I found Dr. Bauder's article refreshing and Dr. Doran's comments a tad on the side of ignorant. I come from a conservative evangelical background but find myself in a Fundamentalist institution, and more often than not am unwilling to identify as such because of the party spirit and rhetoric against Piper, Mohler, MacArthur, Dever, et. al. that I have heard from the Fundamentalist camp, even from guest speakers at my own seminary's conferences. It seems to me to be unecessarily narrow and uninformed. The issues that tend to occupy Fundamentalists are not "fundamental" at all, so if anyone needs to shed a rubric or a label, it is they.

Jeff:

Well, I appreciate what you say. I don’t think Bauder’s path is petal-strewn either, but it certainly gets people (some people) where they want to be. We’ll see if they are happy when they get there.

Just for the record I might tell everyone that one paragraph from today’s post that didn’t survive the edit was this one:

One of our readers asked me last Saturday if I had been tracking the most recent set-to among Fundamentalists. I hadn’t been, but because he asked, I did check out a few links. Sunday morning I was asked by our other reader if I intended to blog about it, and I told him No. Now I wish I’d waited to answer until after I saw how Tony Jones’s exhalations compared to Dave Doran’s emissions.

Originally I didn’t think it was helpful to our readers to comment on this fundy fight. Fundies don’t want to hear from me, and I certainly hold no stock in their future. For that reason I thought to overlook the whole thing.

It wasn’t until reading Jones yesterday afternoon that it struck me that their juxtaposition was a good illustration of a larger problem our readers might want to reflect on. Whether one is a fundy or an emergent or merely a bystander, I think this demonstrates a fact of religious life we’d be stupid to ignore.

Labels, rubrics, and categories are not the problem. We label everything: diseases, medicines, art forms, kitchen utensils, political regimes, economic policies, cabbages and kings. (And if we go to camp we even label our underwear.) This is what reasonable men (and mothers) do. Unreasonable men suppose that they can manipulate these labels to their benefit.

I hope this is a lesson it’s not too late to learn. Labels are not the problem; abuse of labels leads to many sorrows. Fundamentalists have been bickering over what constitutes acceptable separation for decades, now it is seen for the silliness it is. In our political and religious environment, certain evangelicals represent a refreshing model of ministry. This makes separation over Bible translations look pretty disgraceful.

Do you want to hear a good sermon from a man whose daughter wears pants, or do you want to hear a bad sermon from a man whose daughter has discernment?

“The use of labels from the 20th century which no longer fit” is not the issue Doran thinks it is. Flipping the calendar does not change the commands of the New Testament or their reasonable implications. This is the error of Emergents.

It seems to me we should be far more prudent in how we label and far less demanding of compliance with badly chosen labels.

Dissidens,

You said: "It seems to me we should be far more prudent in how we label and far less demanding of compliance with badly chosen labels."

Doran said: "We need to look at individual men and ministries, find out what they believe and how they apply those beliefs, and then draw our conclusions."

I'm not seeing the great disparity between these two points. Both are suggesting more prudence, without the haphazard labeling and rigid conformance to those labels.

Observer:

I don’t see those two statements as remotely similar.

First, and with respect to my essential point, which century we are in is irrelevant. That whole notion is corrosive.

Second, I propose we do not look at individual men and ministries; men and ministries are breathtakingly inconsistent. Indeed, we don’t have to go far to see how this will come back to bite everyone. Read Bauder’s post and the names he offers: John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Tell me how you will extrude a useful label out of that collection of men and institutions!

Every single man on that list might be commendable for his beliefs and admirable for how pure he keeps his conscience. They still do not commend themselves as a standard for you to follow. They differ from one another, and admirers of these men will disagree amongst themselves. Just look at the fallout from the Manhattan Declaration!

These men differ and can get along with one another. Fundamentalists cannot. These men are attractive to Young Fundamentalists who have no clue as to what it will cost to approximate that collegiality.

Third, Doran says that after we consider these men and ministries, we “then draw our own conclusions”. Conclusions based on what?! What premises will yield those conclusions? That is precisely what Fundamentalists have been doing ever since Neo-evangelicals separated from Fundamentalists: drawing their own conclusions based on their considerations.

Fourth, and this is a rather small point but still worth mentioning, the institutions these men leave will be just as liable to change as fundamentalist institutions have been. Look at what happened to Coral Ridge after Kennedy left. How will it help to have formed a label based on men and ministries?

This is a recipe for strife. (Which, by the way, has already begun.)

That would not be prudent.

Dissidens,

You said: "First, and with respect to my essential point, which century we are in is irrelevant. That whole notion is corrosive."

If that was your "essential point," I'm not sure I see your point at all. Doran's post said that labels which were relevant and appropriate in the 20th century are not necessarily relevant and appropriate now.

You proved that point when you wrote, "Tell me how you will extrude a useful label out of that collection of men and institutions!"

The point is: you can't! We get too bogged down in making sure each individual and institution fall neatly into one of two (or three) categories, and before we know it the conversation is lost on who is in which category.
I believe that was the "essential point" of Doran's post.

Not at all.

Doran explicitly made it an issue of which century it is, and I quote: “…labels from the 20th century which no longer fit…”. My comment has nothing to do with time; it has to do with the disparity of beliefs held by those men, a disparity that exists in either century. The very fact that labels might be time-specific should have been a clue to the problems fundamentalists would encounter.

Now their own graduates are making that point for us.

