I hope you're not putting a lot of your hopes on that walk down the hallway. They are reading your blog and for all that, they find reasons, as we all find reasons, to do what we want.

The latest one I'm hearing is that it looks different from inside and that I who have been reared and trained in fundamentalism, really was not all that fundamentalistic to begin with. Flattering, but hardly true.

I'm going to put this line: "Shabby is so spiritual," right beside the other one I got from you, "Nothing ever changes."

It does look different from the inside. It "looks" very different. It looks magnificent, impressive, sober, and glorious. You walk into the auditorium and get blown away by the sound of the choir (or is it their stereo equipment?) and the catch in the pastor's voice as he prays for power. You pick up the magazine and get blown away by the juicy smiles of the college students and the tearful recitals of people who learned to trust the Lord through yet another trial. You run into the family of seven at Wal-Mart and get blown away by their demure cooperation as they silently trail their parents through the store. The look of fundamentalism is bound to be different than the reality because the look IS the virtue to them. They call it "testimony for the Lord" and "a good name."

Then one day, as you watch people pretending that "the Lord blessed" at the last revival meeting when actually he was nowhere to be found, or you actually attend the college and find the juicily smiling students vying for personal emminence and getting away with sexual immorality, as you find out about that 'perfect' family's frequent two-hour long spanking sessions or watch them lose their disillusioned teenagers while pastors look the other way, it occurs to you that "taking stands" and "stating positions" are alternate expressions for posturing.

Well said, alana.

About which I hope to have more to say on Monday.

Sadly, Joel, I do not have such a hope.

I used to have some hope that reason might play a modest role in addressing these problems, but that was back when I was quite young. I used to think that people who objected to CCM did so because CCM was bad.

Live and learn.

As for who reads this blog; I know they read, but they read to find ways to discredit, not for ways to consider what it is they love. Not entirely unlike the Pharisees.

And sorry you are not a certified fundamentalist. You’re like Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice: black enough to be despised by Whites but not black enough to be respected by Blacks.

Dare I say something about movement as opposed to idea?

What was well said about Alana's post? Is it well said to indict vast segments of believers with generic accusations? On what biblical grounds can this be justified?

It is a very dangerous thing to transpose one's bad experiences into general principles of evaluation.

In this sense, and a few others, this is the most fundamentalistic place I visit on the web.

For those of us who have made that trip down that hall, there is a truth that is painful in Alana's post. The rude dismissiveness that one experiences for not being giddily positive about the direction of a program, institution, or even church is gut wrenching. But this is not true all the time. There are times when the trip down the hall yields positive, if meager, results. Alana's statement might be considered misleading because it compresses the many different strata of fundamentalistic sitz im leben, but I'm almost certain that Alana is using this as a synecdotal hyperbole (I listened in lit. class). Alana is using a literary device known as caricature, and I know of several leaders within fundamentalistic movements who use it on a regular basis. On what biblical grounds can this be justified?

I'll let her speak for herself. That she was actually indicting "vast segments of believers with accusations" may not have been the intention or point. To say that the majority of institutional fundamentalistic Christianity may look more like a falsely pious Corinth than a cold heartedly pious Ephesus can hardly be denied.

While the statement, "It is a very dangerous thing to transpose one's bad experiences into general principles of evaluation," may be true. There comes a point when we must bow to the weight of the evidence as these experiences plot a firm locus on our scatter graph.

I suppose the really painful ordeal is that Alana is not speaking of fictional people, nor is she speaking hypothetically. The implication is that real people were spiritually injured by the malpractice of fundamentalistic practitioners. It happens here too; I dare say that Remonstrans has not escaped all of fundagelicalism's defining ugliness. Fundagelicalism does breed this sort of insensitivity to the high cost of hubris. While fundagelicals compete institutionally or idealogically, real people are having real spiritual experiences and making real spiritual decisions - the line of good and evil runs down the middle of every decision we make.

In the meantime, talk is cheap.

Nice literary allusion to Solzhenitsyn, Exlibris.

I agree with the last line and not much else.

I feel badly for those of you who hang out in Corinthian-like churches and institutions, but only to a point since you simply demonstrate that talk is cheap by staying there and complaining about on obscure websites. Quit excusing yourself from responsibility and follow biblical principles that would purify those churches and institutions.

But, even accepting your Corinthian example, where is the spirit of Paul toward that church ever displayed around here? When does one read on this site an expression of gratitude like Paul's for even the church at Corinth? "I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus" (1 Cor 1:4)?

Instead, there seems to be an obsession with other people's flaws and failings. Again, this is the expression of the fundamentalistic mindset which is supposedly rejected around here. It might be time to look in the mirror.

