Sharper Iron: Does This Sharpen Me?

Dear Guests of IDOTG: I am republishing here an article I first published September 2010 at my secondary blog Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet. I think this is a timely reminder of and historical look at what SI had become.

Last week I posted two articles in regard to Sharper Iron (SI). The first was posted at this, the Iron Skillet, blog. The article was composed by Ps. Brian Ernsberger who recently quit SI and explained his departure. Please see, SI's Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another for details. The second article I posted was a response to Aaron Blumer’s article (9/2) A Few Answers to SI Critics. An article in which he complains about long time, wide spread legitimate criticism of SI. You may read SI Sizzles In & Over the Iron Skillet for a complete reaction to Blumer’s complaints. Today, (Sept. 7, 2010) Aaron is hearing from another former, long time member of SI who shares his experience with SI. An experience, which typifies what is commonplace at SI and why so many have quit SI or would never join in the first place. Let’s now consider why one would ask: Does This Sharpen Me?

I’ve recently come to a decision. It wasn’t earth shattering, and quite honestly, the effect of my decision will likely go unnoticed by the very individuals that necessitated it. In May 2005, I joined the self-identified, fundamentalist website, Sharper Iron. Since that time I posted literally hundreds of times on a variety of topics, some serious and others not. My purpose in joining was to reacquaint myself with some of the current issues in fundamentalism as I approached my ordination some twelve years removed from my graduate work. In those early days, I found much to praise at Sharper Iron. I learned a lot. I solidified a number of positions as I observed, and occasionally partook in, the discussions. I entered the fray decidedly separated in my personal life, as well as, ecclesiastically. I am also convinced of the superiority of the traditional family of Greek texts, and I am a non-Calvinist.

While I rarely dealt with threads on Calvinism or the text issue, I derived much personal edification from the interactions of men like Scott and Christian Markle, Jon Gleason, Lou Martuneac, John R. Himes, and others. These men represented a brand of fundamentalism with which I identify. It is a thoughtful, church-centered fundamentalism, but not one that easily tolerates error or compromise. It is also a loving fundamentalism, although you would never know that by listening to its detractors. (I have more than a few anecdotal stories to prove my point here, however). Unfortunately, those men, and effectively this whole segment of fundamentalism, are gone from the threads and pages at Sharper Iron.

 Increasingly, the threads are filled with intimations of serious doctrinal error hurled toward fellow fundamentalists, while the compromise and errors of Conservative Evangelical personalities are glossed over as praise is lavished on their ministries, as in a recent series of articles by Dr. Kevin Bauder.

When a concerned member recently posted a thoughtful response to one of Dr. Bauder’s articles, his response A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder  was sharply criticized by SI moderators (Rogier, JayC and Linscott) and ultimately removed by Aaron Blumer. A few days later, an SI Filing/thread was posted by Sharper Iron leadership (Jim Peet, Aaron Blumer) introducing and eagerly promoting a website that was nothing more than a vicious personal attack on Lou Martuneac.

Just last week an SI filing referencing a blog post by Dave Doran provided an illustration of some of the concerns I am articulating in this article. It was one of the clearest examples in a long line of the double standards that exist at Sharper Iron. Doran hurled an ad hominem attack at an unnamed fundamentalist(s) using the phrase “pathetic and disingenuous” to describe those who opposed or were relieved the merger of Faith and Central had not gone through. When one commenter called SI to the carpet over this filing he was firmly rebuked. It appears there is a lot of “respecting of persons” going on over there, and now I suspected and have confirmed yet another conservative fundamentalist has left the SI ranks.

If homogeneity was their goal at SI, they have very nearly accomplished it.

It seems serious concerns brought in from the “right end” of the fundamentalist spectrum are scrutinized far more closely at SI than the attacks thrown back the other way. I find that disheartening at best. My alma mater has been a regular source of ridicule, yet such ridicule is rarely hurled at Conservative Evangelical institutions. It smacks of a bias away from the southern brand of fundamentalists and away, it seems, from me.

I’ve watched over the years as non-Calvinists, traditional text men, and those who hold to a certain standard of personal separation were repeatedly shouted down by SI moderators and other members. Of course, a vigorous debate is desirable in many cases; however, on the internet, such debates often become a numerical dog-pile where reasoned arguments carry less weight than the shear number of responses. The result is that the admittedly minority viewpoints eventually “wore out” and stopped posting.

Today SI is a place where Calvinism is the settled opinion of the overwhelming majority of posters. The traditional text family is seen as inferior and those who hold to it are routinely labeled obscurantist or ignorant. Personal separatism to a degree held by our parents and grandparents is regularly declared legalism and almost anything now appears acceptable under an understanding of Romans 14 that puts the perceived rights of the “strong” over concern for the weak.

I find that SI is not a place that welcomes my viewpoint, nor is it a place that holds the Conservative Evangelical camp to the same standard it hold my “camp.”



Well, I, for one, am tired. The old caricature of the angry, fightin’ fundy, so repudiated by the SI majority is quickly becoming the new face of that very site (moderators and remaining membership), only in reverse. It’s a strange, almost surreal thing to realize that you’ve become the very thing you’ve opposed. Unfortunately, I am almost sure the SI leadership does not even recognize the shift.

I am sure there will be those who believe my assessment is wrong, but I know that I am not alone in this opinion. When a number of different individuals with no connection to one another outside of this website bring the same concerns to light, it should raise the concerns of the site leadership. As for me, I wish them no ill, but I had to ask, “Does this sharpen me?” So, I’ve chosen to leave Sharper Iron for good. As I said, in the beginning, I doubt they even noticed.

(Disclaimer: I have submitted this article anonymously. I am obligated to do so by my current ministry situation.)

Site Publisher’s Addendum:

The author is one of many who have quit SI because of its obvious bias. Many of these raised and tried to resolve genuine concerns with SI’s leadership prior to departing, but without success. Aaron Blumer claims he wants to hear from critics, but when wide spread legitimate concerns with SI were posted in his (9/2) thread by a fundamentalist pastor (Marc Monte) SI moderators immediately set upon him. Blumer responded with, “It’s not like everybody has to like SI. If a few dozen or a few hundred don’t see much value in it (or worse yet, think it’s toxic) that’s OK. They have no obligation to even care about what happens here. But if they do, the contact form is there. I have nothing more to say than that…. And we’ve given folks lots of opportunities to communicate. Until they do, the whole matter is moot. I’m not going to chase ghosts”

That reaction typified why the pseudo-fundamentalist SI has hemorrhaged so many members over the last several years. Typifies why SI will never be able to win back those departed. Typifies why SI is not a welcome place for fundamentalist preachers like Marc Monte, Brian Ernsberger and the author of this article. SI is a place whose leadership eagerly welcomes those who wish to heap lavish praise on the star personalities of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals, welcomes those who will tolerate and excuse the aberrant theology and ecumenism of conservative evangelicals, welcomes those who castigate fundamentalism with the broad brush and line up against any who dare to offer legitimate criticism of conservative evangelicalism, defend fundamentalism or question SI’s obvious bias.

