In Defense of What?

Northland International University is not the only school in the fundamentalist orbit that has had a group attend a concert of a Christian contemporary artist this school year. Also, students in most of the fundamentalist schools do participate in these types of “praise and worship” events albeit not on their college campuses.

These music issues are changes in the fundamentalist constituency (not just NI) and they do require Bible-study, prayer, counsel, and accountability with each other. They are also going to require the willingness to forbear with each other in areas where the Bible is not violated but there may be different conclusions. Instead, we practice hasty separation and rule out any possibility of reconciliation. The young people watch the Pastors pronounce, “We are done with ________________” and they want to run as far away from us as they can. Who wants to be a part of some movement where you have to wonder if they will be “done with” you? We come across as a bunch of snots.

Put the guns down, put on the bowls of compassion, display the fruit of the Spirit, esteem each other better than ourselves, and then deal with the problems at hand. Please forgive me of all of the times I have failed to do these things.

Fundamentalist Leader David Doran said this back at the begining days of SI - is there any validity to what he said?

Where I do believe the mainstream of Fundamentalism faces its real challenges is those points where there used to be something of a universal consensus, namely pop culture issues. When there was only one venue within which movies could be viewed, there was a fairly united front against attending movie theatres. This really was not based on the building being bad; it was about the corrupting influence of Hollywood entertainment. But now, in an age where movies are available in a multitude of formats and venues, the consensus on attending movies is breaking down (perhaps not among the pastors, but it is among the people and the next generation of pastors). When rock and roll came out, it clearly represented a shift in the culture toward ungodliness, so it was uniformly rejected. Now, after five decades of music variations and three of “Christianized” versions of it, the united front within Fundamentalism seems something less than united. When long hair was the cultural symbol of rebellion, there was a pretty clear consensus that it was not proper to follow the fad. Now, when some of the fads don’t include long hair, defining a worldly hairstyle is far more difficult. I could go on, but I think you can see my point.
Some Fundamentalists are clamping down on these pop culture issues and are making the case for the same applications that worked 40-50 years ago. The net result of this is that they appear to be arguing for an Amish-like response to culture. Their goal
seems to be the preservation of a pre-60s Americana, not the production of godliness in the 21st century. Mistakenly arguing that “your standards can’t be too high for God” they keep staking out positions that can hardly be defended biblically. Anything that looks or sounds new is suspect for that very reason. While I agree with the desire to pursue holiness, I have serious questions about the biblical and theological orientation of this wing of Fundamentalism. There is serious confusion about the differences between biblical principles (which are timeless) and contemporary applications (which are time bound).

He also said

The day may be coming when we have pastors who will stand toe-to-toe in ecclesiastical battles with false teachers and compromising brothers, but do not hold some of the traditional fundamentalist positions on entertainment, clothing styles, and acceptable worship music. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating any position here. I am simply trying resist the ostrich-like desire to bury my head in the sand and hope the problems go away.

So how much of this applies to this situation?

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord, so what wisdom is in them?

Therefore I will give their wives to others and their fields to conquerors, because from the least to the greatest everyone is greedy for unjust gain; from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely. They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.

-Jeremiah 8:8-10

I understand and applaud the desire to avoid diving in the gutters, but I am forced to disagree with that assessment. Please hear out what I have to say - it is the last time, I hope, to have to write on this topic. I am not enjoying this, but I feel that there is something more that must be said in response to some of the comments above.

Lou is his own man, and is ultimately responsible for whatever he does - good or bad. I do not think, though, that the actions that he have taken are light or minor and can (should?) just be ignored. They demand an appropriate and clear response. They are very, very serious allegations (that, in NIU’s case, seem to be true) that have damaged other men’s reputations (Antonio da Rosa) and may have cost NIU a good deal of money. We would not have had the fruitful discussions on NIU or on music (the Big Daddy Weave thread), if someone had not acknowledged that Lou was writing about these things, so in some small way, I’m actually glad that he was mentioned. Now the author of those posts here on SI probably did not anticipate the firestorms that ensured when they mentioned Lou’s name, but they happened. As I said before and Greg affirmed, people have been contacting Lou for years about correcting mistakes or errors or lies in his posts and writings. More than a few have been ignored or trolled into inappropriate or unwise reactions of their own that raised Lou’s own profile higher. Most of us knew immediately of Lou, even though he’s not a user of this site.

At some point, the time comes when one can no longer ignore the error, and it must be called on. I did not want to pick this fight with Lou, and it grieves me that it has come to this - that the interactions that we have are coming in public and on the internet. I hope that at some point in the future, Lou and I will be able to talk civily about the importance and primacy of the Gospel, and that we’ll be able to do so with joy as Brothers in the Lord. The attacks on the believers (and quite possibly the gospel itself, if Lou is right) should not be ignored or swept over as some trivial matter between guys that had bad milk in their breakfast. Even if Lou is right, and John MacArthur is wrong on the gospel and Antonio da Rosa is wrong on the gospel - are we supposed to take pleasure in pointing out their problems and demanding separation? By no means! Separation is always the last resort - the very final response. It tells the sinner that what they have done is so egregiously bad and such a violation of the conduct demanded of Christians that we must part ways with them, lest we deny Christ ourselves by continuing in a false peace with our ‘brother’.