Actually, Dave, several things of Alana’s were well-said. The one I had in mind was the one that is relevant to our consideration of this fundy hypocrisy. I know it’s not pleasant for you to hear it, but don’t blame her. There is very much a command culture where piety is not a matter of conscience and informed discretion any longer; it is a matter of diktat. This is a culture where bloggers are traduced, blacklisted and banned from participation in the conversation.

Many of us have seen what Alana describes. We could tell more stories than a cultivated sensibility would allow. There is a necessary connection between the arrogance and double standard she describes, the low-brow entertainments that even some fundamentalists object to and the insularity of its privileged members who produce and protect it.

Every single one of us knows that there are people whose judgment you don’t dare question.

Thus it is that confrontation does not happen; those walks down the hall are never taken. Whatever went into the sewer line comes out of the sewer line. Organizations like SMS and the Galkin’s High Times Revue have no quality control. The very standards Tim Fisher imposes on others he himself cannot achieve. On what biblical grounds can this be justified?

As for your question about the biblical grounds for Alana’s remarks:

Well, Dave, try starting with Matthew 23 wherein Jesus characterizes (and condemns) an entire class of people, the Pharisees. Read the entire passage; the similarities here just may strike you as intriguing.

The Gospel according to Matthew is the first of the four Gospels and can be found at the beginning of the New Testament. The chapters are numbered and arranged numerically.

Dave,

How much evidence of unacknowledged abuse do I need before I can make a general evaluation about a group that shares the same name, reveres the same heroes, reads the same books and periodicals, listens to the same music, practices the same ecclesiastical customs, and attends the same cluster of inter-related conferences and institutions? How many dozens of people from various places must I talk to face-to-face? How much read, how many visit? How many churches must I join and leave? How many of my friends and aquaintances be wronged, lied to, neglected, rendered ignorant, abused and/or severed from their families?

And how many fundamentalist leaders must I number who continue to commend and support the men who commit these misdeeds before I conclude that the group, especially the leadership, is responsible for the abuses in its midst that it covers up?

As for being fundamentalistic, well, I'm an ex-fundy from my earliest memory; I went in all the way before I came out. If I am a monster, then Fundamentalism is the Dr. Frankenstein who made me so. Let it answer for my religiously troubled and displaced existance.

In the meantime how does it benefit for you to criticize the one man who forfiets place, acclaim, and friendships in order to stand up for the good, the true, and the beautiful - and for people like me and my family?

Dave,

When did I excuse anyone from responsibility? By testimony I advocated taking responsibility.

When was I not grateful for the brethren? How would my concern for the spiritual wellbeing of people run contrary to this gratefulness?

How would my failure to address flaws help me keep my responsibility to follow biblical principles? Your last paragraph seems to negate your first.

Someone here is a little perturbed that a caricature like Alana's can even be imagined. Your response only strengthens the argument of her caricature.

Some of my criticism actually fell on both sides of the debate. I'm a little tired of having dissidens, et al lob mortars from a distance like a mob of Palestinians, but I would prefer to find a way to actually expose fewer targets. Yelling through the barbwire that it's not fair to shoot at targets of opportunity just does not seem to be effective.

Dissidens is merely doing what Buckley did to the John Birch Society years ago. The John Birch Society should have heeded the criticism. Hey, you can still use their magazine to find a broker of precious metals, if that is your particular investment interest.

Apparently you can find Matthew 23, but don't care to use it properly. The Lord is speaking directly to those whom He opposed, not firing generalized indictments into cyber-space.

I fail to see where Alana said anything that parallels your comments about a command culture. She bemoaned her perspective regarding the difference between appearance and reality. I suppose you could twist her comments about parents' excessive spanking into some kind of metaphor for fundamentalist leadership, but that would take quite an imagination.

We all have stories. Great. David was a king who used his authority to murder and steal another man's wife, yet the Scriptures tell us to honor the king, not cast aspersion at all kings. So, some pastor(s) or educational institution(s), have done what Alana alleges (and your experience confirms), are we to respond by calling into question the integrity of all or most pastors and all or most educational institutions? Certainly not.

Along with being fundamentalistic as decried around here, this tactic seems saturated with our current culture's mode of criticism--find one politician or soldier or police officer and transpose his transgression to the corporate identity.

Alana,

Frankly, I wish you would state names, etc., because then the validity of your complaints could be tested. Instead, we're left with insinuated guilt for all who remotely resemble your target.

I am not sure that anything has been forfeited by anyone around here. If so, it is certainly worth it in the cause of the good, beautiful, and true. And making sacrifices, as you seem to know, does not render one excused from criticism. Certainly some good souls have sacrificed much among those whom you so soundly criticize and reject.

Ex Lib,

I might be mistaken, but my guess is that if you were as bold in your place of worship and service as you are on this blog, they would either change or you would be moving on.