Does Matt Olson Repudiate, The Bible as our Only, our Sole Authority for Faith and Practice?

Pastor Brian Ernsberger has just published a penetrating review of an article “Growing Systematically” written by Matt Olson. The pseudo-fundamentalist site Sharper Iron features Olson’s article. I encourage you to read, like a study, Pastor Ernsberger’s “Elvis has Left the Building” at his Parsings of a Preacher blog.

Wow! “There are many ways to grow in our Christian faith”?! The greatest harm here is that he intersperses some truth with this off the wall, unorthodox babble. Matt [Olson], where is the Scriptural support for such a statement, that we can grow our Christian faith with some other source other than the Word of God? Paul in Romans 10:17 is rather explicit, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Our faith comes by the hearing of the Word of God, not man’s writing no matter how “Christian” his literature might be. Instead, we see the influence of these “two decades of ministry” in which he has been pouring over men’s writings to the point of leaving his Biblical mooring of the Bible being his only source for faith. He has imbibed and accepted the notion of the reformed thinkers that say we need a theologian to give us the understanding of the Scriptures.

During the years Matt Olson was dismantling the former Northland Baptist Bible College Sharper Iron (SI) posted main page articles and Filings by and/or on behalf Matt Olson, and the radical changes he was making at Northland.  With one exception between 10/2010 and mid-2013 SI’s leadership chose to largely ignore, censor by omission what was going on at Northland International University.  This week SI is promoting, exposing and giving their tacit support of a radical teaching Matt Olson has endorsed from his blog.

We hope and look for the day when Sharper Iron will cease to exist.  The New Testament church will be better served apart from SI’s long history of propping up and/or giving cover to compromising men, their ministries and betrayal of the Word of God.

 

 

LM

So What? This is NIU’s Plan and We are Glad!

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 Mr. Don Sailer, who is the grandson of Paul Patz, submitted a comment to my blog for posting. The comment I refer to, however, was one that I felt needed a wide reading. Mr. Sailer’s statement is a powerful commentary on the direction of where NIU is going, essentially has gone. You may view Don’s original commentary here under the article, Dr. Matt Olson, “I Apologize to You for…” What?

Of all the pro-NIU (for its changes) persons I have interacted with from NIU’s campus and outside Don Sailer has been the most honest, which is why I posted his statement. Don’s comment highlights almost exactly what I have been saying and documenting for several years. I want to thank Mr. Sailer for being the first to recognize and acknowledge the changes at NIU. Today people are paying attention.

Sharper Iron (SI) has run interference for and ignored the issues at NIU through the liberal media tactic of censorship by omission.  Instead of doing the research to either debunk or verify the issues SI instead stifled reporting and made claims such as: There are no credible sources. With Don Sailer’s entrance into the discussion SI was compelled to open up for discussion over what has been the obvious and widely known changes about NIU in areas of music and behaviors of its administration, primarily Matt Olson,  in direct contravention of NIU’s published and in force Articles of Faith and Handbooks. With Don Sailer a revelation of facts from NIU have come forth that I strongly suspect many of the SI leadership are very unhappy about having essentially been forced to disclose and allow for discussion.

Historical Perspective:

In recent days I have been talking to several persons with intimate knowledge of NIU’s history and leadership. From that I have prepared a short historical perspective. The Patz family was rather isolated in Northern WI. “Pappa” Patz and sons all served in local churches. Harold Patz was the appointed family member to watch the family store on the NIU campus. Harold served as CFO. Harold was a graduate of Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music (not a bastion of fundamentalism). When Les Ollila came to Northland in 1982, he had recently worked with Life Action (again, not a fundamentalist bastion). Les pulled back into his BJU roots very soon after coming to NBBC and brought Harold along with him. I am fairly confident that there have been Patz family members who have been uncomfortable with separatist fundamentalism for a long time. The Patz family is still the family with stake to the NIU board. NBBC was not founded with as clear a pedigree as some may have thought. The perception of clear separation came under Les Ollila. Les came after the school had been going for a few years. Another item of significance is this - the kids (Patz, Ollila, Olson) have not graduated from NBBC and waved the fundamentalist flags. So, there is pressure for Matt Olson to drift with his kids and he is succumbing to the pressure.

Personal Commentary:

Don Sailer is among those saying, so what, this is NIU’s plan and we are glad! Don is the closest to the inner circle of Patz family members to speak so clearly and succinctly. This ‘confession’ has the feel of a last chapter moment. If I was looking to wrap things up on NIU, and all I needed was a good ending, Don may have provided it. In some small way what I posted here for Don has gone viral in our narrow band of the blogosphere. Don’s commentary represents the whole. Don is like a final character that knows all the other characters, and in their absence/silence essentially speaks for all. Don is like a final classic chess move, where the clever chess master utilizes his most unlikely chess piece to end the game and secure the match. 

For over three years many people were ignoring, in disbelief or angered by my reporting on the changes at NIU.

I would like to recognize Don for being the first to recognize the change. I would theorize that the Patz family has talked about it and he is merely telling the public what the Patz family has said privately. The fact that he would speak for Les Ollila and Matt Olson and Harold makes me wonder if allowed to be publicly printed, would they have to respond? 

I believe Don is a person with direct knowledge of family matters and this speaks authoritatively. The grandchildren of the Patz family are all in their early forties to mid thirties. Don is a cousin to all and they all lived in same vicinity and they are all family people thus giving him ample time to discuss and process his conclusions. I think it is fair to say that all these grandchildren are exactly where he claims.

Don’s openness, first posting here at IDOTG, may have ultimately been the final straw that breaks the camel’s back. There have been significant resignations and forced departures from NIU already, but before the fall 2013 semester I foresee wholesale resignations and defections occurring. I foresee freshmen, sophomores and GA’s transferring, while most juniors and seniors endure to complete their degree. None of which makes me in the least happy to report.

LM

“Attacks on Motives Do Not Belong...” at Sharper Iron?

In the previous article we discussed Sharper Iron and Censorship by Omission. Today, we are going to review elements of a thread comment by SI site publisher Aaron Blumer. The following excerpt appears in the SI discussion thread (comment #50) under Questions for Matt Olson and Northland International University.

I’m disappointed to see so many emoting so much in the thread…. I seem to be increasingly alone in believing this, but attacks on Don’s motives or Matt’s motives or anybody else’s motives do not belong here. You all agreed to the Comment Policy. Some of you need to review it. Some have reacted here without apparently even reading Don’s piece…. The situation calls for reining in tempers and making measured statements (if any at all). Chances are good the thread will close before much longer. Edit... OK, that sounded worse than I intended. There are some pretty good observations in the thread and I don’t want to too broadly criticize it. I do appreciate what many of you have contributed here. (It’s been a really hard week and I probably need a vacation)

Aaron Blumer IS increasingly alone in believing attacks do not belong at SI. SI moderators and certain vocal members have historically ridiculed, badgered, attacked motive and impugned character with impunity. In fact, there are occasions when Aaron has joined in these episodes taking sides against participants in the threads. In past and current SI discussion threads if Aaron admitted who was attacking motives, who was impugning character then he would have to admit his people have at times been in the wrong. It seems he can’t bring himself to admit certain things. It’s as if he could not afford to lose face with his people even if it meant being a hypocrite, which is sad.