My response is that among the men named, no one label could reflect that disparity of belief. For good or ill, those men define themselves with respect to the Gospel, not separatism.

Those men Bauder put forward would themselves admit that disparity, but they would not make an issue of it. So my point remains that a) no useful point will be made by taking account of what century it is, and b) no consensus exists among those men that will satisfy Fundamentalists today—a point not worth arguing because it is already being illustrated on the fundy blogs.

I was fixing to comment about what a joy it is to learn that Aristotle was a Muslim, but the current discussion is more interesting.

Yah, Tony is the sort of historian who can find facts no other historians ever thought to look for. I heard him do a show with Pagitt in which he compared various religions; he kept talking about “animalism” and how animalism compared to Buddhism and Hinduism and Christianity….

If Tony hadn’t got all mixed up with Emergence, I imagine he could have been the next Oswald Spengler or Edward Gibbon.

Dissedens,
I think you need to restring your bow. The target you are shooting at isn't the same as Doran's.
I gather from tracking back on this that his point isn't that labels are the "rooter" problem (i.e. "essential").
You support him when you say, "This is what reasonable men do." Labels just serve us in various formats. (Like labels such as, "Fife" or "Bean") Don't look past his point that they just don't serve us as well today based on aging.
Let's take your handle for instance... "dissidens"...
I guess you are hoping for the meaning of one who is a non-conformist. You aren't referring to the political meaning by which that word was born. That "label" has aged and taken on some different wrinkles. It doesnt serve the same today as years ago.
Don't reach at something that isn't the "essential." You end up making yourself an ingredient.

Dissidens,

You said: "So my point remains that a) no useful point will be made by taking account of what century it is, and b) no consensus exists among those men that will satisfy Fundamentalists today—a point not worth arguing because it is already being illustrated on the fundy blogs."

A) It is a useful point for people to note that labels which previously existed and meant something do not mean what they once meant. That's a wordy way of saying: times have changed. It is useful for people to note the differences. Whether that demonstrates the quality of the labels or not isn't the point.

B) That is true. There is not a consensus because there is too great a diversity in the group that Bauder listed. That is why part of me appreciates what Doran laid out -- i.e. don't get so hung up on the labels; examine the man and ministry, instead of which "category" he/it falls into.

A faint whiff of... nominalism?

Matt:

Actually, when the time comes, I will rehair my bow and restring my violin. The bow has no strings on it; those are the tail hairs of Siberian horses, bred, as I understand it, for their tails alone.

But that’s just for general edification in case it shows up on Friday’s quiz.

I’m not sure if I take your point or not. In some sense I disagree with both Bauder and Doran; in another sense I just have no interest in the distinction Doran is making for Bauder—which does have merit in that context. My point here is not the difference between Doran and Bauder but the similarity between Doran and Jones. The differences speak to how Fundamentalists must untangle their mess and rehabilitate their movement with respect to their labels, rubrics and categories.

If that is the point you make, then of course I agree. (In fact I said this years ago discussing the scruples the Amish have. Definitions are not child’s play. And labels cannot be manipulated or refashioned or reconstructed to guide a movement through time. I’ve previously cited the problem Conservative Baptists created when separation from non-premillennialists was made a test of fellowship.)

But again, there’s no real reason for me to insert myself in that on-going squabble. What I think bears our reflection is that guys on such extremes, Doran and Jones, have a similar attitude toward labels with expiration dates, as though they can be disposed of. The Fundamentalist problem, I think, cannot be sorted: they have a Humpty-Dumpty thing going for them at this point. But inasmuch as label-making is necessary and important and prudent—and will necessarily continue—we should be smart enough next time to be aware of the grief we can cause. To use Doran’s words, the least you must have is the ability to know who’s in and who’s out. They don’t. Doran attributes it to elapsed time. I agree that no one knows in from out; I disagree with his solution.

And this goes for Jones as well: Emergents can blather all they want to about ethos and vibe, but then they will have to live with all those ethoi and vibes and suffer whatever criticisms come from their own when they start demanding conformity to a policy—which is what happened to Jones.


Observer:

A. Not only have times changed. I’ll go further: we ourselves change. I’m not saying these things are static; that is the error progressives, liberals and emergents make. But that is precisely why I say we cannot make our labels by observing men and institutions. Change is a given: especially there. Conservatives don’t believe otherwise. Conservatives believe that amidst all that change, some things don’t: how do we preserve for ourselves the good, the true, and the beautiful amidst change? Just redefine them?! was-bad=is-good? was-ugly=is-beautiful? was-false=is-true?

B. Your first two sentences are fine; the difference comes in how we accommodate inevitable change. Do we do that by changing our certitudes (i.e. those things from which we distilled our values and to which our labels point) or by prudently identifying what is eternal and tolerating variation on matters which are ephemeral? The problem I have with your last sentence is that “not getting hung up on labels” is not the solution for Doran and Fundamentalists any more than it is for Jones and Emergents.

The thing I found irritating about Doran's article was that he first tells Bauder he's got his all his labels and boxes wrong and then tells us we don't need labels and boxes. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Dissidens, I think you have underscored "what constitutes conservative evangelicalism" (which Doran was wondering about). They are orthodox and fight for it. They disagree on some peripheral things and understand that, but they don't bicker about them like school children. Collegiality. Good. Some fundamentalists can't grasp that sense of collegiality so they must bicker about the boxes that all these different folks fit into and especially about how they don't fit into our pristine litter box.

Thankfully they let a Trojan Horse into their box. Oops.

