Pensees: Shelton’s Fundyism “Blogged”

Bob,

As always, thank you. I understand what you are saying, and I largely agree with you. Fundamentalism has been built around control, not truth.

My questions (and we may have interacted on this before): Does not the mulitude of words diminish the value of them, or at least confuse what is legitimate and true? What of the warning of people heaping to themselves teachers (most bloggers, as you say, are attempting to influence = teach)? What of Paul’s warning of the Ephesians night and day with tears about false teachers and leaders?

These are concerns of mine that I wrestle with, attempting to find balance in my own ministry.

Press on.

— Kevin (a non-blogger to date)

Wow Bob, if this isn’t a shot that will be heard around the world, then I doubt some people will ever wake up. I remember having this conversation with you at breakfast a few months back. This post proves to me how your blog is your best transparency. I wish my Grandfather was still around to read this kind of stuff. He would have jumped in with both feet.

I also liked Kevin’s thought on his response that Fundyism has been built around control and not truth. That will touch a nerve that needs a good jolt.
Later guys. Have a great day!

While I’m sympathetic to much of Bob’s article, I’d be hesitant to criticize people who are themselves hesitant to blog with “transparency.” Consider these wise words:

“When words abound, transgression is inevitable,
but the one who restrains his words is wise.”

“The truly wise person restrains his words,
and the one who stays calm is discerning.
Even a fool who remains silent is considered wise,
and the one who holds his tongue is deemed discerning.”

“Do you see someone who is hasty in his words?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.”

-Proverbs 10:19; 17:27-28; 29:20 (NET)

Bob,

Two things,

Do you think Pait was saying that “all blogs are” is a reflection of perceptions? I haven’t seen the original quote, but from your quote, I wonder if you are accurately representing him. It seems to me entirely possible that Pait was not saying anything restrictive (“all blogs are is…”) but rather something affirmative (“blogs are a …” without commenting on what else they might be). I guess perhaps the bottom line here is that I didn’t see the “all” in his words, though I did it in yours.

Secondly, on the issue of “reflection of perception,” what else would a blog be? There is no option that I can think of. A blogger’s posts are the work of his own mind, how he perceives the world around him, and how he reflects on it. It is not always accurate. Sometimes it is; sometimes it is not. But is the reflection of how a blogger perceives something.

Even the topics about which one blogs tells us something of his perception of importance, or his perception of what his readers will find interesting.

Consider your own post: It is (apparently) your perception is that Pait said “all blogs are is a reflection of perception.” In which case, it seems you are confirming his point while trying to deny it. You perceive he said one thing. You may be right. But to quote the aforementioned Pait, “That perception is not always correct.”

Having said all that, I agree that there is a need for transparency in leadership, provided that it does not become prurient.

Larry,

I always appreciate your analytical thinking.

I didn’t deny that blogs are a “reflection of perceptions,” I denied that that is all they are. The general perception of the word perception is more connotative rather than denotative, and I think that the average person, including Pait, knows that. In other words, the word perception connotatively understood suggests that it is just the individual’s agenda-driven, likely-uninformed opinion that ought to be discarded or, at the most, listened to with discernment.

If Pait is using the word perception denotatively as you suggest is likely than his perception and everything uttered by the University in chapel and elsewhere is “perception” and should also be listeed to with discernment. Thus, his statement is practically meaningless because it is merely stating the obvious.

He should also see to it that the handbook for the University clearly state that everything the student hears is perception and that the school sincerely hopes they will listen with discernment.

In the end, however, you are right to say that I am analyzing his statement by how I perceive it. And you are also right to say that my perception may be wrong.

But — and I say this in a cheeky way — Pait is of the circles that often say perception is reality!

Bob, as wrong as you are about alcohol (and you are dead wrong — just being transparent here), you are on the right track here.

Two thoughts:
1) I still want to know why you’re such a fan of BJU. Other than your position on booze, you don’t have much in common with them. For goodness’ sake, transparency! I think they removed that word from every dictionary on their campus.