Aaron wrote, “I seem to be increasingly alone in believing this, but attacks on…motives do not belong here.” So, how did Aaron exemplify this admonition to forum participants? On Friday, August 31 Aaron published an article on SI’s Front Page, a ten point article, How to Blast…a Christian Brother.... Taking into consideration his thread admonition on attacking motives and comparing it to his How to Blast... article we have IMO the crown jewel of hypocrisy! In the article Aaron assumes much motive, which really shoots himself and his leadership in the foot. Personally, I don’t think Aaron will acknowledge this or walk-back the article.

Is That a “Pretty Good Observation?”
It also appears Aaron cannot accept or cannot grasp that others are right when it comes to criticism of the blatant problems with the SI commenting world. Let’s consider another excerpt from Aaron’s statement above, “There are some pretty good observations in the thread….” The following statement can be found under comment #3 in the Questions for MO & NIU Filings thread, the same thread where Aaron posted his admonition. Does the following from SI member Matthew Richards qualify as a “pretty good observation?”

“What about Chuck Phelps? Any good articles discussing his hatchet job on the Tina Anderson situation?”

SI’s team has the ability to delete such an irresponsible comment, if they were inclined to do so, which they obviously weren’t inclined to do. Apparently, Aaron believes that is a “pretty good observation” because it is still there.1 Apparently, that kind of off topic rhetoric passes SI Comment Policy.

Aaron Blumer, his team and many of the vocal members there often follow typical leftist strategy: When you cannot refute or answer the question, then you attack the messenger and/or discuss something else, even if tangential. Redirect to anything to move off the pertinent issue at hand.  The SI deletion of comments in violation of comment policy only seems to be implemented in order to cast objectors in as poor a light as possible.2

SI Drives Off Another:
Long time SI member JG formally and permanently ended his participation at SI. Following are excerpts from JG’s explanation to Aaron Blumer/SI for requesting that his membership be cancelled.

You know, friends, I’m a busy tent-maker. Anyone wonder why I’d take so much time on this when most people here apparently don’t want to hear what I say? There has been little of the Lord’s compassion in some statements…. Sharper Iron is far from the forum I joined years ago. Much has disappointed me. I’ve cited Scripture repeatedly in this discussion. No one bothered to interact with it…. This used to be a place where the Scripture WAS the discussion. Not on this topic, not even close. The double-standard I mentioned in a prior comment would never have been tolerated in the past. It used to be charity was extended to those who were different…. SI was a place where actions and beliefs of all could be scrutinized, but harshness in tone would cause those from across the spectrum to rise up as one in opposition. That’s gone. But this, to me, goes beyond all that and is a line I have to draw. 

I will not stand silent while our Lord’s grace is dishonored in a forum where I am a member. 

Thank you to all who have been friends to me, been gracious to me when I’ve not been all I should have been. There have been many I’ve appreciated here, many who I still appreciate greatly. But I’ll have to bow out now. Please cancel my membership of this forum.3

And the SI crowd can’t seem to understand why JG left the forum.

A Somewhat Positive Note:
While the behavior of Aaron’s own team and certain members has risen again, we do acknowledge a first time new and different reaction. In the recent Matt Olson/NIU threads SI administrator Jim Peet reacted to SI moderator Joel Tetreau’s violations of SI’s official commenting policy. In a pair of the Matt Olson/NIU Filing threads, Joel Tetreau was twice publicly warned by Jim Peet for “ascribing…attacks on the motive of other participants.” Of course, Joel’s personal attacks were not deleted.

While I am pleased to see a first time effort to rein in the behavior of SI’s moderators, my question is: Why this week, after six years of ignoring its own moderator abuses, does SI now deal with their own team’s abusive behavior in the forums? In any event, while this action is appreciated I seriously doubt it makes good (in anyone’s mind) the six previous years of participating in and/or ignoring moderators’ abuses.

Close:
The last week of August was a “really hard week” indeed for Aaron Blumer. SI moderators drove off one of the last participants that did try to speak for and on behalf of a good and balanced Fundamentalism. This is what SI moderators, admins and certain members have done to virtually every member who once did or might have participated from a Fundamentalist perspective. The week ended with a long overdue admonition against attacking motive from Aaron, which inexplicably he ignored in his Ten Things article.


LM

Footnotes:
1) Last accessed, Friday, Sept. 7 @11:55am.  Please continue to: Does SI Allow for the Name of Christ to be Sullied?
“Aaron Blumer has been derelict as a Christian publisher and sinful in his approach to addressing the entire tragic situation. There has been no ‘attitude of forbearance’ whatsoever. Aaron has shown no inclination of forebearance. Aaron (and Jim Peet) have repeatedly allowed for the publication of ‘reckless accusations of crime or cover up,’ which as SI site publisher and owner makes him complicit in the doing of it.  Aaron Blumer and Jim Peet have been enablers of sinful gossip, hurtful innuendo and rumor mongering.”

2) SI's Deplorable Moderators' Actions Run Off Another

I Had to Ask: How Does This Sharpen Me?

3) See JG’s Full Departure Commentary

Sharper Iron: Censorship by Omission (Revised & Expanded)

This week we are taking a break from the series on the changes at Northland International University. We will return with new articles on developments there later this month. Today, I want to begin with the first of two articles on Sharper Iron.

Sharper Iron (SI) is infamous for a history of castigating and besmirching Fundamentalism at virtually any opportunity. SI has never posted and, therefore, cannot produce even one article from its Front Page that is thoroughly positive on Fundamentalism and uplifting for the fundamentalist. SI has never allowed for a blog, that is unapologetically positive toward Fundamentalism, to appear in its Blogroll. SI never passes on an opportunity to heap lavish praise and run interference on behalf of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism, its star personalities and conferences.

SI’s leadership beginning with Aaron Blumer to Jim Peet, Joel Tetreau, Joe Roof, Larry Rogier, Susan R, JayC and a small, but aggressive pack of vocal SI members historically gang-tackle any participant who tries to present an apologetic for Fundamentalist concerns or take on the doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises, cultural relativism and worldliness of the “conservative” evangelicals. SI is a willing participant in and a conduit for the influences of the new wave of non-separatist evangelicals in and around fundamental circles. SI’s double standards, bias and favoritism is obvious to any objective observer.

And SI can’t figure out why they have alienated and driven off almost every person who might participate on behalf of a truly good and balanced Fundamentalism? 

