SI is the townhall of a small fundamentalist village. In my opinion, it is foolish of the uppercrust aristocracy of the establishment to ignore the fact that there is a townhall, a crowd has gathered, and it is going to make a difference.
I have argued that Fundamentalism has become denominationalized in previous articles. The purging of that unhealthy element will take some time and I am personally digging in for the long haul. I have already written sequels to the aforelinked article and will one day post them if I think they will be helpful, but since then interesting things have been happening with the emergence of Sharperiron. This is a good thing, IMO, and I am personally thrilled by most of what I see. The noise from the townhall is shaking things up.
I am also concerned. I hope that you are aware of the fact that some of the people who post often on SI are not fundamentalists. Many are spiritually immature. Some even have a barely disguised determination to undermine fundamentalism. If you are from my congregation, I would like you to be alert to this. It is interesting to me that, in some cases, the non-fundamentalists lead in the number of posts. It is interesting that a certain “walsup” has more posts than almost anyone else and she is clearly not a fundamentalist in her perspective. The same could be said of the posts of a “DGus” (although it is my understanding that he no longer posts). He racked up some 200 posts before he wandered off. SI also allows the questionable (IMO) ethic of certain anonymous posters who are in strong “old-style” fundamentalist institutions yet almost consistently take on “progressive” or “critical” or outright “non-fundamentalist” positions. This is the achilles heel of SI. (If any of those type read this, I would remind them that “Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully” – Jer. 48:20).
The articles on the blog side of SI are valuable. Read them. The value of the forum is still up in the air as far as I am concerned, although I have posted my share of comments. Among commenters there are a number of insightful people.
The best comment contributions to SI, IMO, are from pastors or men in pastoral ministry. Joel Tetreau, NeoFundy, Chris Anderson, Brian McCrorie, Scott Aniol to name only a few. On the issues surrounding fundamentalism, you should pay attention to Anderson, Tetreau, NeoFundy, MBFPastor, and the like. I’d encourage you to read anything that Chris Anderson writes. Even though he will sometimes “take it to me,” I am personally impressed by his insight. In reading him on other subjects, I sometimes wonder if we aren’t blood brothers. Having said that, I don’t agree with him on a number of issues.
Chris Anderson’s most recent article on Fundamentalism was a good read. I chose to stay out of the fray this time and I was personally embarrassed by the response of some of the so-called young fundamentalists to Anderson’s article. Their knee-jerk reactions seemed (to me anyway) to enforce Anderson’s criticism. Let me be clear that is not the case for all of the responders who disagreed. Some brought up legitimate problems, and there were legitmate problems. I have been forging a response to that article and will save some of my more pithy comments for that post, but today an article appeared on SI that really impressed me. As I read it I wondered who it was and about fell out of my swivel chair to see it had been composed by a lad. His response to Chris Anderson (who he respectfully addressed as “Pastor Anderson” consistently throughout the article) was reasoned and thoughtful. I am going to sit back and watch the fireworks for now. I wonder if the boy will be blown off as an upstart that is too smart for his britches, or if he will get the respect he deserves. I’m not sure I fully agree with Buchanan either. In fact, Anderson’s six criticisms were legitimate, though perhaps a little off the mark.
The townhall is in session.
Filed under: Fundamentalism |