular moment in time. They are voted upon by the executive board of the FBFI at its winter board meeting in February of each year. The accompanying articles are intended to be support and/or further explanation for the resolutions. They are not voted upon by the executive board.

All of our resolutions are available for perusal at the FBFI website. Some of the resolutions from years past do not reflect the positions of the board members today but they do remain available as a historical record of the FBFI at a particular moment in time.

The key documents for the FBFI are the doctrinal statement and core values. Those core values are reflected in the 2008 list of resolutions.

—Kevin Schaal

That first paragraph is slightly confusing, but I think Kevin’s point is that the accompanying articles are not voted on by the Executive Board. Only the Resolutions themselves are.

I think your interpretation in the last paragraph is correct.

Don, I hate to be hard on you like this, but it is not a matter of opinion whether or not John MacArthur qualifies as “neoevangelical” or whatever. There are hallmarks of the theology that he does, or does not, fit. In the same way, it is not a matter of opinion whether, or whether not, recent issues made accusations of being “convergent” without defining the term. It is not a matter of opinion whether, or whether not, many of the resolutions (especially on music) use logically fallacious and often sinful guilt by association arguments.

So if you want to go toe to toe with Jim and others on these issues, be my guest, but please don’t make the preposterous argument that all these things are just matters of opinion.

Really, if indeed many here are correct and very real wrongs were committed by the FBFI in their resolutions, the reputation of the institution requires repentance—and not repentance a generation from now when those making the resolution are safely in their graves. It requires repentance now.

Of all the tiresome posters, Bert, you are one of the most tiresome. You really are saying nothing, know nothing about the resolutions, and just post because you have a compulsion to post in every thread. At least that’s the way it looks from here.

….I read all of the resolutions on Friday, Don. But that noted, keep in mind that I intentionally did not include my conclusions about the nature of the evidence in my previous note, but rather simply noted that the claims are not matters of opinion, but are rather claims of fact.

By the way, your note is an excellent example of a “personal attack” or “ad hominem” fallacy, especially given that you were wrong as well in your insinuations.