What can I say? I’ve seen this opera. I even know pretty much when the fat lady is supposed to take a deep breath and wake up the husbands; till then I just go out to the lobby and watch the limos line up.

Being the giddy optimist I am, I can be consoled by the realization that if this is the fundamentalism they think is worth saving, its loss can’t be all bad.

Dissidens,
If I may...I think we both agree that the essential is not what label you are. What is essential is that you are faithful to the text and it's Author.

Labels serve us now only as a possible help. If Johnny identifies himself as a Yankees fan, then Bobby who is a Red Sox fan might not be the guy Johnny would want to give his extra ticket to for the Yankees/Dodgers game. Doesn't mean Bobby is a bad guy, just doesn't like the same team, as a matter of fact he loves baseball as much as Johnny. It also doesn't mean that Johnny wouldn't go to a ball game with Bobby. It just kind of helps to sort out things on a very basic level.

Further, every rubric has its battles it is fighting. The one you percieve with the Fundamentalists, The one the CE's are fighting with other Evangelicals (i.e. MacArthur v. Driscoll; Mohler v. those who didn't sign the MD). From my persective they are fighting for what they believe is the truth, not for the label. This will happen till the cows come home in every rubric.

Question: Would you agree that most every man you know wants to be labeled?
They seek identity with one of the rubrics? (NewEv, ConsEv, Evng, Fundy, the "I don't belong in any group" group, or finally the "I don't care" group. I am NOT sugessting a new taxonomy)


P.S. I was talking more about Saturday's quiz answer: "recurve" or for extra credit "Matthews" (But maybe you knew that and where having a good laugh with your divine passive buddy about nominalism...)

Would I agree that most every man I know wants to be labeled?

Probably not. I think most people feel they are just too wonderful, too complex, too nuanced, and too profound in their thinking to be labeled. They’ve not yet built a box big enough to hold my brain! They think labels demean and confine and homogenize. This is one reason I object to the Doran/Jones attitude.

But I think most people want to self-identify as neo-evangelical, confessing evangelical, fundamental, progressive, liberal, emergent as a sort of tribal marker. They want to huddle up. I have talked with members of all of the tribes I’ve just named, and every single one of them wants to distinguish himself from the movement the moment you show it to be inadequate or counterproductive.

I don’t think it’s as much a question of whether people want to be labeled as much when. Get any of these people in a hall with the band playing and the banners flying and the balloons falling, you don’t hear them shouting to each other over the back of a folding chair, “I don’t care to be labeled.” But get them in a debate and the lights are on and the cameras are rolling and see how quickly they whine about being labeled.

What reasonable person who cares for the environment wants to be identified with Al Gore? Indeed, what sort of person does want to be identified with Al Gore?

Unreasonable men use labels the way cowboys use lariats. To me, that is the problem, not labels.

Dissidens,

You said: "I think most people feel they are just too wonderful, too complex, too nuanced, and too profound in their thinking to be labeled. They’ve not yet built a box big enough to hold my brain! They think labels demean and confine and homogenize. This is one reason I object to the Doran/Jones attitude."

I took Doran's "essential point" to be that these labels detract from any serious discussion that would be going on. The conversation invariably boils down to who is within which label. The labels themselves should not be the center of discussion. What that person/institution is doing for the betterment of the Church and the cause of Christ should be what matters, not what brand of hyphenated fundamentalist or evangelical you are.

Labels do "confine and homogenize," whether you think they should or shouldn't. That problem is magnified when the labels themselves are rather antiquated and often distorted.

@divine passive - Why let facts get in the way of a good myth? The image of Aquinas suckling at the teat of a burkha-clad Islamic wise-woman is much more useful to the cause of relativism and syncretism than the facts could ever be.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3732

Syncretism is just a fancy word for fellowship, right? Are you against fellowship? ;)

Good score on that article, by the way.

Observer:

“Labels do ‘confine and homogenize,’ whether you think they should or shouldn't. That problem is magnified when the labels themselves are rather antiquated and often distorted.”

Yah, I think that was Tony Jones’s point as well.

This inability to distinguish between labels and what partisans do with labels appears to be an on-going problem.

Dissidens,

You said: "This inability to distinguish between labels and what partisans do with labels appears to be an on-going problem."

Maybe since you're not in any position of leadership, you don't have to deal with ecclesiastical separation head-on, and the decisions you make do not affect a congregation of believers, it's easy for you to sit back and have qualms with "this inability to distinguish between labels and what partisans do with labels."

You have this blog, and you blast people and call them out for whatever your "essential point" is, however miniscual it may be. But like this handle that I've chosen, you are just an observer. You can critique and nit-pick all you want, but at the end of the day, the Dorans and Bauders of this world are the ones soldiering in the fight. And while you can disagree with them and their labeling system (or lack thereof), until you exhibit half the leadership that they do, your trifling "essential points" are moot.

Observer:

You cannot possibly imagine how grateful I am for your comment. It is priceless. And I mean that. I can’t believe my good fortune. It is as though every morning for seven years a loathsome dragon flew over my house and vomited on my roof, but today it dropped a huge sack of gold in the back of my pickup.

If I were to show your comment to a panel of experts from New York and Boston, it could not give me a reliable estimate of its value either at auction or for insurance purposes.

Let’s prescind this whole distinction between things and the abuse of things. Let’s put in a box all this discussion about centuries and labels and men and movements; let’s put a lid on the box, take it out of the room and forget about it for five minutes. Some of the things in that box are important and we will have to come back to them, but for now we will set them aside so we aren’t distracted.

