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 answering Dave. Dave thought he had reason to know and he asked. He asked publicly and Alana answered in the forum where she was asked.

So you pop in and say:

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.

Now it is Alana’s fault that “people are looking down a list”?

I myself know enough about that basket case called Bethel Baptist Church (which I used to live downwind of) to know there is nothing I can do to address its problems. Do I then demand that every discussion of it include something I can act on or it’s not an approved conversation?

Nothing I can do about that, Alana, so your reply to Dave is way out of line.

This is exactly how this movement acts, and all it has to offer are these pathetic excuses about who knows what about what platform; what keynote speaker knows about what workshop speaker… We hear this buncombe about the “some men” who don’t know about the situation, as though the real issue here isn’t about the men who do know and don’t act. We never got this sort of weak-kneed dithering when it came to liberals and neo-evangelicals.

You want a third option, Thinker? Separation is a third option. Separation from those who walk unworthily.

It is a failure of separation, Thinker. It is this double standard that began this thread; it is about Potemkin Righteousness and a good ol’ boy network that exists to meet its own needs.

Remember, Option #3: SEPARATION.

Separation is a third option. Separation from those who walk unworthily.

It is a failure of separation, Thinker.

I absolutely agree that we should separate. I am not sure it is a third option since that fits in the "get over it" category it seems to me. Separation means I wash my hands of it and move on.

But you underline the problem I have already asked about: Given the charge Alana made, from whom would I separate? I might be in fellowship with this person and not even know there is a problem. (I doubt it since my ring of fellowship is pretty small, and since Bethel isn't in it by any stretch of the imagination.) But the truth is that as long as people like Alana throw about nameless charges, it is impossible to separate from the guilty party.

The issue may well be those who do know and don't act. But how does fundamentalism, the movement ... the idea .. whatever you want to call it (circus might be appropriate) ... how does fundamentalism address it? As a fundamentalist, I can't. But that doesn't mean I am like them. And it is absurd to think that because "Dr." Brad Smith invites someone to speak that all fundamentalism is complicit in something. But that seems to be the general gist of the conversation: Fundamentalism is bad and unthinking because some fundamentalists are disobedient and do stupid things. And I think Dave pointed that out very well. How you miss it is beyond me.

As for your substance, having read your blog for most of the time it has been here, I don't think you make many specific charges. You talk about lack of seriousness and lack of understanding culture, and lack of meaning. But that isn't really specific. It assumes a lot that probably shouldn't be assumed, especially given the fact that you seem to be addressing stupid fundamentalists.

Furthermore, whatever your intention, the form of your communication belies any serious conformity to things like Eph 4:29. Your blog is largely made up of unwholesome, unedifying words against those who do not see life and culture as you do. Understanding the meaning of your form, and the meaning of Eph 4:29 show us two incompatible things.

You cry out (and rightly so) about musicians whose form does not match the seriousness of their words, and whose words do not match the seriousness of their subject. And then you turn around and do the exact same thing.

And then say that Hypocrisy has a way of coming back to bite you.

Joe,

What she is explaining is how the system works.

But all fundamentalism doesn't participate in that "system." And that is the problem.

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.

You clearly misread. There was no intent to slime the messenger and in fact the messenger wasn't slimed. I am morally outraged as people who do dumb things and act like hypocrites, whether in fundamentalism or out of it. I think the charges Alana made are very serious. And I am morally outraged if they are true. I am also morally outraged at hypocrisy in the way we address it.

I happen to think that it does matter how we communicate. And I think we should be consistent, or at least try to be. If we are going to talk about people who miss the importance of meaning and form, we should be able to recognize it when our favorites do it.

hmmmm...if we are going to bring out the sword of scripture...I think there is clear instruction about how and when to bring an accusation against an elder.

You seem to be urging Alana to do it in a way that is not approved of in scripture.

I won't post the relevant scriptures, since I am at least somewhat sure you have read them before.

Thinker:

Well, I think we have different meanings for “get over it”. I was referring to a very real confrontation between a group of young fundamentalists questioning the behavior of some disreputable leaders. An older fundamentalist told them to “get over it”, by which he most certainly did not mean that they should separate from disorderly fundamentalists. He explicitly questioned their integrity and their knowledge of fundamentalist history. He meant they should pipe down and get back in line.

That’s what I meant when I quoted his phrase.

If you mean that separatists should be even-handed in separating from disobedient fundies and disobedient neo-evals, then I have no problem with that.

You ask how you would know who to separate from. You were never asked to separate. The general answer she gave was not a call for separation, it was an observation about the blatant hypocrisy.