I have re-read what I wrote a few times, but can't see what you believe I have said that negated myself. Perhaps I was unclear. I'll try again:
(1) If you believe that your church or institution is Corinthian-like, then purge out the leaven or break off from the dysfunctional assembly or organization.
(2)But even the Corinthians showed evidences of grace for which Paul thanked God--when does that show up here?
(3) Rather, there is an obsessive preoccupation with flaws and failures.

With which of these do you disgree?

Dave:

You asked what was well-said about Alana’s comment. I answered you to the effect that the character of the movement is such that criticism is regularly foreclosed. The guilty are protected whether they sexually abuse the children in their care or whether they debase the liturgy and do silly things on stage for money; they are not confronted by their own disapproving peers. If criticism is not permitted within the movement, how will it be received from without?

There are fundamentalists here that I am addressing, Dave. Some are incorrigible defenders of the inexcusable, some are resentful victims of this hypocrisy [and I do not refer to Alana--I've already approved of her comments] and many are lying somewhere between those extremes. So your distinction fails at that point. In addition, I did (and continue to) confront those within the movement face-to-face.

Here are the questions you asked, Dave:

Is it well said to indict vast segments of believers with generic accusations? On what biblical grounds can this be justified?

I answered by giving an example of Jesus indicting vast segments of believers with generic accusations. Now if you had asked if he did that in cyberspace, then of course I probably would not have cited that particular passage.

Dave, when you have memories, you don’t need metaphors. This is the nature of the movement: there is the exterior which is for show, and there is the putrid reality one may have the misfortune to confront when one gets too close. That was her point. No one said it was universal. It is typical.

We don’t need no steeenking metaphors.

Finally, I was not calling into question the “integrity of all or most pastors and all or most educational institutions”. Read what I actually wrote. I pointed out the obvious hypocrisy of setting up standards for the CCM crowd which the SMS crowd cannot reach. Even Tim Fisher was observing the failure in fundamentalism. Was Tim Fisher indicting all or most?

And we have not found just one, Dave.

You discredit yourself by saying that. Count the scandals in just the last year.

That are known!

I just read something by Dave that I agree with: "My guess is that if you were as bold in your place of worship and service as you are on this blog, they would either change or you would be moving on."

Exactly. And because they will not change and we have nowhere to go, most of us keep our mouths shut. Most of us live with the constant reminder that we can either limit our message or limit our fellowship. The former vexes us. The prospect of the latter baffles us. And so my kindred souls sit in their pews with tears oppressed.

I myself have moved on, by the grace of God, but I have no illusions about changing anything significant anytime soon in Fundamentalism were I still involved. I've seen first-hand what happens when somebody makes a sacred cow nervous.

The only hope for those who have not separated is to influence one or two souls with what rhetoric we have at our disposal.

The Lord did not make generic indictments in Matthew 23.

You have confused a comment I made about Alana's comment as a response to your post.

As you know, I did not say there was one. I pointed to a method of argumentation. By turning it as you have, you raise question about the credibility of your own arguments.

I remain unconvinced that what Alana or you claim is typical is in fact so. I would not deny that sin and deformity exist to a degree that no one should accept, but to claim that sexual sins are overlooked, that parents are abusing their children, and pastors are looking the other way is typical is a charge well past that.

It is not hypocritical for Tim Fisher to charge CCM with failure while acknowledging the failures of his own orbit. Hypocrisy would be affirming the former while denying the latter (if the latter were true--a point which I don't doubt or debate).

I've attempted to make my point and I'll leave it to others to judge whether I have done so credibly or otherwise. It probably would have been the better part of wise to have stayed out of it, but it seems that the walk down the hall should go both ways.

FWIW, my experience is that constant and caustic criticism typically reveals a bitter spirit.

Yah, a "bitter spirit".

That's one I haven't heard before!

I'll admit it, within the last year I've left a church because I couldn't allow my family to be subject to shallow worship, irresponsible preaching, and a show of questionable business practices. So bitter was that I even confronted the pastor about these matters.

Now, I listen as people misunderstand some misrepresentation of my indictment of the church, which I did not make public, as an indictment against them. I suppose there would be a disagreement on what is the proper mission of the church, but I never caustically denounced them.

Happily, the place where I have served has an atmosphere of collegiality. On occasion we charitably criticize one another. To be sure, a criticism like Alana's would be out place if directed at colleagues, but I have heard similar laments against broader fundagelicalism expressed by several of my colleagues. Even administration members bare themselves to criticism. One visiting pastor found this so bizarre that he interpreted this show of humility as weakness.

In the early days of Remonstrans, I would have to agree that there was a high degree of caustic criticism. Of late, I've noticed that dissidens has softened (sorry dissidens - just a perception). I believe that "obsessive preoccupation with flaws and failures" may be an over simplification of what goes on here. Even with Dave, as much as he seems to protest, there is a level of agreement with some of the criticism.