Now let’s look at how this matter has been brought to our attention.

There is an on-going terror over the future of Fundamentalism. It has been the topic of discussions, speeches, board meetings, sermons, public announcements, Q&A sessions and whispered intrigues. Dr. Bauder took someone’s opinions and published a portion of them for the purpose of public criticism. He identified—in a veiled way—the author, but obliquely enough that some of his readers would know exactly who he is talking about, some of them would have a good suspicion given his word choice and a knowledge of the publication, and some would not have any real clue. It purported to be an attempt at “clarification”.

Then Dr. Doran characterizes Dr. Bauder’s ruminations as “a cannonball in the Fundamentalist pool”. What followed, unsurprisingly, are the cookie-tossings we’ve come to expect on various blogs: bits from Gerald Priest, Aaron Blumer, Don Johnson, Jim Peet, Joel Tetreau…all of which serve to maintain and aggravate the hostilities.

So what began as a clarification became a social faux pas which became a matter for dispute which became a casus belli.

This is Fundamentalist culture; this is how Fundamentalists behave. (It seems to me that if these alleged “conservative evangelicals” were sharp, they’d be doing whatever is necessary to discourage Fundamentalist interest in their affairs; but that’s another issue.)

Now you say that this behavior is necessary for leaders, and to criticize it is “easy…to sit back and have qualms”. “…the Dorans and Bauders of this world are the ones soldiering in the fight.”

It is as though a tank commander chose to engage the enemy in the swamp. And even as his tanks go bubbling to the bottom he lashes out at critics who point out that the battlefield was not well chosen. I’m not sure if you want me to feel bad that I haven’t driven my tank into the drink or if you want me to be happy I wasn’t born a fool.

Look at this situation for once, would you?! You are, once more, shooting your own. The enemy is hunkered down, probably watching through binoculars and scouring their maps for more swamps.

It doesn’t matter with you guys, whether it is fighting battles or writing worship songs, you really don’t care that it be done well, you are happy to call abject failure “bravery” or “piety”.

Has it ever occurred to you to wonder why I have a blog and am no longer running with your leaders? I don’t consider these matters miniscual; I don’t even consider them miniscule.



But I’d like to thank you again for your comment. If you leave an address, I’ll send flowers.

Dissidens,

It seems to me that in your ideal world there would never be discussion.

Dr. Bauder has every right to publish an article about, what he sees as, an emerging middle between fundamentalists and new evangelicals. Dr. Doran has every right to read that article and respond to it, offering a different viewpoint. Others can respond to all or some of that, too.

That is the "Fundamentalist culture" that you decry? Maybe I'm missing something. People are discussing an article written by a seminary president.

You can distort my "soldiering in the fight" comment all you want, but anybody that reads this blog knows that you are on the outside. You sit in the back of the classroom and make fun of the teacher. The Dorans and Bauders of the world are in positions of leadership to advance and defend the cause of Christ. Disagree with how they do that all you want. But at the end of the day, you are the one critiquing and doing nothing.

If the Church is in as dire shape as you claim, we need men of action and godliness to lead us. You are a critic, and that's it.

Observer:

Oh, I see, now it’s a question of rights. And here I was thinking it was a discussion of capable leadership.

Well, then, if it’s a rights issue then everyone has a right to voice his opinion, including me. I too am “discussing an article written by a seminary president”.

I’m just relieved that none of us is going to jail.

Everyone who’s read my blog?! Observer, everyone who’s seen my nick knows I’m on the outside!

I think you misunderstand your own metaphor. I am not in your class. I already graduated; and if you don’t mind my saying so—if that is within my rights—I am not the only one not in your class. Your classes are emptying and your ex-students are in the registrar’s office across town.

That is the problem, and that is why the question of capable leadership is in play.

“If the Church is in as dire shape as you claim, we need men of action and godliness to lead us. You are a critic, and that's it.”

Do you want men merely of “action and godliness” or do you want men of wisdom and competence as well?

That is the crisis of the moment.

Anyone with a modest amount of intelligence and objectivity can see right through your schtick.

It is not a question of "rights," yet you make a big deal out of people discussing an article. You claim that it is the "Fundamentalist culture." People discussing an article is the "Fundamentalist culture"?

I didn't misunderstand my own metaphor. You are the disgruntled kid in the back of the room that dislikes everything that's going on. You critique all day long, and that's it.

I want men of action and godliness and wisdom and competence. Did you want me to list every adjective that I desired? Of course you didn't. You just wanted to score some cheap points. That is noted by anyone that reads through these comments.

Well, alright then!

If it’s not a matter of rights, then why did you bring it up?

And if everyone sees through my schtick, if this is noted by "anyone that reads through these comments", and if Fundamentalism has competent leaders, then you (and other Fundamentalists) needn’t worry about a thing.

And what is going on over at Motel Cucaracha must not be the big problem it appears to be.

(Not that they don’t have a right to make it look like a big problem.)

Why did I bring it up? Because you make the fact that people are discussing an article some symptom of this supposed "Fundamentalist culture."

I see a discussion going on over there at SharperIron. The quality of that discussion is debatable, but I don't see men separating from each other and causing divisions within the Church.

I find it ironic that you can critique and nit-pick about everything, but the moment other people discuss an article and offer various opinions, it is the "Fundamentalist culture." Then again, maybe that's more hypocritical than it is ironic.

Hmmm.

What about the "discussion over there at SharperIron" strikes you as debatable?