As for your third paragraph, I think Alana’s point is a good one. Fundamentalists had no problem whatsoever with separating from other fundamentalists based on associations and platform-sharing far more tenuous than the ones she was describing in comment #10. She was pointing to an old boy network we know full well exists. She would have had a valid point no matter how wild and reckless her accusations were [not that the validity would have made them acceptable], but in point of fact her accusations were not wild and reckless. They were just not as particular as you would have liked so you could “handle it”. Your handling was not being sought, Thinker.

She tried to address the problem of hypocrisy within the movement. There is hypocrisy in the movement. At every level. She was asked for particulars and she gave them. I suggest that if this was such an outrage, perhaps certain fundamentalists shouldn’t have asked for them.

Face it, this has become nothing more than a way to shut people up. Express the slightest doubt about the policy of the mob and they demand reasons of you, you give your reasons and they are interpreted as something they aren’t.

It really is transparent. It’s not like she was publishing the Blu-Print for years and years!

I don’t think Alana was attributing the particular problem she described to all of fundamentalism. Not a bit. She was saying that this double standard exists within the movement (which it does) and that the knowledge of the hypocrisy is having consequences. But how did Dave put it? “The church and pastor about which you express such great concern represent one relatively thin slice of fundamentalism (that happens to be growing thinner)”.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. So separation and public rebuke for sin doesn’t have to happen if it comes from a “one relatively thin slice of fundamentalism (that happens to be growing thinner)”?

C’mon. So it’s all about the thickness of the slice, is it?

That’s precious. How do you guys measure the thickness of a slice of a movement?

If the offenders in the story can't be identified then, by definition, they haven't been slandered.

Dissidens,

Thank you for your kind words. I have a lot of experience with grimy elbows digging into my conscience and although I'm getting tougher it's still painful.

Hang in there kiddo, this charade has been witnessed.

A few last comments:

First, the whole movement is not hypocritical. There are many in the movement who reject the very nonsense that Alana and you reject. We can't stand it and have nothing to do with it. Bethel and its parade of nonsense, triviality, and banal teaching have nothing in common with what I believe the church should be and do. It seems to me that you think all of fundamentalism is the same as Patch and Pettit and Galkin and Fisher and whoever else. It's not.

Secondly, as for the "get over it" comment, if we are talking about the same conversation (perhaps we are not), I do not believe you are rightly interpreting what was being said. I do believe some were showing ignorance of fundamentalist history and fundamentalist distinctives. They were up in arms about something that was so far removed from them demanding apologies and actions that were virtually imnpossible. That ship had sailed long ago. It was time to move on. Go about your life and ministry was the point, I think.

Thirdly, as for bringing an accusation against an elder, I am not recommending anything unbiblical at all. To the contrary, I am asking for it to be handled biblically by marking and exposing the guilty parties so myself and others can be spared from unknowingly participating in their sins.

I think you say a lot of good stuff. I think you often say it wrongly, or without sufficient argumentation. The form through which the message is delivered is as important at the message itself.

Thinking:

You say: “It seems to me that you think all of fundamentalism is the same as Patch and Pettit and Galkin and Fisher and whoever else.”

You bear a false witness, my friend, and I have more than a suspicion that your misrepresentation is intentional and politically motivated. I have often and explicitly said that I know there are exceptions to the pervasive sensibility of this movement. (I have named names there as well.) If I ever thought that “all” in fundamentalism were “the same” as Patch/Pettit/Galkin/Fisher, I would have no more contact with any member of the pack.

What you refuse to address is the fact that I have also taken issue with the jitney criticisms of Bauder, Clearwaters, Garlock, Makujina, McCune… but you don’t mention those because you need to erect this artificial distinction and to suggest I’m not being nuanced enough in my criticism of fundamentalism.

Pathetic.

The problem is not just those who embarrass you, the problem is you and your own. And periodically you [pl.] will drop by to claim some affinity for what I say that is too persuasive and you then try to undercut the influence of Remonstrans by whining about how I say it. You hope to alienate our readership.

Also pathetic.

Your problem is your refusal to recognize that my target is very much the now-pervasive sensibility of fundamentalism pointed out so long ago by Machen and Tulga. It is what fundamentalists produce and what fundamentalists tolerate.

But I’ve already said more than I should. Why should I re-argue a point I’m on record as having made? Just because you want to discredit me and Remonstrans? Makes no sense to me.

Go on pretending what you will about this movement.

And of course I say good stuff, and of course I say it wrongly. That’s always been my curse and your excuse.

I make no apology for how I say what I say. But I’ll tell you when I will reconsider my approach: when you, Kevin, Robert, Dave, Bruce, Myron, inter alios, start walking down that hall and do the right way what you dislike my doing the wrong way.

You tell me why mothers like Alana should have to raise their children to resist the desecration of holy things which you guys can’t find a “right way” to stop.