For over two months it has been widely known that Dr. Matt Olson and Northland International University (NIU) lauded a Charismatic Church. On July 2, 2012 Matt Olson from his personal blog posted “Confidence in the Next Generation.” In the article Olson stated, “I have great confidence in this next generation. They get what matters most. This was evidenced in my visit Sunday to Grace Bible Church in Philadelphia…”

What is the Crux of the Controversy?
The Grace Bible Church (Philadelphia, PA) is a member of CJ Mahaney’s family of Sovereign Grace Churches. It is a Charismatic Church. NIU’s current Articles of Faith and doctrinal statements in its Undergraduate and Graduate Handbooks explicitly state the university’s rejection of, and opposition to the “modern Charismatic movement.”1 From his blog Matt Olson announced that an NIU graduate/staff member, Greg Dietrich, will be in the membership of this Charismatic church and would be on NIU’s payroll. All of this has been fact checked and documented here at IDOTG, by Don Johnson at his blog (an oxgoad, eh) and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) Proclaim & Defend blog.

SI once alleged that it “is a fundamentalist place....  that SI is about how fundamentalists see the world.”2  The story of NIU president Matt Olson praising and initiating a fellowship with a Charismatic church is highly relevant to a wide cross–section of believers in fundamentalism. So, why didn’t SI carry its own report of this widely known development?

The liberal mainstream media heaps lavish praise on liberalism, but besmirches and demonizes conservatism. The mainstream media protects their liberal friends by refusing to report on and/or will censor negative stories about them. SI is no different than the liberal mainstream media when it comes to praise, bias, censorship to protect and favoritism on behalf of non-separatists in “conservative” evangelical circles and/or the new wave New Evangelicals circulating in fundamental circles.

SI’s media style is the first cousin of liberal mainstream media bias!

For the nearly two months after publication of Matt Olson’s public praise for the SGM Charismatic church nothing appeared at SI. The external pressure on SI, however, was begun through the initial blog articles of the NIU/Charismatic connection by Pastor Don Johnson in Getting What Matters Most at his blog an Oxgoad, eh?.  I followed Don’s article with the current on-going series of articles on Matt Olson and NIU at this blog. The presence of Don Johnson’s blog article and my series alone did not move SI to bring this major doctrinal discussion to their site.

On the morning of Friday, August 31st the FBFI entered the Olson/NIU Charismatic discussion. Once the FBFI’s Proclaim & Defend blog published Don Johnson’s Questions for Matt Olson and NIU3 SI no longer had any excuse for the stories non-appearance at its site and could not claim ignorance of the issue. Within minutes a link to the FBFI’s Proclaim & Defend appeared in SI’s Filings, and a comment thread was opened. Predictably certain members of SI’s leadership and its membership immediately gang tackled Don with impunity.  SI is not about to allow for, tolerate or let go unchallenged critical commentary of a person or ministry that is pursuing the same non-separatist evangelicalism they are.

Until the Proclaim & Defend article Questions for Matt Olson and NIU appeared it was purely another example of Censorship by Omission at SI. It’s just that simple.

On the other hand, as fast as Matt Olson can issue statements (on the current controversy and questions) SI has those articles posted on their site post-haste. Case in point was Dr. Olson’s Sept 3 article from his personal blog.4  That article was in SI’s Filings before daybreak the same day. What do you suppose the chances are that SI would add to their Filings a critical review of Matt Olson’s recent statements from this or Don Johnson’s blog?

SI’s censorship of the NIU/Charismatic issue and critical reactions to the issues was predictable. SI’s subsequent media support of Matt Olson’s attempts to dismiss, ignore or legitimize a serious contravention of NIU’s doctrinal statements is consistent with their objective to advance non-separatist evangelicalism, advance the agenda of and protect compromising men who circulate in and around fundamental circles. SI’s moderators (“referees”) do not provide for or guarantee an even playing field in the forum. A perusal of the Olson/NIU Filing’s thread of August 31st demonstrates the absurdity of any claims of unbiased moderation and fair treatment at SI.

SI has NEVER been fair to or a friend of authentic Fundamentalism! 

Sharper Iron IS a pseudo-fundamentalist site!

If you do not appreciate the slant of media bias at Sharper Iron you would do well to refrain from propping up the site through your participation.


LM

Please continue to “Attacks on Motive Do Not Belong...” at Sharper Iron?

Footnotes:
1) Is NIU “Opposed to and Reject[ing of] the Modern Charismatic Movement?” and Questions for Matt Olson and NIU

2) That statement has since been revised to a nearly unrecognizable form.

3) Questions for Matt Olson and NIU, FBFI’s Proclaim & Defend blog.

4) What Matters Most: How We Draw the Lines, Part 3. Matthew R. Olson blog. (accessed Sept. 3)

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
Some are asking why nothing is coming from SI contributors Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran on the NIU/Charismatic church connection. Earlier this week I read a noteworthy premise for their silence. At an oxgoad, eh Pastor Brian Ernsberger wrote,

“Based upon the track record of the above-mentioned men (Bauder, Doran, Jordan, et. al.,) they have no reason to denounce what Matt Olson has said and done. These men have, to one degree or another, opened up avenues to evangelicals without much in the way of warnings. So why would they denounce a fellow who is pursuing those same avenues?”

Related Reading:
SI,“You LIE!”

“SI May Fit the Description of Being PSEUDO- FUNDAMEMTALIST” 

Censorship by Omission: Haddon Robinson

Revised and republished from the Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet blog.

Concerning Blog Posts: How to Get Back to Receiving a Full Reward

“Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward,” (2 John 8).

Let us suppose that you have just signed a five year professional sports contract for 50 million dollars. Let’s also suppose that the team attached an incentive clause to the contract of an additional five million for each year that you batted over .290 as a hitter. At the end of three years you maintained a .300 average every year and so you were able to collect the additional five million each year. But now you are in your fourth year and you haven’t been hitting as well. You are getting lazy at practice, leaving early and not showing up at times. You haven’t been working on the fundamentals of baseball and you are not focused on the game. You eke out the rest of the season with a mediocre performance and just make a .250 batting average. As you go in to talk to your agent, he says, “I talked to the team and they said that because of your subpar performance this year, you will not receive the 5 million performance incentive.” What is your reaction to the news? I dare say that there are many Christians in this scenario spiritually because they have been letting things slip.

“Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip,” ( Hebrews 2:1 ).

Their time spent in God’s Word each day and night is slipping which is affecting their faith in the promises of God. Their ebbing faith in the promises of God is causing them to pray less, thereby taking away the power of the prayer of faith. Their deficiency in prayer is producing less dependence upon the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit’s power is missing in the believer’s life because of sin that is unconfessed. Their attendance at church is slipping and certain services or Sunday school is treated as less important.

At the end of the day, the honest Christian must realize that he doesn’t deserve the full reward from the Lord Jesus Christ at the Judgment seat of Christ based on poor recent performance. Christ wants to give us that full reward for our daily faithfulness to him from the time we were saved to the moment we die. But if we get lazy or lose faith and fail to make disciples and to teach “them all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” then we have to realize we won’t receive the “full reward.”

We must admit that based on the promises in the Scriptures, the full reward from the hand of Christ will be worth it all. This full reward may be a greater position of service in the Millennial Kingdom of Christ (Matthew 25), a fuller joy with little to no regret in the first phase of heaven (1 Cor. 3:11-15), another crown to cast at Jesus feet (Rev 4:10) or another soul to rejoice with in heaven based on our personal witnessing. God gave us these warnings so that we would realize that we are running a race and fighting for the prize so that we could war a good warfare. We can war this warfare only by our obedience to the prophecies of the Bible.