We are losing successive generations if we tell people like Alana to just get over it. Likewise we hurt our cause if every disagreement or foible garners some churlish smarting criticism. Not everyone is a New Yorker. This is no hippified plea for peace at any cost, but the rhetoric has been raised to nauseating levels. We have lost our way.

Now that I've said things that nobody will care for, I'll slink off to some corner where pariahs gather and read a book. There are better things to do.

About that:

Actually, if anyone cares to review the record, Remonstrans (and let’s be honest—it’s not Remonstrans; it’s dissidens) was not always “hard”. (Let’s say his hardness fluctuated anyway.) Everything I can recall, and I myself did review the record to be certain the blog was not being driven into a harder line than was necessary, was a rather amicable exchange of conflicting perceptions. Early on.

Since those early days we have been badgered by a recognizable set of brutes who tried to intimidate not just me but our members and visitors. And not just on Remonstrans but on their own blogs. Remember the word “dissidisciples” and the transparent attempt to characterize me as a Pied Piper to the disaffected youth of sagging fundamentalism?

This was not the most productive policy they might have chosen. To my reasonably accurate recollection, no bullies have ever changed one belief I ever held.

If it appears that dissidens has “softened”, I suggest you consider the provocation(s). Certain blinkered loyalists have tired and moved on. This has been a good thing. Consequently the tension has relaxed noticeably.

I have repeatedly said that I don’t look for converts, supporters, champions or dissidisciples. I can imagine any number of reasons why someone who has not walked in my shoes might react differently. Good on ‘em. I should like to hope nothing more than that those who’ve come here have considered an opinion often squelched.

But this climate of intimidation is something the honest man will observe and recognize as the first hurdle to be overcome. Why?

Because the issues we address here are matters of cultural consent, not political imposition; they fall into the category of moral, theological, aesthetic and political judgment which affect all members and which bind all consciences, not just those who think spiritual discernment is their special gift. These people think they have all the discernment and everyone else has all the bitterness.

What Alana said is strictly true. Her experience is familiar to many of us, and it is not bitterness that wants the climate adjusted so that all consciences can be free and all voices considered. That will never be too much to ask.

How these discussions are conducted is our choice. What is not ours to decide is how another person chooses to express his beliefs or sensibilities. If a person speaks more strongly than you might speak, considers that his feelings might be stronger than yours.

Or that his time spent in fundamentalism has not been as pleasant as yours.

I would have been completely surprised if you hadn't heard it.

Of course we cannot decide how another person chooses to express his beliefs and sensibilities, but we can affirm or challenge that expression. And that's precisely what you and I did respectively.

I am not bothered by strength of speech in this case. I asked for more direct speech that did not impugn broadly--tactical missiles are preferred.

In any event, I think we both understand where we disagree, so it is probably best to return to the regularly programming or at least to the post. On that point, I do apologize for taking this so far from your original direction.

Dave, there was a time when I was publishing accusations against various individuals from my past and collected stories from my friends and aquaintances. To me at that point the most bitter truth of all seemed to be that for what appeared to be political reasons no one could be honest. I despise dishonesty, and when it's enforced dishonesty that's worse and when it's enforced for political reasons that's worse yet. That's the main reason I love Dissidens. Here you can say what you know to be true and you are not told to pretend it's not true for the sake of "testimony".

I don't think I could go back to that time when I was naming names. For one thing, the bitter feelings have subsided leaving only the moral outrage. It's precisely because I don't want to hurt the innocent that I refrain from telling tales. My present weapons may cover a larger area but I really believe they do less personal damage. In a way it is a precision weapon because I believe that it's the culture of fundamentalism, not any given individual, that's more to blame.

For instance, I will tell you one story, without names. When I was a teenager I happened to overhear a retarded, autistic, drugged-up young teenage girl getting spanked by a school principal. Being at the building at an odd time I was waiting in the lobby and I heard her getting spanked over and over and over because she wouldnt't hold still for the punishment. He kept telling her that she had to hold still or he would keep starting over, but she wasn't screaming or fighting or saying rebellious things. Just a heart-breaking little squeak, and the jerk of a chair. Over and over. Finally I ran away exploding in horror, "God have mercy" and the pastor was in the church office and heard me say it. When he came out and stopped me from running away he asked me what was wrong. I could barely get it out because I was trembling but when he realized what I was upset about he tried to give 'biblical' defense of the practice and he's the one who told me that he sometimes spanked for two hours in order to get the child to "submit" to the spanking.

So why won't I tell this man's name? For a very good reason. He's the best pastor I ever had and I believe he loved me and, yes, his children, and yes, even the retarded girl. He has an innocent family and a new church. And he was taught that theory of discipline by another, more powerful pastor in the area. My pastor was a victim, too - he was caused to sin by having his conscience bent by a powerful man.