And if I can borrow from the fundamentalist ad campaign: When that happens I’ll be able to take you seriously.

So it seems that I am being asked to do soemthing (walk down the hall and say something the right way). But to whom would I do it? If you remember, that was my point about Alana's accusation. Based on what she said, I have no idea who I should "start walking down that hall and do the right way what you dislike my doing the wrong way." And that was my point all the way back at my first comment. Alana's comment does not give me enough information to walk down any hallway and say anything about that topic. When I have had opportunity I have expressed disagreement with those men you mention above, at least the ones that I know you are talking about. I am not on a firstname basis with all of them, and don't even know some of them. I don't think Alana (or me) should raise our children to said desecration. How to stop it? I don't know. I simply don't associate with them and when given the opportunity and the platform I speak to my disagreement publicly. As for discrediting you, I am not trying to do that. I don't have the power or the desire to do that. I think ideas stand or fall on their own, and should be critically interacted with. I am erecting no artificial distinction. Fundamentalism is not now, nor has it ever been monolithic. There is no clearing house of approval. Perhaps you have identified these fundamentalists who are different. I haven't seen it, but I am sure I have not read everything you say. So I will continue to read you and enjoy and agree with much of it, and my concerns stand unabated and really unaddressed, it seems to me.

Sorry about the lack of paragraphs.

So it seems that I am being asked to do soemthing (walk down the hall and say something the right way). But to whom would I do it? If you remember, that was my point about Alana's accusation. Based on what she said, I have no idea who I should "start walking down that hall and do the right way what you dislike my doing the wrong way." And that was my point all the way back at my first comment. Alana's comment does not give me enough information to walk down any hallway and say anything about that topic.

When I have had opportunity I have expressed disagreement with those men you mention above, at least the ones that I know you are talking about. I am not on a firstname basis with all of them, and don't even know some of them.

I don't think Alana (or me) should raise our children to said desecration. How to stop it? I don't know. I simply don't associate with them and when given the opportunity and the platform I speak to my disagreement publicly.

As for discrediting you, I am not trying to do that. I don't have the power or the desire to do that. I think ideas stand or fall on their own, and should be critically interacted with.

I am erecting no artificial distinction. Fundamentalism is not now, nor has it ever been monolithic. There is no clearing house of approval. Perhaps you have identified these fundamentalists who are different. I haven't seen it, but I am sure I have not read everything you say. So I will continue to read you and enjoy and agree with much of it, and my concerns stand unabated and really unaddressed, it seems to me.

For Dissidens and Alana, in particular, and to others as well, I have appreciated the posts here recently. Having re-read and re-thought through this thread a few times, I'd like to offer a few of my own (hopefully helpful) thoughts generated by the discussion.

First, I have had first-hand observations of the type of behavior Alana describes, myself. And, I am party to enough other tales from close relatives and friends to know that this hardly represents only a "thin-slice" of fundamentalism, as if, and as Dissidens noted, that makes everything okay.

One helpful resource to Biblical instruction on the subject of confrontation is a book published by Presbyterian and Reformed entitled Instruments in the Hands of the Redeemer (or was it Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands; I forget, and am not sitting in front of my library shelves, at the moment). (I could look up the specifics when I return home.)

I mention this for those who may know they need to do something, but don't know how. I also mention this because I want to commend Dissidens for the way he does name names. Oh sure, I realize he name-calls at times, but frankly, "sometimes people don't listen until they're insulted", as a friend recently said. I also mention this book because it brought to my attention the necessity and responsibility we all have to confront those with whom we have influence (there is a Biblical key here). And, I'm not just talking about the various leaders Dissidens named by first name. I may not have influence with these people, but there are people with whom I do have influence, and those people may have influence with others. The book brought to my attention the condemnation I myself am under if I DON'T walk down the hallway. The passage IS a few verses in Leviticus, but it is still applicable.

As for the "I don't know whose door I should knock on, because I don't know who has the problem" question, this is a problem of a movement. As this book helpfully pointed out, the reason we don't know about these problems in other leaders, if we are in leadership ourselves, is because we know each other, in most cases, on a purely surface level. Do we know the names of their parents, the birthdays of their children, the things that this person and his wife enjoy, etc? As a former pastor myself, I know that in many conferences of churches, pastors and other leaders don't really know each other well enough to discern a problem. They may follow each other on the conference "circuit", but that means nothing. And, I might add, that is NOT the Biblical pattern of the "one another" commands in Scripture. The New Testament paints the picture of believers knowing each other so well they would (and did) place their lives in one another's hands, so to speak.

Well, I pause for a few breaths, and I may add more later, but that's it for now. Oh, and one other thing. Pastors should welcome confrontation from the membership. Great insights are often had in such an exchange. Until churches begin to act again as NT churches, accountability will suffer, and various abuses will thrive.