“This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare,” (1 Tim 1:18).

I have noticed that many self-proclaimed fundamentalist bloggers, including many Sharper Iron contributors, write whole articles on many diverse topics and fail to put in even one Scripture reference or even an allusion to Scripture when stating their point or their assessment of a book in a book review. There are, however, in those same articles, many references to a professor’s opinion or to other books written on the subject. Dr. Kevin Bauder always puts a classical Christian poem about Christ at the end of his blog posts. The poem has nothing to do with the subject matter that he just stated. Does a poem (not even about the subject) or a professor’s writing about the topic discussed give weight to any argument? I would argue no. Do applicable supporting Scripture references and Bible quotes give weight? Yes! If we want to be the iron that “sharpeneth” (Prov 27:17) then we need to have the weight of the iron of the Sword of the Spirit behind us. Otherwise we are dulling the Christian’s blade instead of sharpening it. Let’s use the professor’s opinion as it agrees with the Bible. Let’s use a Christian writing as it agrees with the Scriptures with the topic we are addressing.

Dr. Bauder recently posted an article on “The Heart of the Life of Prayer” in which he used 23 references to Scripture in one article. There are more Scripture references in that one article than he had in his entire 24 part Now, About Those Differences series (Footnote Lou Martuneac). Why can’t Dr. Bauder and others in the self-proclaimed fundamentalist fold use the same amount of Scriptures or even 1/8 of the 23 verses to support their statements concerning separation and their view of fundamentalism. I contend that it is because the Scriptures don’t support what they are saying. There was a dissection of Amos 3:3 on the Sharper Iron blog a little while back in the comments section.

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed,” ( Amos 3:3).

The persons commenting on it were saying that it was not really talking about separation. They lamented how this often quoted verse did not apply to separation in their opinion. So they proceeded to try to comment on the verse with the verses following. They tried to prove that this was “just another verse that those old-fashioned fundamentalists and their forefathers pulled out of context.”

Let us examine the two verses leading up to it. Amos 3:1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

How can the Lord walk together with us as His people in the Church Age Dispensation when we tolerate sin in our lives, our families and our churches? He was saying to the children of Israel that He could not walk together with them anymore because of their sin. They were a faithless, idolatrous people.

Let’s get back to believing fully in the Scriptures for what it says as Dr. Kevin Bauder stated in the article on prayer. He said, “This process of living with Jesus involves several elements: His words live in believers, who must keep His words (obey His commandments), and love Him.” Let us keep His words to the “jot and tittle” by continually stating them as we contend for the faith and build the work of God at the same time. That will be the antidote to the current widespread plague of doubt about God’s Word that is afflicting the Biblical fundamentalist community and fundamental Baptists in particular.

So why is there this continued pattern in many conservative evangelical/fundamentalist blogs to stick to just what man thinks about a certain topic? I think it is because they don’t have verses in the Scriptures to back up their certain contentious or challenging point of view that they are currently trying to press. As Christians, we are not bound to adopt someone’s point of view regarding any area of life if they do not have Scripture to support their position.

“According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue,” (2 Peter 1:3 ).

The Scriptures are the sole basis of spiritual knowledge of “all things that pertain unto life and godliness.” So why are we trying to answer life’s questions outside of God’s answers? Let us put the weight of our argument with God and not with ourselves. We will then study the Scriptures and be meditating in it “day and night.” Our prayer life will be revived and the Holy Spirit will be able fill us once again with power as we are fully surrendered to Him and the Word of God.


Jeremy Rice
Northfield Baptist Church

Site Publisher’s Commentary: Throughout Kevin Bauder’s 24 part Now, About Those Differences series it was widely noted that Scriptural principals or applications rarely appeared. I recall having surveyed the entire 24 articles counting every reference to Scripture, whether or not he expounded on a passage. I did not store that survey, but as I recall there were less than 20 references to Scripture of any kind throughout. Many had no reference to or appeal from Scripture whatsoever. IMO, the series was more like bloviating than a genuine attempt to identify relevant facts and discuss the obvious differences between separatist Fundamentalism and the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism along clear biblical lines. See, When Facts Give Way for the Sake of Agenda. And this vacuum, the parched ground from the then President of a Seminary? For additional reading on Sharper Iron refer to Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet

“Seven Years and Counting:” Is SI Counting Down?

An issue arose that necessitates my having to interrupt the archival series by Dr. Rick Flanders, Salvation & Discipleship. That series will resume on Monday morning with the second in the five part series. On Tuesday, Sharper Iron (SI) site publisher, Aaron Blumer posted an article titled, Seven Years and Counting. I am going to hone in on two brief excerpts from the article then close with an appeal to people who care about and exemplify the best of Fundamentalism.

From the section, “Something we need”

“Speaking of accessible, thoughtful writing, consider this an open casting call for writers. Though we continue to find some pretty good stuff in the work of various bloggers as well as some print publications… SI could use more work that is exclusive and arrives at regular intervals.”

If you were to submit articles to reject and/or correct doctrines such as Calvinism and Lordship Salvation your polemic will not be published at SI’s front page. SI has never opened its Blogroll for any such bloggers. If you have an opinion and the nerve to raise legitimate concerns with the growing trend of new evangelical influences making inroads into Fundamental schools, colleges, seminaries and fellowships your article will never appear at SI’s main page. What has taken place in SI’s discussion threads affirms SI’s open hostility toward opinions such as I suggest above and assure they will never be allowed to appear at SI’s front page.

Post a thread comment at SI critical of the doctrinal aberrations and ecumenical compromises of evangelicals like John Piper, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan and watch what happens. If you do not stand down you will be surrounded and suffocated by SI staff and certain members of SI. Still hold your ground and you will receive stronger warnings and/or threats of censorship and banishment from Aaron Blumer. Of course, SI moderators and members friendly to SI positions freely berate and chastise with impunity and encourage one another in it. Take a reasoned position against any of SI’s pet doctrines, personalities and fellowships, state your position with biblical conviction, without compromise and your voice in an article submission will never see the light of day at SI. Take a position on behalf of the best Fundamentalism has been, can be and still offers the church today your article will not be given so much as a column inch of SI’s front page.

No article has ever appeared in the seven years of SI that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and uplifting for Fundamentalists. None whatsoever! The open challenge to Aaron Blumer still stands. He once attempted, failed and has never been able to offer even one front-page example from the 7-year history of SI that was thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and uplifting for Fundamentalists. His inability to produce even one is easily explained, there is no such article whatsoever at SI. IMO there never will be such an example because the primary history and legacy of SI is to castigate Fundamentalism with the broad brush and run interference for contributors at SI who do so, most notably Dr. Kevin Bauder.