That powerful man eventually abused his own position so horribly that in the space of a few years there was an almost one hundred percent turn-over in his congregation. Exiled people, the likes of a highly-respected music prof at a local college, the music pastor, and almost all the deacons including a lawyer who later spoke of unethical business dealings, had their reputations traduced publicly, just for leaving silently.

Yes, this is the example of the damage one single man can do.

But that's not the point.

When that music prof I named left, the powerful pastor talked to the President of his college and asked him to forbid the prof from speaking to any of his church members. At all. The president knew the powerful pastor had wronged the prof, but while expressing sympathy, in the end he put the screws on and instructed them not to talk to any of their former friends at the powerful pastor's church rather than cross the powerful pastor.

And that's just the beginning. I'm giving you a URL to put in your browser.

http://bethelministries.org/leader_conference.htm

It will take you to a page where someone's fundamentalist conference schedule is laid out. The powerful pastor's name is on the conference schedule as a speaker, I'm not saying who he is. But look who else is speaking alongside of him. Are any of those names well known? Are they leaders in the movement? Do they give the impression of being in fellowship with one another?

How is the whole movement not at least partly responsible for the sin of that man when his disgraceful actions are so well documented by unnumbered witnesses?

A pastor's daughter I talked to last year gave the answer. I told her about a father in the powerful man's church who had struck his daughter with a horsewhip and was now facing charges. I told her that the powerful pastor had made him apologize publicly and then immediately re-instated him in his position of leadership in the church and offered help definding him in court. Meanwhile, a teen girl who was seeking help from her own mother for her doubts about God was being forbidden to attend youth group or talk to any other teens in the church.

The pastor's daughter to whom I was talking flat-out denied the charge. Not that she knew anything about the story. She said that she didn't believe a church with that godly of a reputation could do something like that. Can I help concluding that power, reputation and position have more influence than truth and mercy to these people?

Alana,

Thank you very much for your post. It seems that you have done a very good job in it of making the point with specificity while not needlessly causing harm. I find myself in the difficult position of not having any reason to doubt what you have written, yet required by Scripture to be cautious about simply accepting it without hearing the other side (cf. Pro 18:17).

I know the church and am welcome there about as much as the former prof. And I guess that's part of my concern. The church and pastor about which you express such great concern represent one relatively thin slice of fundamentalism (that happens to be growing thinner). I'll admit that they are extremely aggressive about promoting their ideas and have made the most off of the inherited capital of their name, but the fact is that they are painting themselves into a corner.

Also, you partly answered the problem of their influence yourself, i.e., the stories seem so incredibly unbelievable that folks are liable to think that they can't be true (if they even hear them at all). You have inside knowledge that most don't, but don't forget that few others really know or have seen what you've seen. To draw the conclusion that any who fellowship with them approve of these things is to assume that they actually know about them.

While I can't deny that "politics" was involved in the college pres telling the prof to break off contact simply because I don't know why he did it. But there is another plausible explanation, namely that when people leave a church in problematic circumstances (e.g., unhappiness with it or its leadership), it is standard and proper to encourage those who depart to not interfere in the life of that church. The time to address issues is while a member, not after departure. Let me be clear that I doubt that the pastor's moves were truly based on fear of unethical actions by the prof; I am speaking of the position the pres was in. He would need to encourage his prof to honor the pastor's request, and I think could do it without political motivation. I am sure that some of a more cynical nature would consider me naive (or worse) on this point, but I believe it is plausible and at least should give pause to drawing the negative assessment of people and their motives.

As to your point about the conference and the fellowship it entails, you raise a valid point. I would suggest that: (1) some of those men have no idea that the things you describe have ever been made as accusations; (2) generally people doing "keynote" sessions are unaware of who is doing a workshop; (3) the hosts of the conference are not accused (to my knowledge) of the things you have written; and (4) this has been and will likely continue to be the main chink in the fundamentalist armor regarding separation (i.e., how far do we go in its application?).

As I wrote earlier, that there is sin and deformity among those churches which profess to be fundamental is a shame and should not be accepted. I still cannot accept the conclusion that what you have described is typical of fundamentalism. I pray that I am right, and, by God's grace, will continue to preach and teach so that it might not be so.

Note to Readers:

Remonstrans regrets that it is not in a position to provide a bucket for you to barf into upon reading that last comment.


quite sincerely,

dissidens

Dave,

But then that pres (regardless of political motivation or not in Alana's anecdote) did find a nice landing spot at the host church, didn't he? There are benefits to playing by the rules.

And I guess I'm confused when you say that the church in Alana's story is painting itself into a corner when its senior pastor is still a player in this fundamentalist Who's Who (present company excepted) conference. How do these two ideas fit? This is not a marginalized group from one segment of the movement. Is the circle of fundamentalist leadership more ignorant of this church's theology and ministry philosophy than the pajama-clad bloggers? I'm having a hard time believing that since they've been rubbing shoulders personally at fundamentalist gatherings for years.