2) I agree with your general point, but I also think it would be good to think about and discuss the harm that slanderous “attack blogs” can do.

Just a quick thought or two.

I think that Pait might have been correct. Most blogs are worthless. As you read the pastoral epistles, you find Paul repeatedly discussing those who are focused on “Endless geneologies” and pointless stuff. The blogosphere does allow those people to run amuck. It would be my guess that only 1-2% of blogs are worth reading. (Might be a bit higher if you limit it to Christianity, but I doubt it.)

And given that there are people who canonize every action taken by the president of BJU, don’t you think that it might be wiser for the president to avoid making comments that people would equate with gospel? It might be the better part of valor to actively avoid encouraging this behavior (or at least making it more difficult).

As an aside, I read some blogs regularly and have my own blog, so I am in support of blogging generally.

One more aside: do you suppose that the authoritarian structure in Fundementalism has come from the battles of the 1920’s? Everyone went into combat mode and fought over the doctrines of the faith, which was a good thing. But when the battle died away, people failed to step away from the combat mode and continued to find battles to fight. They took the black/white reasoning to far and denied the existence of the greys. A result of poor reasoning skills (Christians must laern to think!!!!).

1. I agree with Larry’s discussion about “reflection of perception.” In fact, that is really what university education is - except there is a lot more perceiving that has occurred.

2. If a seminary professor claims to not “feel as if he had anything to say that was worth listening to,” then how in good conscience is he teaching?!

3. Thanks for saying this:

Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder have distinguished themselves as being willing to get in the ring and occasionally get bloodied.

4. Bob’s best point was in dealing with things that are objectively verifiable. The teachings of C.H.Spurgeon, for example. Anyone can write a blog and quote Spurgeon extensively. No way can the elite of our universities claim that such blogging is the “reflection of [an immature] perception.”

Thanks, Bob.

Proverbs 11:14
Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.

Actually, my view is that perception is a person’s interpretation of reality. There are things that are true. God’s Word is true. When we speak that Word in truth, then our interpretations match up with reality and our perceptions are correct. When we bring our bias to the speaking of that Word, then our interpretations can be faulty and our perceptions may be incorrect.

With the priviledge of having a platform comes an added responsibility to guard how we handle Truth - and truth. My statement about blogs was simply to make the point that when perception matches reality a blog can be very helpful. However, when perception is not in tune with reality, a blog can be very hurtful. BTW, this can also be true of mainstream media.

I don’t have a problem with blogs. I have dabbled in them myself (see stackofstuff.net and vespatude.com) for several years. So, I understand what motivates people to want to have their voice heard. However, I think it is a little much to say everyone must or even should have a blog.

As for me, as I have gotten older (and I’m only 39) and can find my name over 22,000 times on Google, I take the passage to heart that Andy points out above. Once words are out there… it is very hard to bring them back — both those you have said yourself and those that have been wrongly filtered through someone’s interpretation of reality.

Bob,

Great post and very timely words. Your exposure of the disdain that many hysteric fundamentalists have towards blogs shows their apparent fear that their dwindling following might just boot up their computer one day and actually take the time to read what many who were once of their ilk have to say.

I would love one day to anonymously publish the emails that I have received by dozens of people who have come out of hysteric/cultural fundamentalism. They sound nearly identical every time. Many, when given the chance to Scripturally and objectively look at what their movement stood for realized that they were part of nothing more than an imprisoned think tank that had forbidden the use of the mind or individual soul liberty (a Baptist distinctive by the way).

Again, good job and I hope you don’t mind if I link to this one over at our blog.

Mike Hess

I just want to clarify:

1. Neither Doran or Bauder have a blog. They just have a blog presence.

2. This is more important and germane to my point: I am not trying to argue that college presidents and leaders must have blogs. My point is simply this: it seems a bit disingenuous to denounce blogs while protecting their own sphere of influence in which they can speak at will without opposition. The college presidents, for example, don’t need blogs when they have a captive audience six days out of the week. That others may want to be heard is hardly a crime, nor should they be summarily dismissed simply because they haven’t inherited captive audiences.