"Comment removed at request of commenter."

Alana,

I know both Michigan pastors you are talking about. As for "in fellowship" I am not sure what that means, especially here.

I am not aware of any squabbles between them and whatever "north of Chicago" means. So I can't really comment on that. I may know who you are talking about but I am not sure. If I do, what I know of them is nothing that I want to be associated with in any way.

But, do you really believe that someone like Dave doesn't understand what real theology does? (Again, there is no prejudice involved in that question. I am not baiting or attacking, as I wasn't above. I am just curious.)

Alana,

I would be very cautious talking about things of which you have no actual knowledge.

Well, yes I think in a broad sense fundamentalism, by virtue of being fundamentalism, lacks understanding of what theology does. They may be good at "doing theology" in the sense that Detroit's journal is decent by fundamentalist standards and they turn out students that are competent enough to perpetuate what they have. And I wouldn't doubt that Dave has a devotional life and that to some degree he must have tasted of the power of the world to come.

As I look at larger Christianity, especially historical Christianity, I think there is supposed to be an integration between the differing psychological aspects of knowing God. Fundamentalism destroys this. When you become a fundamentalist you define your Christianity by your ability to honestly sign your name to a short collection of skeletal doctrines. Then you cast around feverishly for the rest of your life wondering what's missing.

But theology, if it's real, is really the intensely wholistic pursuit of God.

You can't study God as if he were a text. You must study him in the sense that a man studies his wife. His object is not to write dissertations, but love letters; not to find out Interesting Facts but to find out how to please her; not to form theories about her particular glories but to glory in them. Moreover he doesn't study from a distance. Shortening the distance is his first and consuming instinct.

And what does this knowledge do? It unites the two parties inevitably and constantly.

He who seeks, finds. That's what I see but rarely - evidence of a people who have found God. We all agree it's supposed to be normal. Well, then why isn't it? Why all the theological work if it's to no avail? Is it just so we can keep on going to new conferences and buying new books about solving our problems?

Musn't it be that this branch of the church - the one with the shared media and institutions - values some pursuit more than the pursuit of God? And doesn't their conceit about their theological accomplishments signal that they don't understand what they would be like if they had real theology?

Not only does real theology unite God and the individual man, it has the power to unite believers as one Bride of Christ in their corporate pursuit of Him. Those who are experiencing God in reward of their intense pursuit of Him must have the greatest of all experiences in common with one another and when they do, it will not leave them with an inability to get along. They will come closer in their opinions and the love they share will transcend those opinions that remain different.

Real Calvinism, to return to the example, humbles one. To the dust. I've said enough already so I won't take this point home but leave it for you to think about. Fundamentalism lacks the reasonable amount of beauty and glory and virtue we should expect if it were succeeding at theology reasonably. It's too busy pretending, in my experience. Which brings me back to my original point.
*
Well. If it's true that you neither have nor desire fellowship with these men then I exempt your theoretical cyber-self from my general condemnation of this specific responsibility assuming that they are who you think they are. I don't want you to know who these people are. I trust Dissidens that it's right for him to do what he does, but in this case I'm not expecting you to be the judge of people from my past and stories I've heard. I hope I haven't said too much, I really don't want to destroy anyone. What I do want is for fundamentalists to become afraid that the same mind that influences these men to do what they do may influence you or the men you are following to do other godless things in the name of God because you never learned to percieve the difference between what's from him and what's not. Can you face that possibility?

Everyone,

I've asked David to remove my comment 55. I made a connection and wanted to talk about it but I ended up including Thinking in something that I really had no grounds to include him in. I'm laughing at myself looking at how certain I sounded when I wrote the stupid thing. Actually I'm just up past my bedtime.

For the sake of the flow, I'll just say that the original point is this. It's true that Dave and the people he associates with have separated from the WI church I mentioned. I happen to know that the WI church quarrelled, while I was attending there, with the MI Calvinists. I know the squabble was over Calvinism. But the church that effected the separation on the MI side (not Dave's) is such that I'm not consoled that they don't associate with the WI church. I ended with the statement that it's a theological quarrel between people who don't understand what theology does. Thus Thinking's last question to me.

Thinking and Aniol, I hope this fixes things. I'm going to sleep now.

Ok, people.

A) Where are we? and B) What have we learned from this pig’s breakfast?

A: Alana asked that one of her comments [#55] be deleted and we have honored that request. Sorta.

Dave has “deprecated” it. For you non-bloggers, deprecate is a blogging term—at least in our software; it is one of the categories a blog post/comment can fall under, and a deprecated post/comment still exists but cannot be seen. But to say her post has been deprecated suggests to the normal English speaker that it has been belittled, depreciated or disapproved of. That’s not the case.