Sure, it's possible that the other speakers didn't know who was going to be on the workshop docket, but did any of them seriously consider pulling out when they heard? Would they have considered it if Bethel Baptist Ministries invited someone from Grace Community or Bethlehem Baptist? I don't expect you to know the answers authoritatively. I suspect we all know them anyway deep down in our hearts. And those answers tell us what's really most important to fundamentalists.

Parepidemos,

Slow down a little. The church about which Alana wrote is not the church hosting the conference, so the pres landing a position there is irrelevant to the point.

The fact the pastor is doing a workshop in that conference is probably owing more to his personal friendship with the host pastor than anything else, but that's a matter that would need to be asked there, not to me. I am quite confident that the few men that I call friends who are speaking have no idea about the accusations which Alana reported.

Perhaps I am wrong about them painting themselves into a corner, but being in this conference is not much proof contrariwise. The Chicago connection is part of that corner. I would not dispute that there is an inordinate influence in the area around that side of Lake Michigan, but it seems to be receding away from there.

Dissidens, if my previous post helps you eliminate some of the bile inside, I'll be grateful.

Right, I think I have a pretty good handle on the locations and personalities. I'm suggesting that there are benefits within the Chicago connection you allude to if you play by the rules. The benefits accrue are accessible both while you're a pres and when, unexpectedly, you're not.

I'm not suggesting the men you call friends are aware of these specific alleged offences. I'm wondering whether they're wholly unfamiliar with the theology and philosophy of ministry in the Chicago connection, and if not, as I suppose they are not since you certainly are not, why they are comfortable associating themselves with it.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but I just don't see how the Chicago connection is part of a marginalized corner when respected fundamentalist leaders from far and wide seem so cozy with it.

The problem is north of Chicago. I don't believe that it is right to equate Bethel and those problems. Men are coming to speak at Bethel, not north of it. Your point would hold if Bethel embraced the problematic things that have been alleged. My point about the Chicago connection was one of relationships, not ideology. There are points of similarity, yet significant differences.

I apologized earlier for sidetracking the discussion, so let me do so again and point us back to the original post and point if it can be recalled.

Dave,

One more thing. I sincerely appreciate your work to keep accountable and on-target the expression of sentiments such as exist here--expressions which may or may not be productive, helpful, or righteously motivated. This is one of the many ways in which you serve the body of Christ.

I also believe that you recognize the validity of the complaints that are raised about what fundamentalism teaches and tolerates. I understand that you have chosen to work in different ways to address those complaints, and I pray God grants you more fruit from those labors than my experience leads me to expect.

Dave,

Apparently I grossly misunderstood your statement: "Perhaps I am wrong about them painting themselves into a corner, but being in this conference is not much proof contrariwise. The Chicago connection is part of that corner."

I took that to mean that you viewed both Bethel and north of Chicago to be in the same corner. Although your most recent clarification helps me to understand your meaning, it was more encouraging to think that you believe the entire Chicago connection is being marginalized.

Finally, I don't think you should apologize for leading the discussion off-topic. I think we're precisely on-topic. As dissidens wrote:

"Hypocrisy has a way of coming back to bite you. Fundagelicals can get up a head of steam if they want to rail against someone on the outside, a Larry Flynt or a Billy Graham. Walking down the hall and confronting a colleague is much harder."

But as you describe (in what seems to me the most optimistic scenario), a personal friendship clouds the judgment..

Dave, I'm sorry but stories have been floating around for years. One of the keynote speakers at that conference, a man among all fundamentalists I most loved and respected, once refused to talk with me about how I had been hurt by the fundamentalism in Wisconsin. I suppose I did sound a bit sloppy, "I've been hurt, I'm thinking about leaving" but his refusal was the final straw. He was telling Josh and me a story about how people perceive fundamentalism as dead but if they would visit his town then they would see it's not. And I just thought, here I am stuck in WI, and he's telling me fundamentalism isn't dead because things are good in his church but he doesn't want to hear how it is up here... he'd rather prop up the name than deal with the people.

From this distance I understand that he's trying to improve things and he can't unless he stays in fellowship with the leaders in various regions of the country. But maybe that's what I mean: Though I'm endlessly grateful he was there when I was in, because he gave me the exegetical skills and freedom of conscience to stay alive sprititually and to eventually leave without destroying my faith, why would I want to stay in a group that forces a man like him to have a sort of double conscience?

I remember the pres at Central did a similar thing when he had a blog. He was urging people to make all these changes in fundamentalism and then someone finally said "are you sure you're a real fundamentalist?" so he released a list of names of all the big-name people he supported. A lot of them embodied or supported or couldn't even see the difference about the things he said he was working against.