No one is obliged to read any blog. My wife hardly reads my blog, for crying out loud.

3. I (anbd many other bloggers) are not whining and wailing for equal time. We don’t get it and we don’t care. But some of us feel that what we have to say ought to be heard by whoever is willing to hear.

4. I clearly dislike the slanderous blogs. They ought to be condemned just as all slander should be condemned. But Sproul and Ligonier learned the hard way that dealing with a slanderous blog can be a bit of a sticky situation and actualy come back to sting them. They are not fundies, but they made national news for trying to stifle the voice of a slanderous (from what I understand) blog. They failed to understand the destructive power of the blog. They would have been far better off not to draw national media attention to it by trying to drag the blogger off to court.

Jonathan Pait,

Thank you for commenting. I do not think that I am insisting that everyone should have a blog. My point is simply this: if they want to they have just as much right to it as the next guy.

Obviously, I concur with all of the comments above, yours included, that we are accountable for our words and that we have to be responsible with the power of dissemination that the blog gives to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. That’s obvious.

And, just as you would urge your students to read my blog with discernment, I urge my young people to attend your school with discernment. I don’t have a problem with that.

Once again, the beauty of the blog is that it provides opportunity for counterpoint and defense. That is why I leave my comments open. I often get balanced out.

Thanks.

One observation about a college president and blogging: It might be that a diligent college president doesn’t feel that he has the time to blog. Of course, it might not necessarily be bad if he did, but the lack of time might keep him from it.

You know, it would be interesting if SotL started a blog and allowed comments. How many comments do you think this recent publication might have gotten?

In general, I think it isn’t very hard to make it clear that one’s ideas (on his blog or anywhere) are not supposed to substitute for truth. Some of the most brilliant and spiritually mature people I know are the least dogmatic (of course, when they are dogmatic, it is because they have thought the issue out well). They are also among the most helpful to those who would think through things well.

The haste of blogging is both good and bad. The chief earmark of a cult is the willingness to accept extra-biblical revelation and assign to it supernatural or at least extra-ordinary authority. It matters not what cult or sect is called into question. Though cults often have other residual traits or tendencies, they all embrace the above assumption. Someone or some group has the exclusive “in” and official channel for that which the true believer must yield. That earmark also applies to all religions, but other religions are not the scope of this comment. I concern myself with the Christian wannabes. Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, and Seventh Day Adventists openly acknowledge their exclusive avenues of departure from orthodoxy. The Waco Wackos and Guyana People’s Church both fit into that pattern, but have both self imploded into fringe obscurity. My chief concern for us as Fundamentalists is none of the above.
My heart bristles and rebels against our willingness to elevate an historical era, or group, or personalities above the Authority of Scripture. Our willingness to catapult some interpreters into celestial realm and vilify all who would contradict their viewpoints is to subtlely, covertly, and insidiously embrace the cultic mentality. To quote Augustine, or Calvin, or Erasmus, or the Elzevir Brothers, or Wesley, or Spurgeon, or Bob Jones, or Hyles, or Ruckman, or Gothard, or MacArthur, or Horton, or Waite, or any other human brother on the same level as Scripture is to succumb to cultism. We are people of the Book. Our standards are measured by the Book. Our theology emerges from the Book. Our authority rests with an accurate exegesis of the Book. That Book was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek. To elevate any human translation of the Book above the Book is to embrace the cultic mentality.
A true Bible scholar recognizes the underlying work that must be applied to the discovery of Truth. Though we stand on the shoulders of others, we recogize that the shoulders upon which we stand are frail as are we. Their humanity is the same as ours. Their tendency toward prejudice is no less than our own. But the Book upon which they stand is the same as the Book upon which we stand. If their accuracy is flawed, it is flawed because they took their eyes off of the Book. If ours is flawed, it is for the same reason. We, like sheep, follow our shepherds. But we, the shepherds, must drink deeply from the Book. Taking our eyes off of the Book and glancing sideways at the shepherds, we are tempted to fudge and expand our umbrellas of orthodoxy to include bizarre proprietary interpretations. We do not have this authority. When we choose to revere the shepherds above the Book, we willingly set ourselves up to embrace the cultic mentality.
Transparency is good. Verbosity is self-serving. Reservation of opinion is cautious. But eventually, an answer must come forth.