We’re Fundamentalists. We should rightfully cherish the idea that some concepts are so dear that they will necessitate action - even militant, public action - to defend them. There is a time when we must draw swords and do battle. I wrote what I did because the time had come to respond publicly, and to respond with clarity and power. Strife and confusion are not the works of God. The Holy Spirit does not display a spirit of mean, vindictive, or cruel behavior. The Bible tells us that we are not supposed to rejoice in the fall of an enemy (Proverbs 24:17). Indeed, we are called to love our enemies, and to do good to those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48). So there is a separation issue here, and we do no good thing by saying ‘Let Us Have Peace!’ and going back to our slumbers in the hopes that we will not ever have to use the weapons we have been given.

I was going for humor. I promise I take this stuff seriously. I also have a bizarre sense of humor …

Ladies and Gentlemen

It seems to me to be uncharitable to speak directly of individuals who have no formal means here to respond. Even if you think your view of what X has done is legitimate, if X has no recourse to reply, this seems ethically problematic. This no way means I may support what X has said, but IMO, if X cannot respond here, then X needs to be omitted directly from the discussion, especially if you disagree with X. Can we not deal with principles and leave personalities out?

JPS

Dr. Straub,

With all due respect, SI is not the only means of publicly-accessible dissemination on the internet. X has the means at his disposal that prompted this discussion in the first place. Though X has no ability to post here (a privilege X lost after repeated warnings and more than due patience), X has his own blog (which it seems evident here enough people monitor) where X will say what X wishes. It is evident that he monitors the proceedings here. It is also evident that if anyone were to attempt to voice the concerns that have been posted on this thread on said blog, X would not permit them to see the light of day.

Observation: It seems to me that this thread is no more or less ethical than Central failing to give Lance Ketcham access to Nick of Time.

I emailed Lou to make him aware of this thread. He can read the thread but I don’t believe he can respond. It may be an idea to allow him access so he can defend himself … There is certainly a lot of “background” to this entire matter that I am not aware of.

Some of you have real points you wish to make against Lou. You are free to do so on his blog, are you not? He contacts NIU when he has questions and before he posts material on them, doesn’t he? Surely there are more than a few of us who believe that criticizing a man on SI without giving him the benefit of a response smacks of …

You must admit there is a difference between a blog from the Research Prof at Central and the open forum at SI.

Dr. Bauder’s blog functions as a ministry of Central - I can tell this from the massive logo at the top of the page.

This thread, however, opens hundreds and perhaps thousands of people (not sure how many!) to read and post free ranging comments about Lou. Not quite the same. At least allow the guy to respond or dump the thread.

It’s not about whether you agree with Lou or not. It’s about decency. If anybody claims Lou is a big, mean bully, then I beg those folks to be the adults and stay out of the gutter themselves.

[Greg Linscott] Though X has no ability to post here (a privilege X lost after repeated warnings and more than due patience), X has his own blog (which it seems evident here enough people monitor) where X will say what X wishes. It is evident that he monitors the proceedings here.

X not only has one blog, but one specifically dedicated to attacking this site. That also should be noted.

[TylerR]

You must admit there is a difference between a blog from the Research Prof at Central and the open forum at SI.

I don’t think I must, at least not in this context. I love and admire Kevin Bauder, and consider him a friend (whether or not he returns the sentiment). But he writes under his name in his forum, and I write under mine in this one, and do so openly (even including my picture and real face). If I do something improper, it is ultimately my very real reputation that will take the hit. Kevin addressed a very real person in Lance Ketcham, and has done so with a few other people on occasions. Not all have had the opportunity to respond in the same forum he addressed them, and I don’t think that was unethical.

Some of you have real points you wish to make against (X). You are free to do so on his blog, are you not?

Well, no. X heavily edits what appears in the comments. I speak from personal experience- I have attempted to comment on the site (though admittedly not for several years now) and had most comments rejected and unpublished.

As I observed earlier, almost everyone participating in this thread has acknowledged reading X at X’s blog. X give’s ample evidence that he monitors what is posted here. I don’t see the ethical problem. The internet makes it all level.

Ignore all cranks! So what if people have a blog. Do not dignify them by interacting with them. However as I read through some of this thread, some accusatory comments have been said that, IMO, ought not to have been said. What do you actually think has been accomplished here? Let dogs howl at the moon all they wish.

JPS

What do you actually think has been accomplished here?

That’s a legitimate question. I see what has been accomplished with comments like mine, Jim Peet’s, and Andrew K’s, that X may not be as credible as some who were previously unfamiliar with some of the specific situations may have taken him to be. Sometimes. “cranks,” to use your term, require identifying as such.

Those who are calling foul on the tone of this thread, and the “personal” attacks on “X” need to realize that they are holding SI and it’s participants to a higher standard than “X” himself adheres to. Now if that is the way they think it should be, then so be it. They just need to be honest in saying that “what’s ok for ‘X’ is not ok for SI.”

Personally, I think occasionally the bullies need to be put in their place, even the insignificant ones.

The whole thing reminds me of this video: http://youtu.be/isfn4OxCPQs

In the spirit of Jim’s post in the new FBFI/Northland thread, I submit this concise analysis …

You wrote:

I write under mine in this one, and do so openly (even including my picture and real face)

I considered using my own picture, but I concluded the Looney Tunes characters simply look better …

I do, however, have my church info on my profile so those who wish to contact me or stalk the church website may do so!

––––––––––-

However, upon reflection, Greg, I have decided to reveal my true identity this one time …