We don’t want to be seen as one of those blogs that deletes the contributions it finds objectionable, and we do not see great merit in deleting a critical part of a whole discussion. Some may see it as a bad fix or a retraction or a withdrawal or a further complication or who knows what.

At any rate, we move on to B:

This whole exchange represents Fundamentalism-The Movement so perfectly that it warrants comment.

The whole discussion began with my observation of a double standard: what is condemned on the outside is practiced on the inside. What fundamentalists condemn in CCM they practice at SMS. I used the metaphor of “walking down the hall” to suggest that integrity requires that if there is something out of order at home, you clean your own house before telling others how to pick up after themselves.

A second party made a comment, and a third party objected to it and demanded particulars: (“Frankly, I wish you would state names, etc., because then the validity of your complaints could be tested”).

Particulars were provided and a fourth party entered the fray with faint praise about my poorly thought out nonsense which at least named names (and I was feeling pretty proud, I can tell you!). So his contributions began with a glancing crack at me and moved on to introduce rubbish like “potentially slandered”, “obstinate refusal to be biblical”, and he closed his comment by accusing me of tarring the whole movement with Tim Fisher (which I hadn’t) and a big pastor north of Chicago, about whom I did not offer a single word. I merely defended Alana for answering a question she was asked.

Then last night he demanded to know who I think he should walk down the hall to talk to after the context had already shifted from my post about Tim Fisher and SMS to some sordid behavior in Illinois and Wisconsin.

I could not have invented a better illustration of the problem. Really. I love the convoluted plots of P.G. Wodehouse, but fundamentalism’s reality is stranger than Wodehouse’s fiction. (Maybe fundamentalism needs a Wodehouse and a Blandings Castle and a Drones Club and a Freddy Threepwood and at least one Roderick Spode.)

So I was preparing an answer about “walking down hallways” and a flurry of comments came in, so I sat back and let the thread run its course without insisting that my original point be addressed.

So here we are.

I am going to drop entirely this thread about certain churches and certain pastors and potential slander, and return to my original point.

It is all very easy to stand off and say, “Tim Fisher and Pettit and The Pirate don’t reflect my view of fundamentalism.” Well, bully for you! Unfortunately we were not talking about you; we were talking about a movement, and anyone who cannot see the place (and contributions) of the Hamiltons, SMS, Pettit and Galkin… to American fundamentalism is just not being square with us.

The Pettit, Galkin, Hamilton, the Wilds, and SMS stuff is broadcast over WCTS, AbidingRadio and elsewhere. Their traveling shows are in major churches within the movement, FBF published Fisher’s opinions. It should take no frenzied brainwork to find the phone number of Kevin Bauder, Sam Horn and the folks at SMS to discuss what it is you find so un-fundamentalist-like about Pettit, Galkin and Patch.

WCTS broadcasts Patch! Behold, I do not show you a mystery.

Why the mystery about our complaint?

You want I should stand up and bawl out in loud voice, “IS THERE NOT A CAUSE?”

the sly arrogation in the remarks about this or that person's ability to live out theology, or to only perpetuate what they have...is part of the incautious response which causes some in f'ism to be cautious--cautious in making the changes AR wants...living out one's theology cuts both ways...

Tee, hee hee...that was a funny one, Sam. Was it caution then that made you misquote me? Perhaps you felt a sense of cautiousness at what you might have to think about should you look at what I actually said? Or worse yet, what Dissidens is patiently saying and re-saying while y'all snap at my heels.

So. Is there not a cause? Or have my criticisms made you too cautious to stop and think about that yet?

A little drivel presented as lampoonery-bait...


Sigh...Alana, I was not misquoting you, but I was attempting to interpret you. Don't bring diss into this, I have no beef or barf (ref. post 23 this thread) with him. Tho' he may have issue with me--I am a fundamentalist after all--but I have found reading his "stuff" to be incredibly useful to me, some of yours, well, not so much...

I bring up arrogation because there is a perception by some, as we read you, that in a quiet, sly, almost-Rob-Bell-kinda-way, your style portrays things as though you have arrived. But, if asked, you would say, "heavens no, I have not arrived!"

But, comments such as the paragraph I apparently mis-exegeted, could give some the sense that the person who wrote that believes their piety has increased beyond the others whom she referenced. That is something of which fundamentalists are accused all the time. Rightly so, in many cases. Hence, my remarks...Maybe you're still a fundamentalist...or merely human...

Many of us find ourselves reading Fisher, Garlock, Makujina, etc., and we think similar thoughts as diss has. Or, he has helped us to see "beyond the patch." To his protestations to the opposite, it seems as though he remains hopeful--after all, he IS writing this stuff! But, I will not publicly credit him with such--rather, I will take his stated obituary for f'ism at face value. But, I appreciate his presence.