As I said, the quality of the discussion is debatable. All viewpoints are not equal, as you well know. But just because that is the case, people can discuss an article without it being reflective of this greater "Fundamentalist culture" that you so decry.

Yes, that almost clarifies things.

“The quality”.

But what is it, specifically, about the discussions you find debatable? What in particular is of inferior quality?

Is it

a) the spelling
b) the punctuation
c) the sentence structure
d) faulty reasoning
e) ignorance of relevant history
f) something else altogether
g) all of the above?

If you answer F or G, could you elaborate in such a way as to bring us to some sort of useful point?

How might quality be achieved over on SI?

Dissidens,

I am not a moderator at SI, and I do not post at SI. I only read SI.

The point of our current discussion is not how I can help SI achieve better quality.

This is a red herring, and it's obvious. As I said, it's hypocritical for you to call out Doran and Bauder and everyone at SI by derisively saying it's the "Fundamentalist culture" when you critique and nit-pick constantly. Somehow it's ok for you to do it, but the moment other people discuss an issue, it's the dreaded "Fundamentalist culture."

I see.

In comment 22 above I made the point that aside from the issues, there was a method, a reflex, a habit that is conspicuously Fundamentalist, viz. how do we get from “clarification” to the sort of gang war we see on SI?

In comment 23 you began speaking about rights and brave soldiers and men of action. I’m trying to identify the sort of “men of action” Fundamentalism produces. You expressed some disapproval of the fallout created over on SI by these “men of action”. I’m trying to discern what you think is “debatable”. Now you tell me you’re not an SI moderator.

That’s important, to be sure.

But could you, on a freelance basis, and without any hope that SI will improve, answer my question?

What is it, specifically, about the discussions you find debatable? What in particular is of inferior quality?

Is it

a) the spelling
b) the punctuation
c) the sentence structure
d) faulty reasoning
e) ignorance of relevant history
f) something else altogether
g) all of the above?

If you answer F or G, could you elaborate in such a way as to bring us to some sort of useful point?

Thanks.

What you're doing is a red herring. It is obvious, dissidens. That's why I won't answer your question.

You say that "there was a method, a reflex, a habit that is conspicuously Fundamentalist." Again, you talk about this "Fundamentalist culture" based on people discussing an article.

Yet you post and comment on this blog in your sarcastic and acerbic tone in a way that is far worse than this "Fundamentalist culture" that you belittle.

It's hypocrisy, dissidens.

That's ok, Observer. I wasn't really expecting an answer anyway.

But the scolding was nostalgic. Like old times.

Let's hear more accusations of hypocrisy from the fundamentalists. I want to find out if irony ever gets tiresome.

Ya can't ever have too much irony.

You sure are one obtuse observer, Observer.

And how, exactly, do you know all of this personal information about Dissidens? Are you his next-door neighbor or something?

Dissidens, you are making my point for me. As any discussions here progresses, it devolves into semantics and sarcasm from you. That does get old.

Threegirldad, what personal information did I purport to know of dissidens? Anything that I said about him or his argumentation style is easily seen by anyone that reads this blog.

If only Observer would answer Dissidens' question. Checkmate in two moves!

Observer, you really owe it to Dissidens to answer his question. He has patiently responded to your own incessant questions. Now, when he finally asks you a pointed question, you dismiss him.

Wait a minute . . . there's a label for that kind of behavior . . .

Dissidens,

Earlier you discussed that the concern over what century we are in is corrosive to proper definitions (if I understand you correctly). Would you please explain why? Is it because the labels were not based on eternal things in the first place?

@parapidemos what you are doing is a red herring! Stop doing that!

Irony sure is fun, though, especially when unintentional

Wow, I am not sure if it is an honour to be "mentioned in dispatches" by Dissidens or not...

FWIW, I don't get either of Dissiden's or Observer's points. I suppose that is not surprising.

And, also FWIW, I am in favour of not doing anything, especially soldiering in the fight. I find more gets done that way.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Lamentans,

You said: "Observer, you really owe it to Dissidens to answer his question. He has patiently responded to your own incessant questions. Now, when he finally asks you a pointed question, you dismiss him."

Dissidens is not asking his questions in sincerity, and that's obvious. If you've read this site for any amount of time, you know that these discussions eventually boil down to him trying to score cheap points (like trying to get me to specifically outline my thoughts on how to improve the quality of the discussion at SI).

Also, I just reviewed my posts here, and I hardly ever asked dissidens any questions. He has responded in sarcasm, and now has tried to deflect the conversation to some point based on one small phrase in one of my posts -- "The quality of the discussion is debatable."

I've said it twice now, but I'll say it once more: that's a red herring, an ignoratio elenchi, if you will. He's trying to deflect the conversation. Maybe his point is valid; but it's not pertinent to the conversation, except that he keeps bringing it up.

And Don, don't flatter yourself.

Guest:

Essentially, Yes. It’s not that we can’t define ephemeral things as well; but when we are not careful to define transcendental things in such a way that we can appreciate their transcendence, we find ourselves suffering the malady of Emergents and Fundamentalists.

And I mean more as well. It’s not limited to defining transcendent things, it includes naming everything rightly.

But you have it right.

We have a brilliant example of this in Mike Morrell’s recent comments. Morrell has no clue what a conservative is. Nothing. He simply could not define the thing. If we gave him a hundred tries, he would come no closer than he did on his first.