In a similar fashion that I strive to listen intently to all that our “church folks” have to say—either regulars or visitors, I believe the leaders of churches and educational institutions would do well to pay attention to bloggers.

Does everyone always edify me with what they tell me on Sunday morning in the hallway? No, but I need to listen, because amidst some of their conversations will be paradigm-shifting info for me—stuff I might not garner otherwise.

When I compare what they tell me with my sense of common sense, with Scripture, with leadership principles, I often find truths which help me see things from the other side of the room—you know, that other side for which I previously (possibly) had such disdain. Blogs might help us as leaders to hear better…but it will take work to filter out the flotsam and jetsam…

Thanks for the post Bob—I have some issues with it, but they would be flotsam and jetsam in your ears as far as importance… :D

A centerpiece post.

It is interesting, as you point out, that people who make a living speaking in public encourage others to not speak out. I remember a lot of crazy things that have been said in pulpits that people probably wish no one remembered that they said. The blog may be more permanent but words in any medium are hard to recall once one has formed them. We all, whether preaching, “PR-ing,” or blogging need to remember that we will give account for every idle word!
Bob, thanks for another great article. Keep up the good work.

In Him,
Jon

Are Bauder and Doran still around that much on the blogosphere? I would love to know their haunts. I occasionally see a mysterious “Dave” on the blogosphere: sometimes it seems to be Doran, other times I can’t tell.

I had concluded—from my unscientific observations—that both of them had pulled back their online involvement since the early days of the fundamentalist blogsphere. I’m on a super-slow connection right now, and can’t do any research to support this. I think their SI comments, at least, would support this. I concluded that even these men who apparently value online discussion and are agile enough to thrive had reached a threshold in their participation.

As I understand it, Doran does show up once in a while in the comments at certain blogs. He’s not a big fan of psychologized concepts like “authenticity” and “transparency” but he does try to keep it real by just using his given name.

Here’s why I like blogs.

Iron sharpens iron, but what’s a person to do if he lives in a place where there are few who can/want to carry on a discourse on topics of interest?

That’s my situation - so I read (and sometimes respond to blogs kind of like I used to participate in conversations with others while in school. In school, there was no shortage of people with whom I could discuss topics like dispensationalism or Bible translations, or … whatever. In my current situation, I’d have to drive 50 miles to find a single person who wanted to discuss those topics with me.

I like blogs because they allow me to have “conversations” on topics “of interest to me” with people who are not in the same “physical location” as me. I don’t give the opinions/statements made in blogs carte blanche acceptance, anymore than I would accept at face value what my college roommates said 15 years ago. Obviously, you must read with discernment, just as - yes - you must even assess with discernment what you hear in sermons (and casual conversations). Frankly, I don’t see a lot of difference: blogs contain written statements that must be evaluated in light of Truth; sermons contain oral statements that must similarly be evaluated.

Here’s why I like blogs.

Iron sharpens iron, but what’s a person to do if he lives in a place where there are few who can/want to carry on a discourse on topics of interest?

That’s my situation - so I read (and sometimes respond to blogs kind of like I used to participate in conversations with others while in school. In school, there was no shortage of people with whom I could discuss topics like dispensationalism or Bible translations, or … whatever. In my current situation, I’d have to drive 50 miles to find a single person who wanted to discuss those topics with me.

I like blogs because they allow me to have “conversations” on topics “of interest to me” with people who are not in the same “physical location” as me. I don’t give the opinions/statements made in blogs carte blanche acceptance, anymore than I would accept at face value what my college roommates said 15 years ago. Obviously, you must read with discernment, just as - yes - you must even assess with discernment what you hear in sermons (and casual conversations). Frankly, I don’t see a lot of difference: blogs contain written statements that must be evaluated in light of Truth; sermons contain oral statements that must similarly be evaluated.