Many of us have experienced situations similar to yours earlier described. Maybe some of us in a heady flight of fancy, saw ourselves Machen-like as we stayed, but spoke out. Maybe some of us...well, whatever. We do need leaders, and people in the pew who will "walk the hall"--whether it is related to a position on the dias with a malefactor, or whatever. But, somehow, any such confrontation or separation must be based on verifiable fact. Admittedly, that is often hard to do, and too often it does not happen. But somehow, the "walk down the hall" must be do-able. And what if it is not? What if only innuendo, etc. is available?

Let's treat your remark as to those who come from Detroit and "are competent enough to perpetuate what they have." There, I don't think I misquoted you--(we fundies do that a lot, it's part of our heritage, No?) Such a statement makes me aware that you do not know enough about the institution, nor those coming from it. In a real, purposed sense, it is part of an effort to produce men who do the opposite of what you said troubled you about f'ism. Is it perfect? No, but it is often rather self-effacing about its lack of perfection. Does it produce students who "won't make the walk down the hall?" Yeah, but they would be acting contrariwise to the instruction they received, and the character they saw modeled. Detroit's students are not told to go out only to "perpetuate" what Detroit has--rather, they are told to consider that injustice, abuse & fundamentalist popery are the result of poor handling of and obedience to God's Word.

Much of what I saw there and learned there was antithetical to what the "power structure" of fundamentalism wanted to enforce by (real or perceived)dictate. That is not readily apparent from the outside, nor necessarily from taking one course. Much of what I learned there told us to fight against the idea of an ole boy's network. If one comes from there thinking that things are fine as they are, then they weren't paying attention. Some might disagree, but speaking existentially, I know what I found there...Maybe I'm the only one--that's a very fundamentalist thing to think...dontcha think/

In reference to this particular institution and the persons involved, the perception is that some of your remarks indicate that you do not know entirely whereof you speak...this is something which is often cat-called at fundamentalism also.

The caution on some leader's parts often is tied to this kind of exchange. We all want to obey Christ, and experience the depth of what He offers, and somebody will always misinterpret how we go about doing so. I have never said the caution is noble, but it is human.

One of the reasons I listen to men such as Diss, or Dave, or Bauder, or... is that within the church, there are different voices, but they are often saying the same thing--specifically that worshipping Christ as He commands us to, is something which requires us to remove the caution, to stop being so fallenly...human. Diss, Plymouth, Detroit, and other voices are helping in that cause. And in a small way, your remarks have done the same for me. As for snapping at your heels, well, your rebuke crushed me to the point where I am just too short to snap...I just yap--hence the length of this post...

As to the cause...In a very real sense, I care not how the trappings of fundamentalism as a movement are handled, or handle themselves. I am no luminary in the fundy world, and don't want to be.

I have voiced my concerns about music before--but for years, I heard things like, 'well, many connect the guitar with rock/jazz,whathavu, why not a nice piano CD?'--and you get tired of hearing it. That is changing, but a lot of the music is still so bloody rube-ish...Yearly, I remind leaders who bring in Finney-in-a-golf-shirt kind of Men's Retreat speakers, that such dishonor God by failing to edify His church. But, they have to satisfy their KJVO/arminian constituency...So, we roll our own...Weekly, I work to reform our congregation's thinking on acceptable worship--incl. music choice, heart preparation, excellence, but more than that. There is a cause, but, it's a local cause mostly. But, you keep going...God speaks to me in a whirlwind all the time--and shows me the 7000 non-Baal kneelers when I can't see them or find them...It's easier than it looks if you look...

Nice try, Sam. My husband grew up in Detroit and in this time of techonological advance the world is not so small, nor fundamentalism so big, that a WI girl can't get a feel for her Michiganian counterparts.

And you still haven't gotten that you misquoted me.

Sister Alana,
Sadly, I let the edginess of the rhetoric here, improperly affect my own. Where my statements were ad hominem, or unkind, (and some were) I apologize. Incivility is ignoble except perhaps in war...
So as to remove the "I feel like I am watching a train wreck"-effect in this thread, on this blog, any further discourse will be done via PM...I will use your blogger profile to email you...

Diss, (flipping a coin at the counter) sorry about the mess...

Thanks. I couldn’t see where this was profitably headed.

Alana: You are wrong.

And you are engaging in what is akin to unbiblical gossip and disrespect. Whatever fleeting or surface level impressions your husband may have formed about Dave, DBTS, or the other “MI pastor”, they are not nearly enough for you to jump to the kinds of uncharitable (and incorrect) conclusions you have drawn about their theology and their personal devotional lives.