Yes, separation is a problem. It seems to create marginalization, uselesness, intellectual inbreeding and so on. I suggest repentance might be preferrable, but I'm not sure what that would look like. My husband believes in something he calls natural separation. The idea is that if you're emphatic enough about what you approve and disapprove those associations who won't change will drift off.

I believe that it's the culture of fundamentalism, not any given individual, that's more to blame…How is the whole movement not at least partly responsible for the sin of that man when his disgraceful actions are so well documented by unnumbered witnesses?

Fundamentalists are separatists and separatists are independent.

College presidents and conference speakers should never be confused with cardinals and archbishops. They don’t settle disputes, appoint pastors or offer ecclesiastic oversight.

Imposing a hierarchical framework on fundamentalism is a folly akin to herding cats.

semper: [College presidents and conference speakers should never be confused with cardinals and archbishops. They don’t settle disputes, appoint pastors or offer ecclesiastic oversight.]

tjp: Oh, how I wish that were true! But that's akin to the Catholic claim the church never persecuted anyone; civil authorities did.

Never fear, tjp:

On a SharperIron thread last month, the ubiquitous Greg Linscott revealed that college president’s opinions are not especially important:

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to regard the opinion of BJ3 any more weighty than say that of [a fellow poster on S.I.]… am I missing something?

I was waiting for Greg to refer to BJ3 as “Citizen Jones”, followed by the reintroduction of the guillotine.

Revolution is afoot.

Dave

I apologize for not having read the entire transaction, but one of your comments caught my eye. If you haven't already, would you provide more details and direction about what principals I should follow that will purify my church and the affiliated institutions? If you have already elaborated, would you point me to the comment #?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. I assume it is good faith. The basic principle is that sin which has not been repented of should be confronted. If a professing believer, including pastors, will not repent of clear sin, then the congregation has the responsibility to exercise discipline.

Regarding pastors who sin and continue in it, 1 Tim 5:19-20.

Regarding believers who refuse to repent of sin, Matt 18:15 ff; 1 Cor 5; 2 Ths 3:6-15.

Frankly, one of the problems with parachurch ministries is that they don't fit the NT pattern and discipline is not congregational in nature. There should be some mechanism designed to hold people accountable for integrity, but this has been a constant weak spot in fund/evang. Dynamic leaders tend to have a very long rope. The process for dealing with problems should roughly approximate that of church life, but it will be hindered by the fact that it is not a church.

I found out from an email that some people were taking it that I was accusing the "powerful pastor" of child abuse. Since some people realize who I was talking about I want to make it clear that when I used the word abuse in reference to him I was speaking of abuses of power, not children. I have no real knowledge of what went on in his home but I know what kind of discipline his teaching commonly produces.

By connecting him with the first story I was trying to point out that naming names is not an option for me because I feel the people directly responsible are often less to blame than those who don't get their hands dirty and it's not fair to punish a few underlings for what the total culture produces.

Alana,

You have just displayed the very reason why you must name names if you are going to speak as you have. You have potentially slandered a great number of people because of your obstinate refusal to be biblical in confrontation by marking out those who behave in such ways. Now people are looking down a list of speakers at said conference and trying to figure out who you are talking about.

You have caused confusion by your tactics. At least dissidens, for all his ... nonsense ... names names. There is no doubt about who he is talking about usually, though there remains some doubt as to whether dissidens intends this to be taken seriously. It often appears so poorly thought out that we must wonder whether or not dissidens is simply making a poor attempt at satire, or just being funny. But at least he names names.

The truth is that if we agreed with you, we would be able to do absolutely nothing because we would not be able to separate or confront those involved because you won't say who they are.

Here's the irony: You get upset at people who tolerate this behavior and have these men to speak and thus appear to condone it. But you won't tell us who it is so we can do what you think we should do. You can't have it both ways.

If you don't want to name names, then don't. But don't complain that others don't handle it as you think they should. The reason may be that that they don't know, and you aren't helping them.

Or to borrow from the original post, there may be a great many who are willing to "walk down the hall," but can't because they don't know whose door to knock on.

You say naming names is not an option for you. It is an option, you just refuse to take it (which is fine, but say what it is ... a refusal not a nonoption). To say that people directly responsible would be punished unfairly for what a total culture produces is just a bad argument. If they have done wrong, they are wrong. There is no unfair punishment for that (provided it is just). You don't get to blame someone else, even if you were wrongly taught. The fact that others should also be confronted does not mean that some should not be confronted.

Furthermore, as Dave has pointed out, tarring the whole fundamentalist movement with Tim Fisher or Big Pastor North of Chicago (whoever that is),or any other small slice as Dave put it, is the height of absurdity. It barely qualifies as readable, much less as worthy of serious consideration.

Thinking,

Good try, dumb but a good try.

Joe

Alana:

Yah, I name names, and you see where it gets me. I'm attacking blind people! Or great saints of the church! Or "the man of God"!