Irrefutably SI plays favorites on behalf of evangelicalism and is loosely organized against any legitimate questions and concerns over evangelicalism’s star personalities, doctrinal aberrations, worldliness and ecumenical compromises. The SI team has consistently gang-tackled members who raise legitimate concerns over the attacks on Fundamentalism, the drift away from fidelity to biblical separation among some who circulate in Fundamental circles or protest the compromisers in evangelicalism. The SI team has consistently practiced censorship by omission,* run interference for the conservative evangelicals and set upon those who try to flush out the issues within evangelicalism.

From the Section, “Identity questions”

“Along the way, critics have accused SI of having an anti-fundamentalist bias, of being a secretly neo-evangelical organization, etc. And we’ve always been interested in helping fundamentalism by challenging it, rather than simply lauding it. ”

“Accused” of and documented from the site itself that SI is highly biased against Fundamentalism. “Helping Fundamentalism?” SI wastes no opportunity, real or perceived to castigate, besmirch and demonize Fundamentalism. Certain personalities have been tried, convicted and given an Internet lynching with Aaron Blumer and Jim Peet presiding and participating. At the same time SI plays favorites with and runs interference for conservative and New evangelicals in the T4G, TGC camps.

No one I am aware of, especially this writer, has ever suggested SI is “secretly” evangelical because it is not a secret. SI is a place for evangelicals, which was previously acknowledged as such by Aaron Blumer at the site. Blumer described SI as a site for those, “who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.” SI is without question a site for the promotion and advancement of evangelicalism.

Sharper Iron enables and facilitates evangelicalism’s insidious spread into once balanced, charitable Fundamental separatist schools and ministries.

Closing Appeal
SI needs people to disagree with them or the site would grind to a halt and Aaron Blumer knows this. Is Aaron’s appeal for contributors a subtle signal that SI may be on count down to extinction?

If it were not for Aaron changing SI rules for moderators to drop the role of impartial referee, to freely participate in threads to impose their positions and will SI would have come to a halt. Aaron and Jason Janz before him ran off just about anyone who once did or might have considered participating on behalf of the very Fundamentalism that has been the target of unceasing criticism and attack by the SI team and most of the few members still actively posting comments.

If you presently contribute even thread comments at SI you are enabling SI to continue its pattern of castigating Fundamentalism. You are keeping SI alive to heap lavish praise on and advocate the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. Does your participation help SI to attract new readers and lead the unsuspecting toward the doctrinal errors and ecumenism of conservative and New evangelicalism? If even one is lost to evangelicalism’s compromises of doctrine and practice a genuine tragedy has occurred. If you keep threads alive by your participation you fuel the SI team and evangelicals wanna be’s in SI’s membership to propagate the egregious errors of evangelicalism, isn’t it possible you share some culpability for the losses.


LM

* One writer said,

“I call it CENSORSHIP BY OMISSION, where by silence, religious and historical ignorance and illiteracy is promoted. Why, this silence? As one editor told me: ‘because it would offend the Christian community among our subscribers.’ Even though factual and accurate history, it would offend them.”

This IMO is exactly the dilemma of Aaron Blumer at SI. If he were to allow for open criticism on SI’s front page of the obvious problems within the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism, back down his moderators from going after those who raise legitimate concerns with evangelicalism he “would offend the Christian community among [SI] subscribers.” Offending what is left of the SI membership, which is far and away pro-evangelical, is what Aaron is not willing to risk. If SI were to allow for sharp, legitimate criticism of evangelicals on its front page SI would fold for sure. Therefore, the disconcerting issues about evangelicalism are censored (silenced) by omission. (Censorship by Omission)

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
Rather than post a series of articles as footnotes I have opted to direct your attention to my secondary blog, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet for further reading. There you will find supporting documentation. I also encourage you to read,

Is That The Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

I Had to Ask, “Does This Sharpen Me?”

Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet

After over three years of active participation at Sharper Iron (SI) on the morning of June 8, 2009 I resigned my membership from the site. From this blog (IDOTG) I announced publicly that I dropped my membership at SI.1 I also notified the SI leadership in SI threads, via e-mails and private messages that I was quitting SI with immediate effect. Shortly after resigning from SI I opened a new blog titled, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet. Since its opening there have been about 15 articles posted in the Iron Skillet on well known disconcerting issues and practices at the SI site.

In a brand new series of articles in the Iron Skillet we have been demonstrating that SI, contrary to its claims, does NOT exist on behalf of or for the advancement of authentic Fundamentalism. Instead SI (the majority of its leadership) has primarily operated the site and directed their personal efforts to the advancement of so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

In a series of new comments at SI one poster named DonP is insisting that authentic, historic fundamentalism is embodied in the current day so-called “conservative” evangelical movement. If that is true then we are to accept that John Piper’s embrace of Rick Warren and Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration exemplify what contemporary fundamentalism has become. SI has, furthermore, begun to allow for elements of “New” evangelical thinking to be voiced from its front page. (See the controversial article from August 5, Church Planting Thirty Years Later by Pastor Steve Davis.)

“Now, Steve’s [Davis] view of the creation account is a lesser issue, but with the same approach. If the Genesis literal day creation is valid, but also other views are also valid, then that’s also OK if God will accept that. The problem is He won’t. He [God] doesn’t intend to teach both. He wrote a clear account as part of a historical statement and expects us to accept it. Or was God having fun and being unclear and expecting us to have fun guessing as to what He really meant…. New alternate theories are now set forth. Creation science is advocated by scientists with highly regarded credentials. On this one issue alone Steve advocates theory, approach and doubt, that is an unacceptable compromise of scripture.”

Allow me to direct your attention to the complete article in the Iron Skillet. Please continue to,

SI and New Evangelical Reasoning Once you finish the article please pay special attention to my concluding comments. Additional articles from the Iron Skillet blog include:

SI, “YOU LIE!”

SI Gang-Tackles “Doc” Clearwaters!

“SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away

I Had to Ask: Does This Sharpen Me?


LM

In September 2010 I published Sharper Iron Sizzles In and Over the Iron Skillet. I heartily recommend it as further reading on the issues with and at SI.

Footnotes:
1) Cancelled My Membership at SI

Is That The Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

Today, at Sharper Iron (SI) site publisher Aaron Blumer has posted a new article in which he attempts to portray himself and SI as if he and the site are loyal and long time friends of historic, balanced Fundamentalism. It is beyond question that from its inception SI has been at best lukewarm toward Fundamentalism and most often hostile toward it and those who post there that have identified with Fundamentalism.

In recent history SI moderators and some of the more aggressive angry former YFs have been especially hostile toward members many of whom finally quit SI such as: Ps. Marc Monte, Brain Ernsberger, Evangelist Dwight Smith, Lance Ketchum, et. al. When these men sought to defend some principle of or assault against their Fundamentalism conviction(s) they were each set upon by what might be best described as mob action with SI moderators in the lead.

This irrefutable pattern at SI, the greatest source of frustration and members quitting the site has been over the bent and bias of SI and especially its moderators actions toward self-identified Fundamentalists (who also reject the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism) who take opposing views to certain favored persons and positions at SI.