You are employing the same scurrilous tactics you so decry in fundamentalism. Don’t you see the hypocrisy in that?

Sam H: You have no need to apologize. You said nothing wrong and your understanding of Alana's comments was the same as mine. Maybe we're both just dumb. (Or maybe the blood just can't get to our brains through our thick neck muscles.) We should all just stop feeding the troll (which, ironically, I know I just did).

- - - - -

Dave was right. In many ways, this is one of the most fundamentalistic places on the web.

Yeah, Alana. Get over it!

Why is it that Alana is getting raked over the coals for giving a certain amount of info. for which she was raked of the coals for not divulging in the first place?

Smells like a trap...looks like a trap....

lilrabbi: Unfortunately I've never had the subtlety to avoid traps very neatly. Actually what it looked like to me was sharks circling a bloody spot in the water. As it was my blood I wanted to show my teeth a little.

Sam: There's also my own blog.

lilrabbi: Thanks for your input. However, you should read my comment with better understanding.

I am not "raking her over the coals for giving a certain amount of info". She provided that information in response to a biblically valid request from Dave. No problems there. But we're way past that.

I am responding to the unwarranted and negative conclusions she is drawing about the character of good men of God, about their experience of "real theology", about their devotional life, and about what type of legacy their ministries are producing. She does not possess enough information and experience to draw those types of conclusions. And she is wrong to attempt to do so.

I am responding to her flippant responses when confronted with this by Sam -- e.g. "tee hee hee" and "nice try, Sam" and her continued attempts to justify her incorrect conclusions.

If everyone had stopped after the melodramatic crescendo of comment #49, we all would have been better off.

Kent McCune:

Words cannot express my contempt for your cruel hasty answer. I have, throughout this entire conversation, refused to make jugments on any individual. Within minutes of making it I took down the one comment in which something I said could have had that effect. The "two parties who do not know what theology does" comment was referring to the WI Semi-Pelagian and MI Calvinist communities IN GENERAL. 'Thinking' narrowed it down to a question about "people like Dave" and I responded by talking about "IN A BROAD SENSE FUNDAMENTALISM." The only judgment I made about Dave's devotional life was to assume he has one - a fair assumption for a fundamentalist leader. I also assumed he has tasted of the powers of the world to come - a fair assumption for any professing orthodox Christian. This was to clarify that I am NOT saying the person with whom this disagrement began is the antichrist or an infidel or the main culprit or the crux of the problem. It was to clarify that is NOT my point.

As to my information and experience, what do you know of that, you great monstrous hypocrite? And can I help it if the general state of your ecclesiastical group is so far from my ideal that I can percieve that fact without going through two years at D.B.T.S? Do you think that what I think real theology does is so difficult to distinguish that I would have to look really really closely to tell the difference?

My answers to Sam were dismissive, not flippant. I am never flippant about serious things. His comments, however, were NOT serious because he had not "read my comments with more understanding."

If you do not stop badgering me my husband will have something to say to you. He may want to anyways. I'm not saying anything more unless someone else comes after me again. But if they do I am not going to sit down and cry and say sorry just because you have some position in some church on the other side of The Lake and you wave the word "biblical" around like a great hulking club.

I'm not saying anything more unless someone else comes after me again.

I sincerely pray that you mean that.

I beg anyone and every one to never mention her name again. Perhaps some normalcy can return to this place. Sam and Kent, please let this die. You have demonstrated yourselves to be humble and gracious men, now be honorable ones. Let her stew. Please.

de profundis,
vielen dank...I've made my bow-out already...

de profundis:

Agreed. And thank you for the intervention.

Well, well, well. De Profundis, thank you for being so interested in protecting the hurt and the whistleblowers...I suppose the content of what Alana said is trumped by the way she said it, right? It was obvious that Sam H. is a hypocrite and he misquoted her. Of course, no one went after McHune when he savaged Alana in just as vehement approach. Maybe you should have told everyone to "just let [him] stew". But I guess he wasn't saying anything that might expose "godly leaders". I have been reading Remonstrans for several years and have been noting your comments on it; I expected better from you.

McHune,

Umm, you need intervention? Like you're being attacked and can't fight back? You fire the most mean and savage attacks on Alana, and then cry on somebody else's shoulder because you needed "intervention" when you are answered according to your folly. You are like the bully in the schoolyard who hits the little kids who stand up to them until the kids hit back, and the bully goes running to the teacher showing his bloody nose, hoping to make the kid look bad and get in trouble. As Dissidens noted, this charade has been witnessed. Fundamentalists have been caught attempting to shut up their critics by humiliation, bullying and word games...again.

Dear White,
If I did this correctly, I am signed in, and if you truly want to address my "hypocrisy" in "misquoting" AR, please use the email symbol by my name.