I came this close to sending you a private e-mail advising you to respond to Dave only if you chose to. I wanted to encourage you not to allow him to sucker you into saying any more that you chose to reveal or to play this silly game with them.

You have three options with this crowd:

1. You can confront the guilty in private and watch the whole problem vanish into the black hole that others have already spoken about. I have done that, others here have done that, and perhaps you have done that.

2. You can try to be as discreet as circumstances will allow and you open yourselves up to this sort of criticism wherein the only guilty party is the one who points out a wrong.

3. You can name names and give dates, post URLs, give footnotes and cite authorities and you still will be guilty of being bitter or disgruntled or having a bad attitude or reading a second book or whatever other feeble dodge flits across their ossified consciences.

And after that, if you still perceive that a wrong has not been righted, you will be told to get over it.

Nothing ever changes.

Which brings me to your first question under today’s post. I am slow to advise others on what political recourse might be open to them. Too many matters of conscience are involved and too much hangs on an imprudent course of action.

I’ll try to answer your question with as many specifics as I’m able, but my point is that those who wish to see an improvement in this state of affairs come to the problem from different directions, with different personal alignments, varying degrees of influence…

Joe ... You call it dumb but fail to show how. Is that because you have no response? Give us a good reason why Alana should not name names, or why Alana should complain that "we" don't separate from whomever she won't name.

Seriously, how in the world would anyone concerned person here respond to this type of charge? I think it very well may be legitimate. But I don't know, and I certainly can't separate from anyone over it.

How should I respond to Alana's comments? And that is a good faith question, no hidden agenda. Seriously, what am I supposed to do about it?

Let's say I am morally outraged (which I am about much of these fringe fundamentalists). What do I do?

I don't care whether she names names or not. It makes no difference. But I do care that she complains that fundamentalism does nothing about these unnamed people. How would we if we don't know who they are?

Dissidens ... the problem is not that you don't name names. It's that you don't think about the meaning of things very well, or at least don't demonstrate it here. You talk about about it, but the phrase "empty clouds" comes to mind. There just doesn't seem to be much substance.

I don't think the guilty party is the one who points out the wrong. The guilty party is the one who does the wrong.

But if the person wrong is not named, then how can we address it? I am a fundamentalist by conviction. I have little to no use for Ron Hamilton. I don't know much about Tim Fisher, but I thought his book on music was rather tepid, more an annoyance than anything else.

I ask you as I asked Joe (and would ask Alana), how should I respond?

Lastly, I would say this. I am not for glossing over legitimate wrongs. I am not for hiding behind friends and relationships. But ultimately, when a perceived wrong is not addressed, you have two options: Bitterness or get over it. What other option is there?

Again, nothing loaded there. I am truly interested in what you think some third option is?

Thinker,

I doubt if her purpose is to out these "unnamed people" so they can be dealt with. She explained quite well why she didn't want to do that.

What she is explaining is how the system works. Given from who her own experience, how a top town old boy network covers for those at the top.

Now that she is outside the system, I don't think her purpose is trying to clean it up. Nor do I think she is trying to get you to reform it. I think she is trying to show the damage it has done in the past and as system what is still doing now to those who are still in it.

I am sorry to say I question your sincerity when you say you are morally outraged. Since from this side of the fence it seems just like another well orchestrated attack to slime the messenger.

That is why the comment, it was dumb, because it seems so obvious.

Thinker:

Yah, I do name names. I got that.

As far as your mumbo-jumbo about empty clouds, I’m not sure I can respond to you. Your complaint seems to lack substance. I’ve been posting here at least three times a week for over two years giving examples of what I’m talking about from Christianity Today, OBF Resolutions, FBF statements, by linking to sermons, lectures, radio interviews, books, blogs, websites, speeches, by naming songs, performers and labels and by stating specifically what it is that is wrong or right with them.

If by empty clouds you refer to my unwillingness to recommend the sort of jitney solutions enamored by the movement, I plead guilty. If by empty clouds you mean my refusal to hand down the sort of decrees this movement cherishes, I plead guilty. I said clearly and often what has to happen. It doesn’t bother me in the least that you don’t accept them as solutions. Nor does it surprise me.

And to hear a self-confessed fundamentalist demanding substance is too ludicrous for anything but laughter. It is this movement’s lack of substance that is at issue here.

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I am referring to this incoherent mob made up of all sorts of nutjobs who make various and intermittent objections as is convenient for them. Here on Remonstrans it was clear that Alana was being whipsawed, and no matter who she answered she was going to be attacked on some other flank.

You are like a pack of wild dogs, but not as cuddly.

“But if the person wrong is not named, then how can we address it?”

What a ridiculous and pompous statement! Between you and Dave we are getting a wonderful example of how this movement works. Who said it was your place to address it?! She was ans