IMO, Aaron’s article is reactionary and political in nature. Reactionary because of a growing awareness that SI is biased and plays favorites with personalities, doctrinal positions and fellowships. Political because SI attempts to persuade readers that SI is and always has been for and on behalf of historic, balanced Fundamentalism.

On Friday, August 5 an article was posted at SI that has stirred yet another contentious debate. That debate disintegrated into another example of SI moderators (Jim Peet, SusanR) and Aaron Blumer gang-tackling certain men posting in the thread that were taking legitimate exception to elements of the article. The author Steve Davis was also quite hostile toward several who posted, but he was not approached by moderators for his harshness.

On Aug. 5 Aaron posted a comment (#6) in the article by Steve Davis

“Then you have guys like me who would never have considered naming a church ‘independent fundamental...’ in the first place. And a couple decades later, I'm not far from the same place I started.”1

Is That the Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

 A man, “who would never have considered naming a church ‘independent fundamental’.”

I am not sure what more anyone needs to know to be convinced that the SI site publisher/owner cannot be considered a friend of historic Fundamentalism. He has stated that he would never include “fundamental” as part of the name for a church he would pastor? IMO, it is impossible to be honest on SI’s About SI page claiming that SI is friendly and/or positive toward Fundamentalism with the leadership openly reluctant to even be identified with the term, “fundamental.”

SI is NOT a fundamentalist place, nor a place for fair and open discussions of how the fundamentalist sees the world. SI is in fact a place where fundamentalism is ignored by the leadership and/or routinely vilified, redefined and skewered by the SI moderators when someone attempts to post on behalf or in defense of Fundamentalism. The Steve Davis discussion thread under his article Church Planting Thirty Years Later  is the latest and one of the starkest examples of SI moderator aggression toward those who took an opposing view to Pastor Davis’s legitimizing theories of creation, other than a literal 6 day creation, and non-cessation of the Charismatic sign gifts.

The actions of SI moderators and the numerous articles at SI’s front page, its Forums and Blogroll evidence the truth that SI is primarily hostile toward Fundamentalism. The actions of SI’s moderates have historically been biased and hostile toward participants that attempt to define and defend Fundamentalist principles. SI moderators, including Aaron Blumer have gang-tackled Fundamentalists at SI who have attempted to address and/or criticize articles or personalities that attempt to redefine, besmirch, demonize chip away at Fundamentalism's high-water mark: biblical separation, ecclesiastical and personal.

For two years I have been challenging Aaron Blumer to produce even one article from the many hundreds of front page articles at SI that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and edifying to Fundamentalists. To reiterate, the qualifier has always been to produce an article from the SI front page that is “thoroughly positive.”

Today, Aaron has offered two articles that he must believe meets the test to produce a SI front page article that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and edifying for Fundamentalists. The first he offers is his own article, I Learned it From Fundamentalists. I answered that article at length the day Aaron published it, which was in March 2010. The article appears at the SI: In the Iron Skillet blog and I encourage you to read it there. Please see, Aaron Blumer: “I Learned it From Fundamentalists”

Aaron negates the value of his Learned It... article by equating what he learned of Fundamentalism by saying he could have learned the same things in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. No objective individual who knows the primary differences between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism would suggest he could have learned the principles and application of authentic biblical separation from the evangelicals.

In 2010 Aaron Blumer at the site defined SI this way,

“The site has four thousand members (several hundred active) who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.”

Acknowledging SI as a site for those who identify with conservative evangelicalism was most truthful description of SI to date. Aaron, however, pulled that statement when I: 1) Challenged his cooking the membership count books to reflect 4,000 members SI 3.0 did not have, and 2) Brought to his attention that he had affirmed that SI is for and about the advancement of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

Aaron’s second offering is, Why Stay in Fundamentalism?

My heart goes out to Joe and to his family because it’s evident to me that he or someone in his family (or both) has suffered something very painful at the hands of fundamentalists. (In the talk, Joe doesn’t target Fundamentalism by name but clearly includes it under the “high-control groups” label.) Whether what was painful was also wrong I’m not in a position to know, but it’s certainly possible.

“Suffered…at the hands of fundamentalists?” And we are to take this as a thoroughly positive article on behalf Fundamentalism and edifying for Fundamentalists? Hardly!

Furthermore, in 2007, under pressure from Joe Zichterman, SI took down all articles that it had posted on Zichterman’s departure from Fundamentalism for the Willow Creek church. I was also contacted by Joe and asked to remove my article on his departure, I refused. You can read that article today at this blog with an added section in the thread about his contacting me to remove the article. Please refer to, The Joe Zichterman Issue

I would, furthermore, like for Aaron to produce that article from the SI site or the SI 2.0 archive. Is it still open, and accessible or was it taken down as the others on Joe Zichterman were at SI in 2007?

The history of SI is one of open hostility toward Fundamentalism and certain persons from the history of Fundamentalism. One of the most stark examples was the 2009 three part series by Dr. Kevin Bauder in which he besmirched and demonized the legacy of both Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and Dr. John R. Rice. SI moderators and Aaron Blumer happily published those articles and joined Bauder in the free-for-all at SI to lambaste those men and any in the threads who attempted to speak for or on behalf of them. Especially memorable is the way in which SI moderators and Aaron gang-tackled and their manhandling of Missionary John Himes, grandson of John R. Rice. See- Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship. There was also SI’s publishing Kevin Bauder’s inflammatory, Let's Get Clear on This. Please see, Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations

For what must be the few left participating at SI who are Fundamentalists by conviction, with Bible reasons for identifying oneself as a Fundamentalist, should seriously consider departing SI entirely. For three years I tried to present a voice of reason and conviction for the best of what Fundamentalism can be for the lurkers. Maybe you are there for the same reason. After three years of being ridiculed, vilified and gang-tackled by SI moderators and the angry former yf’s that dominate the threads I had had enough and quit SI on my own terms in June 2009.

Since its inception SI has (its moderators in particular) intimidated, gang-tackled, run off and/or demeaned… virtually every caring Fundamentalist that once did or might have participated in discussions there. That pattern continues today. Then, of course, SI has been allowing for the propagation of aberrant theology. Case in point Steve Davis postulating teachings such as: that beyond a literal six day creation there are valid theories, and that the signs and wonders movement is valid today.

Any church or college that identifies with Fundamentalism that is considering or presently financially supporting SI through advertising might seriously reconsider supporting a site that is hostile toward Fundamentalism from its front page, Forums, Filings and Blogroll. Is it a sound investment of the Lord’s resources to direct funds into a sight that, among other disconcerting issues, has been one of the most aggressive conduits for the tearing down of Fundamentalism’s high-water mark, which is: fidelity to authentic biblical separatism?


LM

1) Aaron Blumer Friday, August 5, Comment 6, Church Planting Thirty Years Later

For more on the “pseudo- fundamentalism” of SI please see my secondary blog, Shaper Iron: In the Iron Skillet:
“SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away

“The facade that SI exists for and on behalf of Fundamentalism has never been a credible claim. With the latest article at SI [Aug. 5], an open attack on Fundamentalism written by a self-described former Fundamentalist, any legitimacy of the SI statement has been stripped away.”