In that place in his brain where there should be a definition of conservative there is a hole. And when he wants to express a disagreement with a conservative all he can do is scramble around and substitute a wrong term. In place of the word conservative he has a vagueness we might label “un-liberal”. Morrell will never understand why a conservative would want to conserve anything.

If—and I think this is pretty clearly the fact of our life—if we mis-define permanent things, we lose them in the stream of time.

Observer wrote:
Threegirldad, what personal information did I purport to know of dissidens? Anything that I said about him or his argumentation style is easily seen by anyone that reads this blog.

Sorry, but no -- not even close.

You [Dissidens] can critique and nit-pick all you want, but at the end of the day, the Dorans and Bauders of this world are the ones soldiering in the fight.

But at the end of the day, you [Dissidens] are the one critiquing and doing nothing.

If the Church is in as dire shape as you claim, we need men of action and godliness to lead us. You [Dissidens] are a critic, and that's it.

You critique all day long, and that's it.

I'll ask again: Are you his next-door neighbor or something?

Threegirldad,

I'm surmising that you are relatively new to this blog, and that's fine.

To answer your question: no, I am not his next-door neighbor or something.

Spend some time reading the articles and comments from 2005-2010, and you will be able to see how I have come to the judgment that I have.

Do I know some personal information about dissidens? Yes. But again, if you have spent any amount of time the last five years or so reading this blog and other places in the blogosphere, you would know some, as well.

But again, this is completely beside the point.

My "essential point" in all of this is that I find it hypocritical for dissidens to continuously call out the supposed "Fundamentalist culture" for actions that he best exemplifies on this very blog.

Observer:
I understand your frustration, but, please, let me encourage you: If Dissidens is going to get you worked up, then don't visit his site anymore. I gather you have for some time, citing the past years postings. To me, you have come across angrily with your fingers (Again, a perception and I know that experience isn't necessarily reality). Don't put yourself in a position for the flesh to control. Seriously, I mean this in love.

Dissidens, I wonder if you would act this same way leaning over the back of a folding chair? No, you would refuse to sit in one.

Matt,

This isn't anger at all, but thanks for the admonition. It's only when the conversation devolves into semantics and sarcasm that it gets frustrating. And since this his blog, dissidens always gets the last word. But there are times when someone should point out the error in his writing. I don't know him personally, and I don't take any of this personally. But all things being equal, what he does so often on this blog is far worse than the "Fundamentalist culture" that he decries. And I actually think that's a point most could agree on.

Important Notice To All Remonstrans Members & Visitors:


We have been engaged in a discussion of typical fundamentalist behavior and have cited as merely one example the ruckus one might observe over at Motel Cucaracha. One participant, Observer, expressed the opinion that the quality of discussion over there was not representative of Fundamentalism. In pursuit of that opinion he was asked in what way he considered that discussion “debatable”, and he refused to elaborate, citing the fact that he was not an SI Moderator.

Observer has no qualms about criticizing the discussion here on Remonstrans.

Since Remonstrans readers often show the ability to draw rational conclusions, it occurred to us that you, dear reader, might deduce that either Observer is a moderator here on Remonstrans or that he is not a man of principle.

While Observer has rendered invaluable service from time to time, he is nevertheless not a moderator here either. We understand how you might be confused.

Should Observer—or anyone looking like Observer wearing a long coat, dark glasses, a big nose and a mustache—approach you seeking funds for the operations here at Remonstrans, please treat that appeal with the sort of suspicion you might reserve for an e-mail from Nigeria.

Remonstrans is not involved in any building projects or any expansion of present facilities. Our payroll is up-to-date and our utility companies view us as exemplary customers. So no matter how generous you might be feeling toward this blog, please don’t let it find any practical financial expression.

Thank you.


The Management

Dissidens

It is my understanding that your juvenile response has proven exactly what Observer means by the statement "the quality of that discussion is debatable" (do you really think Observer might be referring to sentence structure and punctuation?).

By focusing on what "specifically" is debatable about the “quality” of that discussion, you are ruining the quality of THIS discussion. Observer's intended meaning regarding the “quality” of the SharperIron discussion could also mean a number of things not included in your multiple-choice question, all of which seem more obvious than anything listed: that you may not agree with what is being said, that the discussion my go off on unnecessary tangents and digress to name-calling and sarcasm, or even that you may feel the discussion will not accomplish anything profitable.

But regardless of the quality, the quality was not the point being made. The statement was that the SharperIron discussion mentioned is not an example or "symptom of ‘Fundamentalist Culture’" that you claim it to be. The given reason for that statement was that the same type of discussion goes on within this blog. If you claim the SharperIron discussion is an example of “typical fundamentalist behavior,” then what is a discussion such as this an example of? The point being made (or at least presented) is that they are not much different. If you feel they are indeed different (and I have no doubt you do), then please elaborate on that point, and the discussion will continue moving forward and once again reach some level of profitability.

C'mon now, you are an extremely intelligent man. Read the comment, respond to the comment in context, and don’t change the subject. There is no need for you to play dumb for show or the innocent victim for sympathy. Give the readers of this blog at least some credit for being able to read through the comments and understand the interaction on their own . . . your distorted summary of reality is entirely unnecessary.

Andrew:

Thanks for trying to rescue Observer’s reputation here. That’s very generous of you. I won’t say noble but I will say generous.

I offered a list of seven things. All of the items on my list do reflect the sub-standard writing on SI and are possible reasons one might consider its contribution “debatable”, whether you like them or not. You (suspiciously) refer to only two of them, but Observer also had the option of f) something else altogether, and g) all of the above. They were further down the list and perhaps you missed them.

(But it was a short list, Andrew.)

Observer could have handled himself with integrity if he’d chosen to. He could also have stayed on topic and addressed the two other provocations mentioned: Bauder’s attempt at clarification and the tone of Doran’s response. Both of those postings kept smoldering fires alive and both were manifestly grist for the comments on SI.

Instead Observer inserted the entirely comical notion of “rights”. We were talking about the prudence of an action and he treated it as though it was their right to do something imprudent. And if he were truly solicitous of people’s rights, he would have immediately recognized my right to respond, prudently or imprudently.

No, he did not address the question, he deflected it. This also is a recognized tactic among Fundamentalists.

Observer chose to pretend he couldn’t or shouldn’t answer my question, and we all know why. There is no possible way to answer that question without dealing with the nature of fundamentalism, the character of its leaders, the method they use to “manage” debate, and the ensuing ruckus.

It is all well and good for you and Observer to pretend now that I was being sarcastic, but you should have played that card earlier in the hand. If I had responded sarcastically toward a sincere and candid answer, you’d have taken the trick.

Unfortunately, everyone has seen this game played before.

I have said this before but it’s been a while; maybe now is a good time to repeat it. Conversation is a good thing rational men do. When irrational men and scoundrels use conversation as war by other means, I believe they relieve us all of the pretense of an honest exchange of views.

If Observer wants to scold and intimidate people, he should register and comment on other blogs. There are many that enjoy that. If he wants to participate here, tell him that give and take is expected. I responded honestly to his questions and comments; the thing for him to do would be to respect mine.

Pass it on.

Dissidens

I am disappointed that you chose to try insulting my intelligence. First, I did read the entire list you gave, and I chose to highlight the two I felt were, again, insulting. Having knowledge is one thing: degrading others to demonstrate that knowledge displays a lack of character.

Second, I also am quite capable of reading the entire thread of comments on my own, so I was all caught up on how the conversation has played out thus far. Do not feel you have to convince me that you handled yourself with the "integrity" you dutifully noted Observer was lacking since I am neither your mother nor your judge. But I would be careful to claim (or even imply) that your ‘speech’ and use of argumentative “tactics” have thus far been above reproach.

I can agree with most everything that you stated regarding your interaction with Observer. I did not comment with a goal to support Observer and his reasoning or rescue his reputation. I do not think that Observer’s interaction with you has been above reproach, either, and I am disappointed by that. My interest lies in having a profitable and educational conversation to read and learn from. Otherwise, perusing these discussions becomes a disappointing waste of time.

I chose to address you instead of him because others were already jumping in to defend you and scold Observer for his wrong-doings. I also chose you to address because you made it quite clear in comment forty-nine that Observer was not the moderator and that you were part of “The Management.” I felt if someone had the power and ability to affect and uphold the quality of this discussion thread, it is you.

I am with you one hundred percent on your second-to-last full paragraph regarding conversation. That is what I am imploring you to get back to. I am not entirely interested in Observer’s definition of “quality” regarding the Fundamentalist discussion. I am interested in what you have to say and how you respond to his questions/accusations. If he chooses not to respond respectfully to your questions, then I guess this discussion is dead. Either way, I look forward to reading what you have to say both now and in the future.

Thank you

Observer wrote:
I'm surmising that you are relatively new to this blog, and that's fine.

You surmise incorrectly.

To answer your question: no, I am not his next-door neighbor or something.

Thanks for the clarification.

Spend some time reading the articles and comments from 2005-2010, and you will be able to see how I have come to the judgment that I have.

I don't care if you've managed to memorize every word that Dissidens has published on this site, you can't possibly know several of the things that you've asserted or insinuated about him -- unless, that is, you're in a position to have intimate knowledge of how he spends all of his time.

Do I know some personal information about dissidens? Yes.

OK.

But again, if you have spent any amount of time the last five years or so reading this blog and other places in the blogosphere, you would know some, as well.

The nature of his commenting style has no proper bearing on the accusation that he does nothing more than criticize and nit-pick. That's a baseless charge, absent other evidence. And you haven't demonstrated that you have such evidence.

Andrew:

Oh, wow. You don’t know how relieved I am to learn you’re not my mom. If she found out I was doing this…

But you raise some excellent points: a “profitable and educational conversation”. That could work, I guess.

I’m thinking I could hang some posters too. A map of the world, a picture of Albert Einstein, a periodic table of the elements, maybe a poster of the human body…

We could take this blog in a whole new direction!

(Maybe a little less sarcasm.)

I am not all that educated and stuff but was wondering if the actual name of this blog and it's primary (and often only) contributor, implying a reaction to something or a critique of something, somehow slipped the exceptional observational skills of Observer. I would expect something entirely different if the blog was called, "A frolick in the sunshine" by "Always Positive Perry". In a world (and an increasing christian world) that enjoys, dare I use phrase, "blowing smoke". I come here often to get yanked back down to earth with the smell of dust in my nostrils.

Looking at my comment in light of Dissidens' list I guess it's totally 'debateable'. My sincere apologies.

Confession time: I just skimmed the comments thread over at SI. I think I was just cheated out of an hour and a half of my life. Does anyone here know where I would report that on the 1040 form, or do I have to get a special dispensation from the IRS for soul drainage?

Dissidens teaches me lessons in patience and love. He still cares enough to critique the culture from which he emerged. In the flesh, I am tempted to ignore it. Prattling from people like Observer, and the endless Fundamentalist brawling, so often seems like a cell phone going off in a concert hall -- immensely annoying, but hardly worth paying attention to lest I miss what the musicians are trying to say. Dissidens actually goes to the trouble to address the problem.

Thanks, Dissidens.

Warren:

Welcome to the fray. Please don't let the Emergents frighten you; even great art has its grotesques.

lamentans:

Don’t ignore it to the point of masochism. Observer’s day is over; what will happen next?

Pianists, jugglers and soldiers train because they know there will be times when they cannot think, but more importantly, there are times when they do not think. Fundamentalists are doing what they trained themselves to do.

When this is all over there will be Christians who’ll have learned that the neither the Gospel nor separatism are adequate adhesives for the Church.

What will you tell them?

Here I thought the discussion was winding down.

Dissidens, you said: "In pursuit of that opinion he was asked in what way he considered that discussion 'debatable', and he refused to elaborate, citing the fact that he was not an SI Moderator."

While I did say that in my initial response, time after time I said that it was a red herring -- an attempt to get off topic and force me to explain in great detail a passing comment. I am not going to engage in that.

You are right: I am not a moderator here. But from time to time, you make comments about the "Fundamentalist culture" that strike me as extremely ironic. Why?

Because Dr. Bauder wrote an article; Dr. Doran responded to the article with a different viewpoint; people at SI are discussing both of those articles.

That is all that's going on. Somehow that typifies the "Fundamentalist culture" that you despise? I did not make a big deal about people's "right," other than to say that people can do these things and it not be part of some larger "Fundamentalist culture." See, you do the exact same thing here on Remonstrans, and I know that you would consider yourself as far from the "Fundamentalist culture" as possible.

My point in the last half of all of these comments was just that: that it is hypocritical for you to call this "reflex" the "Fundamentalist culture," while the exact same thing goes on at this site, if not worse.

To all: if dissidens' sarcasm in Comment 49 caused anyone to think that I have in any way sought funds or have attempted to pass myself off as part of "The Management," please note that I have in know way sought any funding, and I am not part of The Management. I occassionally comment here, and that is it.F

Dissidens:

Perhaps you have already written specifically about this, but if not, may I respectfully request a future essay elaborating on the Gospel not being an adequate adhesive for the Church? I for one could learn much by that.

Observer:

Yes, I know you told everyone it was a red herring so they would think it was unimportant and so you wouldn’t have to respond. I just didn’t find that accusation persuasive.

If you think all Bauder did was “write an article” and if you think all Doran did was “respond” and if you think all that resulted on SI is just a “discussion of both sides”, then perhaps we’ve come to a meeting of the minds. I think we can agree that perhaps this is after all the way fundies do business.

Tell me, that preposterous anti-calvinist tirade that Dan Sweatt (BJU grad) delivered at the Wilds, and Bauder’s (president of Central Seminary) subsequent publication of anonymous e-mails in support of his opposition to Fundamental Baptist Fellowship’s sponsorship, would you call that typical of Fundamentalist culture? Or was that a rare exception?

And I do want to thank you for confirming that you are not officially connected with Remonstrans; I think between us we’ve headed off any potential fraudulent activity.

It’s good we could work together on this.

lamentans:

I’ve made a note to myself. Let’s both pray I don’t lose the note.

If I do, please remind me.

Dissidens,

You said: "I think we can agree that perhaps this is after all the way fundies do business."

As I've said throughout this whole thread, that is exactly how you do business, as well. For Doran, Bauder, and the SI members, it's the "Fundamentalist culture." For you, it's an acceptable modus operandi.

That is hypocritical.

So you've said.

Have you given any thought to my question?

I'm still trying to understand how it's completely fine for you to comment on any happening among Fundamentalists or Emergents or anyone else. But the moment Fundamentalists comment on anything by anybody within Fundamentalism, it's the dreaded "Fundamentalist culture."

Any of your objective readers note this hyprocrisy and your double-standard.

I'll take that as a "No".

Heheheh, the objective ones.

No fair comparing fundamentalists to emergents.

Take it as you may, dissidens. Continue calling out people for doing the exact thing you do.

One final time: it's hypocritical.

So you said.

Observer:

I'm not trying to be uncharitable but I hasta ask: Did you read the discussion over at SI? How many of the people who responded, in your estimation, actually understood what they were responding to? It appeared to me that only a few of the resident Don Quixote types comprehended either what Bauder was actually saying or Doran's allergy to it, and the list of competent contributions dwindles as one adds more qualifiers. You can name yourself among them if you'd like, but is that discussion really what you want out of your Christian leadership?

Last I saw in the corresponding conversation over at SI, it had come to a matter of pride over having written a polka played nearly weekly on the organ in connection with some bus ministry. kraml

P.S. Bauder on Conservative Evangelicals: 2805 reads; Bauder on Propitiation: 604 reads. Almost five to one preference for prose over poetry among the SI readership. Hmmm . . . .

Well dissidens, you permitted Observer to take quite a jaunt around the perimeter of the yard today: prize between teeth, head held high, authoritative shake here and there to boot. Oh my! Look at that pile of unraveled thread--from the hem of the garment of fundamentalism itself, no less . . . .

kraml

P.S. Yes. Those with intelligence and, um, 'objectivity' behold said spectacle with full clarity.

Not the greatest moment in the history of Western Christianity, was it?

Let’s hope it can perhaps be instructive.

Love him or hate him, dissidens always makes one think.