I did make some statements, trying to be "funny" and "edgy" in my responses--and in doing so, I came across as "to the man" and I apologized to AR (see post 66). Once that aspect of my statements is gone, any 'misquoting' is accidental, a misunderstanding on my part, or a misinterpretation of AR's meanings, as far as I can see. I am relying on her responses to make that clear to me, and no one else's--not even your fine critique. I am working those matters out with her, because I do want to understand what she means--but NOT here. Thank you for the understanding you have shown me, for the noun which you used to describe me, and God bless...I will say no more.

While I do not wish in any way to disparage the chivalrous impulse of WK's defense of me, it is true that Sam H. is making the efforts he describes. I could not ask more.

While I do not wish to disparage the chivalrous impulse of WK's defense of me, it's true that Sam has made the efforts he describes. I could not ask more.

Sam H.,

I apologise sincerely and hope you can forgive me. You are not a hypocrite. I mistook your words and wrote in haste. Thank you for the efforts you have made to correct and clarify; which at this late stage you certainly did not have to do.

I am not retracting my comments to McCune and De Profundis.

Quoting from Alana (both in the same post): I have, throughout this entire conversation, refused to make jugments on any individual. ... As to my information and experience, what do you know of that, you great monstrous hypocrite?

Is there something about the meaning of "refused," "jugments" [sic], "any," "individual" that I am missing?

Because "you monstrous hypocrite" sounds a "jugment" against an "individual." In fact, it sounds like something that would come from the hated fundamentalist people so freely condemned in many places.

Seriously, it is hard to take this serious when someone can, with what I am sure is a straightface, claim that they have not made judgments against any individual and then follow that up with what is a gratuitous attack against someone Alana probably doesn't even know. Unless she doesn't consider Kent McCune an individual ... or perhaps not "any" individual" or perhaps "refused" means something I am not familiar with.

To White Knight, I don't think anyone here has tried to shut up any one by bullying or humiliation, unless it has been dissidens side. That is pretty much his MO and most recognize it for what it is.

But at some point, someone needs to point out to Alana that she at the very least seems to be handling this wrongly.

Thinking, I warned you.

"I have refused" is in the past tense, maybe that's what you didn't understand. My characterization of McCune as a hypocrite came after that. Therefore no lies were told.

That's the technical answer. The real answer is that McC. WAS being a hypocrite in what he said to me. To the extent that I know K. McC. he is a hypocrite. Maybe he is not a hypocrite on other days or in other situations but with me was certainly a hypocrite. How? Well, he said I didn't know enough to make the judgments I was making. However I know more of what I was judging (fundamentalism) than he does of me (nothing but what I wrote here.) So that was a hypocritical statement on his part. He was doing the same thing he accused me of.

As to your charge of handling things wrongly. I was once visited by a Mormon and got into a heated debate about his right to go around blathering about Smith and the Book of Mormon when people needed Christ. His answer? "I sense a demon of contention in this room." As soon as I stopped opposing him in argument he announced that the demon had left.

Thinking, he was just a crude version of you people and his tactics are just crude versions of your tactics. While we are struggling for truth you guys are blathering about being nice and accusing us of contentiousness if not quite the demons thereof.

Nice is a pale virtue. Back off.

You warned me? About what? What is this? Some kind of playground knockdown game?

Your last post does not make much sense to me. Your "have refused" was a little empty even if sincere, given your very personal judgments against a certain Michigan pastor which you asked to be removed, as well as against others. But that's fine. You have not steadfastly refused; you simply asked them to be removed when you did, it seems to me.

Based on what you said in post 58, you seem unqualified to make the judgments you did, as if you have the knowledge of Dave or of theology to sit in judgment on whether Dave understands what real theology does because he apparently is trying to defend a short list of skeletal doctrines. I am sure he is gratified that you grant him some level of devotional life and a taste of the world to come "to some degree." Oh that we could all attain to your exalted status to make such judgments on these issues of fundamentalism.

And yes, I am being sarcastic ... at this point because I am attempting to make a point similarly to how Paul made his point in 1 Corinthians 4, drawing an analogy here to all the fundamentalists who went on before without the wisdom of the folks like the audience at remonstrans.

Alana, I think you went down the wrong road here, and went down it far too long. And I think it is unfortunate.

Your use of sarcasm doesn't need a biblical defense with me. But I don't feel like making all my same points again and I'm not going to get into defending my personal virtues. Suffice it to say you've misread me and no one here is glad that you opened up this conversation again. Let it die.

But I repeat what I said before, the one thing I'm not going to do is cry and say sorry. Imperfect and unclear as my defense may be, what I am defending is a truth and I don't have the option to stop fighting. So as long as you keep coming after me I am going to keep giving it back to you. Just stop.