New Article Today:
“SI May Fit the Description of Being ‘PSUEDO- FUNDAMENTALIST’”

SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another

I Had To Ask “Does This Sharpen Me?”

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Last week I posted two articles in regard to Sharper Iron. The first was posted at my secondary blog, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet. The article was composed by Ps. Brian Ernsberger who recently quit SI and explained his departure. Please see, SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another for details. The second article I posted was a response to Aaron Blumer’s article (9/2) A Few Answers to SI Critics. An article in which he complains about long time, wide spread legitimate criticism of SI. You may read SI Sizzles In & Over the Iron Skillet for a complete reaction to Blumer’s complaints. Today, Aaron is hearing from another former, long time member of SI who shares his experience with SI. An experience, which typifies what is commonplace at SI and why so many have quit SI or would never join in the first place. Let’s now consider why one would ask: Does This Sharpen Me?

I’ve recently come to a decision. It wasn’t earth shattering, and quite honestly, the effect of my decision will likely go unnoticed by the very individuals that necessitated it. In May 2005, I joined the self-identified, fundamentalist website, Sharper Iron. Since that time I posted literally hundreds of times on a variety of topics, some serious and others not. My purpose in joining was to reacquaint myself with some of the current issues in fundamentalism as I approached my ordination some twelve years removed from my graduate work. In those early days, I found much to praise at Sharper Iron. I learned a lot. I solidified a number of positions as I observed, and occasionally partook in, the discussions. I entered the fray decidedly separated in my personal life, as well as, ecclesiastically. I am also convinced of the superiority of the traditional family of Greek texts, and I am a non-Calvinist.

While I rarely dealt with threads on Calvinism or the text issue, I derived much personal edification from the interactions of men like Scott and Christian Markle, Jon Gleason, Lou Martuneac, John R. Himes, and others. These men represented a brand of fundamentalism with which I identify. It is a thoughtful, church-centered fundamentalism, but not one that easily tolerates error or compromise. It is also a loving fundamentalism, although you would never know that by listening to its detractors. (I have more than a few anecdotal stories to prove my point here, however). Unfortunately, those men, and effectively this whole segment of fundamentalism, are gone from the threads and pages at Sharper Iron.

Increasingly, the threads are filled with intimations of “serious doctrinal error” hurled toward fellow fundamentalists, while the compromise and errors of Conservative Evangelical personalities are glossed over as praise is lavished on their ministries, as in a recent series of articles by Dr. Kevin Bauder.

When a concerned member recently posted a thoughtful response to one of Dr. Bauder’s articles, his response A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder was sharply criticized by SI moderators (Rogier, JayC and Linscott) and ultimately removed by Aaron Blumer. A few days later, an SI Filing/thread was posted by Sharper Iron leadership (Jim Peet, Aaron Blumer) introducing and eagerly promoting a website that was nothing more than a vicious personal attack on Lou Martuneac.

Just last week an SI filing referencing a blog post by Dave Doran provided an illustration of some of the concerns I am articulating in this article. It was one of the clearest examples in a long line of the double standards that exist at Sharper Iron. Doran hurled an ad hominem attack at an unnamed fundamentalist(s) using the phrase “pathetic and disingenuous” to describe those who opposed or were relieved the merger of Faith and Central had not gone through. When one commenter called SI to the carpet over this filing he was firmly rebuked. It appears there is a lot of “respecting of persons” going on over there, and now I suspected and have confirmed yet another conservative fundamentalist has left the SI ranks.

If homogeneity was their goal at SI, they have very nearly accomplished it.

It seems serious concerns brought in from the “right end” of the fundamentalist spectrum are scrutinized far more closely at SI than the attacks thrown back the other way. I find that disheartening at best. My alma mater has been a regular source of ridicule, yet such ridicule is rarely hurled at Conservative Evangelical institutions. It smacks of a bias away from the southern brand of fundamentalists and away, it seems, from me.

I’ve watched over the years as non-Calvinists, traditional text men, and those who hold to a certain standard of personal separation were repeatedly shouted down by SI moderators and other members. Of course, a vigorous debate is desirable in many cases; however, on the internet, such debates often become a numerical dog-pile where reasoned arguments carry less weight than the shear number of responses. The result is that the admittedly minority viewpoints eventually “wore out” and stopped posting.

Today SI is a place where Calvinism is the settled opinion of the overwhelming majority of posters. The traditional text family is seen as inferior and those who hold to it are routinely labeled obscurantist or ignorant. Personal separatism to a degree held by our parents and grandparents is regularly declared legalism and almost anything now appears acceptable under an understanding of Romans 14 that puts the perceived rights of the “strong” over concern for the weak.

I find that SI is not a place that welcomes my viewpoint, nor is it a place that holds the Conservative Evangelical camp to the same standard it holds my “camp.” 

 Well, I, for one, am tired. The old caricature of the angry, fightin’ fundy, so repudiated by the SI majority is quickly becoming the new face of that very site (moderators and remaining membership), only in reverse. It’s a strange, almost surreal thing to realize that you’ve become the very thing you’ve opposed. Unfortunately, I am almost sure the SI leadership does not even recognize the shift.

I am sure there will be those who believe my assessment is wrong, but I know that I am not alone in this opinion. When a number of different individuals with no connection to one another outside of this website bring the same concerns to light, it should raise the concerns of the site leadership. As for me, I wish them no ill, but I had to ask, “Does this sharpen me?” So, I’ve chosen to leave Sharper Iron for good. As I said, in the beginning, I doubt they even noticed.

(Disclaimer: I have submitted this article anonymously. I am obligated to do so by my current ministry situation.)

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
The author is one of many in a long line who have quit SI because of its obvious bias. Many of these raised and tried to resolve genuine concerns with SI’s leadership prior to departing, but without success. Aaron Blumer claims he wants to hear from critics, but when wide spread legitimate concerns with SI were posted in his (9/2) thread by a fundamentalist pastor (Marc Monte) SI moderators immediately set upon him. Blumer responded with, “It’s not like everybody has to like SI. If a few dozen or a few hundred don’t see much value in it (or worse yet, think it’s toxic) that’s OK. They have no obligation to even care about what happens here. But if they do, the contact form is there. I have nothing more to say than that…. And we’ve given folks lots of opportunities to communicate. Until they do, the whole matter is moot. I’m not going to chase ghosts”

That reaction typified why the pseudo-fundamentalist SI has hemorrhaged so many members over the last several years. Typifies why SI will never be able to win back the departed. Typifies why SI is not a welcome place for fundamentalist preachers like Marc Monte, Brian Ernsberger and the author of this article. SI is a place whose leadership eagerly welcomes those who wish to heap lavish praise on the star personalities of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals, welcomes those who will tolerate and excuse the aberrant theology and ecumenism of conservative evangelicals, welcomes those who castigate fundamentalism with the broad brush and line up against any who dare to offer legitimate criticism of conservative evangelicalism, defend fundamentalism or question SI’s obvious bias.