Should Sharper Iron (SI) ever link to Stuff Fundies Like (SFL)?

 

In light of the recent SI Filings post regarding the Colonial Hills Baptist Church youth video, what is your opinion about SI linking to the SFL website?

SI should never post a link to SFL
18% (3 votes)
SI should link to SFL only selectively
35% (6 votes)
Why is linking to SFL even an issue?
47% (8 votes)
Total votes: 17
6293 reads

There are 11 Comments

Jim's picture

  • The link to SFL (the Colonial Hills Y/P video kerfuffle came to me (I post the majority of the Filings) from a S/I member via the contact form
  • In fact most of the the Filings come through this avenue. 
  • At the first suggestion, I did not file it
  • Then I received a 2nd and the SFL link had been updated to have the apology from Colonial Hills
  • At that juncture I did post it. I did not spin it as "CH promotes violence against women" because I do not take that view. I filed it as "CH apologizes for the video"

Aside from the comments on the Colonial Hills thread, we also received 2 emails complaining about our linking to SFL. Both were constructive. I personally called one of those who complained (a Pastor) and I emailed the other 

About my own views of SFL (because I suppose someone may wonder):

  • I do see an agenda there that is to mock the extremes of fundamentalism. (again this is my own personal view)
  • One of the two critical emails stated that Darrell Dow must not be a Christian because of his website. (I don't have the exact quote). I personally find that a harsh assessment of Darrell. I commented on the Colonial thread that I regard him as a brother. I stand by that. 
  • I am personally "agnostic" about linking through to SFL (selectively even).  I used the word agnostic in the second sense of this definition
  • I do try to respond to our membership in submitting Filing suggestions. 
  • My own views of "pastor" Utley and Colonial Hills (and Chuck Phelps) are recorded over on the CH thread

If S/I members feel strongly against ever linking through to SFL ... this is the place to register your view (and feel free to comment as well). 

Paul J. Scharf's picture

I don't know anything about them... The website is not very attractive or easy to use.

That being said, I'm all for the free flow of information.
 

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

John E.'s picture

Everyone has an agenda, including me. One of the problems as I see it with SFL is that they don’t allow any interpretations that might reshape the agenda. Read through comment sections on the site and see what happens to the poor fundy who attempts to engage. What turned me off to the site is the epistemic certainty with which the site (commenters included) often define people’s hearts and motives. In my experience, and my experience only, I have most often been treated with more grace by hard-line, cultural fundamentalists (and by my picture it should be obvious that I’m not a hard-line, cultural fundamentalist). I understand that not everyone has that same experience, and I’m sorry. That, however, doesn’t justify the straw men that SFL uses to pummel fundamentalism as a whole. And, I am well aware that they will deny that they use straw man. Fine. What does my experience in fundamentalism mean, then? And, how does posting videos of people singing and then mocking those people (primarily the commenters) adhere to I John 3: 23, 4: 7-11? When I watch those videos, I assume (my interpretation) that the people singing are doing so because they love Jesus – even if I don’t agree with the song or the style.

 

As far as SI linking to SFL – I’m fine with it.

.

JC's picture

On an posting by posting basis, I agree that the items on SFL are somewhat humorous and silly.  

However, we ought to ackowledge that the 'vibe' of SFL is not balanced or objective.  Only items that put fundies in a bad light are published so as to skew the representation of fundamentalists.   All the good and reasonable things that fundies like and do are ignored.  That ought not be.

Larry Nelson's picture

 

As of 06:42 am (CST) today (06/09/14):

50% of the votes (9 of 18) see linking to SFL as a non-issue.

33% (6 of 18) are in favor of SI linking to SFL only selectively.  [So overall, 83% (15 of 18) are o.k. with SI linking to SFL at least in some instances.]

17% (3 of 18) say that SI should never link to SFL.

Jeremy Horn's picture

I believe that SI should link to SFL. A link to an item at SFL does not constitute an endorsement of that site(at least in my opinion). After all, SI does link to Christianity Today, various secular news sources, etc... That do not agree(in part or whole) with the SI statement of faith. They are simply linked here for us to read and discuss. No problem linking to SFL

Larry Nelson's picture

Jeremy Horn wrote:

I believe that SI should link to SFL. A link to an item at SFL does not constitute an endorsement of that site(at least in my opinion). After all, SI does link to Christianity Today, various secular news sources, etc... That do not agree(in part or whole) with the SI statement of faith. They are simply linked here for us to read and discuss. No problem linking to SFL

Linking to a site doesn't constitute endorsement of it, either in whole or in part.  What happened in this case, IMO, is that those who made SFL the issue were, consciously or not, distracting from the real background discussion going on---which was on the state of present-day youth ministry.  The fact that the focal point of the discussion was a controversial youth video was what really irked some, I think.

The OP Filings post has now vanished from SI, so I guess that proves that a vocal minority (based upon the poll's results) can sometimes get their way.

In the process, amidst all of the clamor, what I thought were some valid, worthwhile posts about what youth ministry has been, is, and could/should be just simply disappeared...

Jay's picture

In the process, amidst all of the clamor, what I thought were some valid, worthwhile posts about what youth ministry has been, is, and could/should be just simply disappeared...

I agree with this.  Since the link/thread is gone now, is is possible to restore (or copy/paste) some of those posts into a new thread?

"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

Ron Bean's picture

I remember those disclaimers in the inside covers of almost every book in the BJU library and bookstore. 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan