Dave Doran decides to enter the discussion.
*Yes, I’ve removed my original post about Dave’s article.
No, my feelings have not changed about it.
Yes, I was angry.
No, I am not yet persuaded that my anger was not righteous.
Yes, I know that I am a too-oft self-deluded sinner.
No, I do not have any concern whether or not the leadership within fundamentalism was offended by me.
Yes, my strongest feeling of anxiety this morning is that my outburst could possibly hurt the cause of the weak, the victims. It is that anxiety alone that compels me to withdraw my opinion about Dave’s piece at this moment.
No, I do not know how to influence the leadership within BJU fundamentalism if you are not one of the boys. Tears don’t work. Truth won’t work. Petitions don’t work. Angry posts won’t work.
Yes, I believe Dave is a very useful servant of my King Jesus.
No, I do not think he is truly an independent thinker who will open his eyes to the real heart of the matter that makes thousands of non-signees wonder what leaders within BJU fundamentalism are actually going to PUBLICLY challenge Bob Jones.
Yes, I have no doubt that there are private appeals taking place, but every effort is given to show solidarity within a movement that is, as they say, not a movement and that is why you don’t see public denunciations of stupid choices from within the coterie of Bob Jones, NIU, DBTS, and affiliates unless it is Bob Jones rebuking one of them.
I apologize to all of you who are frustrated with the leadership, who love people within the movement as I do, and who do not hate its institutions. You are the ones that I care about for I am one of you. I do not apologize to the leadership of these places.
*I will heavily monitor comments on this post and not allow any that pile on Dave. I’ll reserve the right to bash on Dave on my blog to me. Also, I’ll reserve the right to decide who gets to bash on me on my blog. I usually don’t mind letting you people say your thing, but I don’t have the time to read/defend myself or Dave this week. So there.
Filed under: Uncategorized
All right, I’ll bite. I’m don’t know all the facts about the Chuck Phelps/Tina Anderson situation. It seems like a mess. Still, on the broader issue of petitions maybe there’s some room for scrutiny? First, the direct effect of petitions is dubious. They work best at changing the nature of an argument from what’s right to what’s popular. This is not awesome. In turn it creates a coarsening effect on a discussion. Rather than permit a person to speak out articulately (as you have done on your blog) they serve to submerge a person’s nuanced position in a mass of names and change the question from something analytical to something impressionistic. By analytical I mean something like, “McDonalds offers tasty food at reasonable prices.” By impressionistic I mean something like, “I’m loving it.”
Additionally, petitions benefit less from reasoned people (you have to spend time qualifying your signature and what it doesn’t mean) and more from people who love to self-brand (signing-thus-and-so-makes-me-thus-and-such-type-of-person). Public discourse is harmed when a pursuit of truth becomes a pursuit of fashion. Also, I hope I don’t have to say it, but it is possible to criticize the problems of petitions without supporting sexual abuse.
Zach,
I basically agree. But you say,
“They work best at changing the nature of an argument from what’s right to what’s popular.”
However, sometimes petitions prove that the popular argument is what’s right. I signed the petition even though I knew it would have dubious effect to say that I identify with the rightness of the argument.
It’s not helpful to be arguing about process when the position is the matter to be debated. Most of us are not so irrational that we think that one cannot criticize the problems of petitions without supporting sexual abuse. Should we criticize Dave or Bob Jones or me for using the internet to disseminate our views? Or should we actually grapple with the views?
What if Bob Jones University takes a stand for the deity of Christ by means of drama and suddenly liberals are attacking them for their faith? Is it noble of reformed Christians who don’t like drama to suddenly enter the conversation with an analysis of the inappropriateness of drama? One could sense right away that those Christians were finding a way to pile on Bob Jones University without actually doing it. Slick.
Sincere people see what the heart of the argument.
To haggle over the online petition is splitting hairs when cyberspace is essentially a bulletin board upon which every person and their brother can write whatever they want whether it’s on an petition site or not. Google makes it possible to see if something’s popular.
I signed the petition because I’m tired of those people being dismissed when they actually have real issues. I identified with homosexuals and ideologues of all kinds on one common sense point. If the argument is right, it’s nature cannot be changed just because it is now popular.
<>
And also sometimes leaders can fear what various constituencies will think about their actions, and act accordingly. As much as we like to think that all decisions are made because of “what’s right,” they just aren’t. I don’t think that’s always a bad thing. Leaders of BJU or any other organization or church should carefully weigh how their decisions will come across, not simply “what’s right.” Stated another way, “what appears right” is at least a component of “what’s right.”
Therefore, one effect of a good petition is to show leaders how many people there are that would support them if they chose to do the right thing. I think that has an impression, and could create a boldness for action that might not otherwise be there. This is where some of the tone in various petitions can get it wrong. In my mind the tone of an effective petition should be something like “I’m a supporter. I support you doing the right thing in these following ways and for these following reasons.” This is missing in most petitions, but that doesn’t mean it always has to be.
Yo Bob:
Would love to have seen the original post
. I sense your angst and have been the recipient of some barbs and snipes from those in the blogosphere (some probably deserved). When we returned from over a decade overseas in 1999 one of the few things that kept me connected to the non-movement movement was a church that was a bit of an anomaly and where I could survive if not thrive. Once I was no longer there and became involved in domestic church planting I discovered how unfit I was or was considered unfit for IFBdom. While I have many friends in the non-movement movement I have no regrets that I am no longer in it (especially when stuff like this surfaces). Life and ministry go on. I appreciate your faithfulness over the years and wish you the best in your service for the Lord.
Steve Davis
Bob,
Is there such a thing as “righteous indignation”? Unquestionably.
Is there such a thing as unrighteous anger? Unquestionably.
Is there such a thing as a mixture of righteous indignation and unrighteous anger? Undoubtedly.
Has anyone but Christ exercised 100% righteous anger with no mixture of sin? Doubtful.
Love of truth and righteousness should make us angry at sin and willing to deal with it.
Knowledge of our own sinfulness should make us careful that our actions are righteous, and not sinful.
It’s not easy to be Christlike, but that’s our goal and earnest desire.
May God grant much grace and wisdom to serve the cause of Christ faithfully and well.
Warm regards,
Greg
I get Dave’s skepticism, and tend to share some of it, but maybe for different reasons. Don’t get me wrong–I don’t think the gathering signatures thing is inherently a bad idea. I’ve heard all the arguments; they were all sent to me by thoughtful people while I was encouragine people to sign the open letter to BJU regarding racial policies. And I believed then, as I do now, that that open letter was used by God (even though I’ll probably never know exactly how).
But I haven’t signed this petition. Not yet anyway. I’m squeemish about it. In no particular order: I don’t like that it’s called a “petition.” BJU is not the kind of institution that hears “petitions.” Petitions succeed or they fail, depending on whether their recipients do what is requested. “Letters,” on the other hand, are meant to communicate. Even if the recipient does nothing, the idea has been communicated, and the letter accomplished its purpose. It’s a subtle difference, but it matters to me. I also don’t like that it seems to try to copy what the racial policy letter did, as though that whole series of events indicated that any time we want the university to do something, we just start a petition. I don’t think that works. Different issue, different times, different history. And, as you’ve already said, I don’t want to get my voice tied up with those bent on destruction at all costs. I do not believe that anything that comes within 100 feet of that crowd will even make it out of the envelope on campus. And rightly so.
So what’s the alternative? I don’t know. Maybe I’ll change my mind. You certainly made me think about it.
I don’t have a twitter account but I thought I would answer your question, though I realize it may have been rhetorical. Yes, there is a piece as beautiful as Faure’s Requiem. Try the Requiem by Maurice Durufle. The best recording is Robert Shaw and the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus on the Telarc label.
What upsets me is that David Doran said this regarding his blog post on facebook: “My blog post had nothing to do with the details of the Phelps/BJU situation.”
So when David said this: “I can’t understand how trying to destroy the reputation of a person or organization ever qualifies as a display of love or as an effort to seek restoration” he was not talking about people that signed the Phelps/BJU petition.
Which if he indeed was not talking about the Phelps/BJU situation then what’s the point of his whole blog post? He is basically saying bad petitions are not good. That’s like saying sin is bad so we shouldn’t sin and then call it a day. There is really no benefit in being so vague.
There are at least three other petitions that I know of circling the web right now calling for the heads of religious organizations, or demanding change within those organizations. Doran notes as much in his most recent post. Although the Phelps petition is the most notable, it is most certainly not an isolated incident. He’s addressing what he sees as an observable epidemic.
Even if Dr. Doran is talking about other petitions his argument still falls apart by itself.
“I can’t understand how trying to destroy the reputation of a person or organization ever qualifies as a display of love or as an effort to seek restoration. Now, I will grant that some petitions may not do this, but it seems like the online kind inevitably flow in this direction”
Dr. Doran’s argument falls apart because he is saying that most petitions (and we don’t know which petitions he is referring too) inevitably goes to the direction of destroying someone’s reputation. That statement is plain false. And It’s a scaring tactic to keep people awat from signing petitions because if you do sign a petition you are, according to Doran, helping to destroy the reputation of a person and/or organization.
Doran ends with a good admonishment though:
“So what should we do instead? Speak the truth in love. Challenge disobedience and foolishness with biblical truth. If the person or institution heeds, praise God. If the person or institution refuses, then walk away”
I agree with everything in that statement except for the walking away part. I don’t walk away from truth. I will always try to put truth in front of me and I am not going to back down unless someone else corrects me with truth.
Sometimes there needs to be pressure. Granted changes that will be made because of pressure aren’t always changes from the heart but at least it gets rid of observable faults that are on the outside.
I’m clueless. How many of those three other petitions are related to the Tina Anderson rape case, and how many are related to the BJU wing of fundamentalism?
“at least it gets rid of observable faults that are on the outside”
Yikes.
I completely agree with the Yikes part. I agree with you and Dr. Doran that we want to see the heart change and not just the externals.
It gets a little iffy with a business because a business does not have a heart per se. That’s why I rather see an organization change their rule/position than make no change at all even if the “heart” is not in it.
Hopefully that clarifies my statement a little bit for you
The internet is the great leveler. Some people don’t like that. Life was easier in fundamentalism when the only person with a microphone was the approved leader. Voice and power are closely related. You can’t wield power without being heard. Now more people are being heard. It gives them greater power. I am not threatened by that. But then again, I would be one without much power in a previous day.
The problem with the old days was that a lot of really bad stuff happened for years and years, decades and decades, even centuries, without ever being addressed by the guys with power. The occasional Martin Luther came along, nailing his theses to the door. But for the most part, women were oppressed, slaves were forced into labor, the poor were cast out, and children were abused.
I see current technology as a gift from God with which He is purifying His church at amazing speed. The accountability of the internet is amazing. Ernie Willis would not be in prison today if not for the community of the powerless, formerly without voice, that found each other online. The fact that over a year later Pastor Phelps still hasn’t spoken to Tina Anderson privately and that BJU didn’t attempt to either just reinforces my first paragraph of old school leaders’ views of power and voice.
But internet or no, petitions or not, this is really and truly about the GOSPEL. The gospel isn’t a buzz word. It has serious meaning here. If I give, as Bob did in his first post on the petition, every benefit of the doubt possible to Pastor Phelps, he STILL needs to seek out Tina privately and make things right with her. The gospel freely calls him to do that. There is forgiveness and freedom in facing our failures head on, humbling ourselves, and choosing the scary path over self defense. Stop circling the wagons. Jesus has already won the battle. Just go to her and make this right.
Wendy, you sum up this whole matter very well.
Wendy, I agree with you except for one part. Chuck Phelps needs to go to Tina and apologize and he needs to apologize publicly. His opportunity for private apologies only is past. His continued promotion of his own website where he stubbornly still states that he has nothing to make right and where he continues to call Tina Anderson a liar is a public site. So while I do think he owes her a private apology, he also owes her and the Church universal an apology.
Yes. You are right, Eric.
E,
The sillness of your gravatar undermines your point.
:^)
D,
No, I think it lends credence to it. I’m in my Monty Python trial getup. “If she weighs less than a duck . . . “
Ha!
Jesus threw tables around the temple when he demanded change. Signing a petition is just a bit less violent. Really, Jesus doesn’t have an issue with petitions but self righteous preachers who are covering for others do.
In my humble opinion, righteous anger is a misnomer. It’s never used in Scripture. If anyone is interested in an exposition of it, here’s a link to a discussion on my blog. I hope that’s not bad form.
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2011/02/misnomer-righteous-anger.html
The bottom line is that it’s good to be angry at sin. It’s bad to act out in anger (“the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” James 1:20). Instead, take the anger to God and allow Him to transform it into something He can use–resolve for victims, clearly speaking out against sin/abuse, thoughtful confrontation of individuals, or whatever He leads you to do.
And please note, this is not meant to criticize or indict anyone in this comment thread. It’s just that the same reasoning, which is not Scriptural (Jesus turning over the tables in the temple as an example to us) is given by some pretty powerful guys in my history for doing/saying some pretty mean things to individuals in their churches. I won’t say who exactly, but they are in Seattle and Bob occasionally talks about them. I wrote the article on righteous anger after thinking through his Biblical reasoning (or lack thereof).
Gee, if Chuck Phelps would have done the right thing at any point until the ipetition was created, it would have been unnecessary for people to speak up and sign it. He had plenty of opportunities over the past several years to correct his “mishandling” of the Anderson situation.
Dave is correct on this point: “Bringing external pressure to bear in order to force an outcome does not address heart issues. It does not bring real change, only conformity.’
From what we can determine, Chuck Phelps’ heart didn’t change. He didn’t apologize. From what we determine, BJU’s heart did not change. They didn’t step up and say that they made a mistake. The board conformed and reluctantly accepted his resignation. If it were up to BJU, Phelps would still be on the Board.
In actuality though, the petition did not force any change at BJU whatsoever. Both BJU and Phelps could have ignored it and wrote it off as just a bunch of nonsense.
Bob,
So glad to see Pensees back up and running. I wish they were under more pleasent circumstances but you are blogging about things that Fundamentalists have been largely silent on. Thank you for taking the stand that you have and not caring what the “network” thinks. Keep up the good work.
Grace,
Matthew Richards
Are comments closed on your post about why women stay with men who abuse them and their children?
Bob,
Moderating comments will hurt Pensees.
Sometimes we bite off more than we can chew. I understand that reading/responding requires a huge investment of time. But is that care and attention that has made this blog a resource I return to often and recommend to others.
Terry