Pensees: Syrupy Sentimentalism

“Puh-leeze” is sure to become one of the most used words on fundamental blogdom in the upcoming months. Personally, I think it is the most descriptive word in your entire post. Bob, you are simply too verbose—if I may, let me condense your entire article into a more concise effective argument:

Syrupy Sentimentalism

Puh-leeze!

The End.

With those two perfectly crafted syllables one could sum up your entire post.

By-the-way, I just wanted to go on record to say that I love my family AND I love the truth.

Bob,

Well said, again. I do understand why Jay loves his family- but you are right to make the challenges you do. You are being a good friend.

Jason has a suffering sister and a spiritually struggling brother-in-law who has gone in the wrong direction. It was refreshing for me to see Jason’s reaction in light of these circumstances.

Don’t minimize meekness and compassion by calling it “syrupy sentimentalism.” I’ve seen you pour out some “syrup” on controversial figures before.

Isn’t a little early in the situation with Joe Z to question Jason’s love for the Lord in comparison to love for His family?

You’re an awesome writer Bob and I love reading your blog. I was a little bothered that mistook my attempt at meekness as some simple type of “syrupy sentimentalism.”

No time to blog for a few days but I did want to share my heart.

Amen. I had the same type of thoughts when I first read the SI reaction. I’m seeing a bunch of guys who SEEM to care more about understanding the (at least potential) wolf than they do about protecting the sheep. Their response does not fit in line with the Scriptural reaction to this type of thing. When Paul pointed out these type of false teachers he just wrote things like “so and so left” and then he moved on. “Mark and avoid them.” “Alexander did me much evil . . .”

Regarding family issues along these lines—Amen to what you said. It is Biblical. Even the Lord Jesus let His own mother know publicly that she was wrong in her approach to him at the marriage in Cana of Galilee. Joe publicly ripped into what Jason is supposed to be standing for. Jason should defend his belief and practice. I don’t understand why he gave Joe a platform (SI) to spue his nonsense.

Guys,

Just so you know, Joe’s wife lost a baby she had been carrying today- would have been their fourth. He might be a little scarce around the blogosphere, so you might keep that in mind for the next few.

(Joe Roof, that is)

In defense of self .. I’m this guy …

One commenter gushed, “Great attitude!”

The intent was not “Syrupy Sentimentalism”. I don’t know Joe Z and frankly had never heard of him until yesterday (or was it the day before). I find his journey ‘flaky’ and disappointing. But Jason is my friend and I thought that his expressing love for his brother-in-law was commendable. I don’t think I gushed anything.

Jim

Greg,

Thanks. I knew about Joe Roof’s situation and we prayed for them at church tonight.

Bob,
Give me a break…and a phone call.

If he was your mommy, you might have bigger problems than the Emergents.

In Matthew 10, didn’t Jesus say something about hating family? Hate is not loved enough. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. We aren’t to get “love self” out of that. We already love self and we already love family. Do we love Jesus?

Bob,

I appreciate the leadership you’ve shown through this situation. As a young “young fundamentalist,” I’m sitting back not quite sure what to think and I believe you are right that this needs to leave the realm of the tabloid treatment and turn into serious discussion about serious ideas (not just people).

That said, I believe there is a reason why the SI thread has exploded with 22,000+ hits. The leaders of Fundamentalism are on trial. Maybe that’s not fair. But I believe the reason Joe Z’s accusations and generalisations have traction is that there are too many people who have experienced the things he’s talking about.

This is a crucial time for Fundamentalism in many young minds. They will take something away from this. Will it be the right thing?

Well, it sounds like Bob has two movies in mind, as well:

Throw Momma From the Train

Batman Begins (you execute the prisoner, we’ll trust you)

I believe the spotlight on this movement could be a blessing in disguise—I am sure I’m not the only person who has wondered what the EC was all about. I’ve finally taken some time to read up on it a bit.

Jason (non-Janz),

I would like to respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the boom at SI has to do with the leaders of fundamentalism being on trial over anything.

The traffic flow at SI is deceptive if only viewed numerically. I could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure that the view count is not unique visitors, so that means everytime you or I check to see what else has been said the number jumps. So that total number needs to be divided by some other number to get a sense of what kind of attention this is really garnering. The number of real people interested in this is a small fraction of the number of views.

And stopping by to read what is being said is much more like when the traffic on the freeway slows down because of an accident on the other side of the road—people just can’t seem to stop themselves from looking at the mayhem. What else could account for such interest in a discussion which is a non-discussion. Has anything substantive been said there? Not really. It garnered attention because it looked like there was going to be a big fight. What resulted was something like what happens at a baseball game—a bunch of people milling around acting like they are going to do something that might be interesting. (To Bob’s credit, he’s trying to pursue the hockey route where things always get interesting.)

I could be wrong, but I think this is all a tempest in a teapot. Joe Z has been at Willow Creek for months and loads of us knew it. He was not getting any attention about it, so he bombed everybody’s email to make some noise. SI gave him uninterpreted front page exposure, so the noise got louder and actually shifted away from Joe to the kind of non-sense that Bob points out.

This will sound unkind, but Joe Z was not influential in fundamentalism. That’s no slam against him, just reality. He wrote songs, taught classes, and did a couple of seminars at a few churches. He left NBBC without many people beside NBBC folks knowing. Interest in this story is like the interest that the mainstream media shows during a slow news cycle—it’s hot for the moment, then will pass and no one remembers (wasn’t the world going to end because of Avian flu?). The internet even increases the reality of this process (remember Howard Dean’s candidacy?).

Joe has succeeded in getting attention. Traffic has all slowed down to gawk, but Joe has offered nothing of substance to make serious minds think that Willow Creek and the Emergent Movement are attractive options.

What is sad, from my perspective, is that someone like Joe can make veiled accusations and sweeping generalizations about “fundamentalism’s leadership” (a true non-entity) and people give it any credibility. First, there is no official leadership team for fundamentalism. Second, that means that Joe’s arguments are directed specifically at one or two institutions of which he has been a part. (For one of those, he desperately wanted to continue in its employ, but was deemed to be replaceable.) So, if we are going to put anyone on trial, let it be the people that Joe is targeting. I, for one, am confident that any trial will vindicate them against his charges. But this isn’t about fundamentalism.

In a rare occurance, I actually agree with most of Dave’s comment.

However, if something like this tempest in a teapot can’t be about “fundamentalism” because there is no “official leadership team for fundamentalism”, then it also can’t be about the “Church Growth Movement” or the “Emergent Church” because they don’t have an official leadership team either.

Keith,

It is a rare occurence indeed.

I am not sure why, based on what you wrote, that you disagree with anything I said. The significance of my “leadership team” comment is that Jason said that the “leaders of Fundamentalism are on trial.” I did not say, nor do I think anyone else did, that the leaders of Willow Creek, the Church Growth Movement, or the Emerging Church Movement are on trial because of this Zichterman situation. I said that Joe has offered nothing that commends Willow Creek or the Emergent movement to serious minds (i.e., his arguments seem to be without much substance).

More to the point, I didn’t claim and don’t think it’s about Willow Creek or the Emergent movement either. I think it is about Joe Zichterman. And because of that, I think the attention is entirely overblown.

Bro. Doran,

I appreciate your response and agree with your comments generally. I understand that the hits are not unique but when comparing this thread to other controversial threads which from memory have gotten closer to 10,000 hits, this one seems to be getting a lot of attention.

You commented that you are saddened by the fact that people give these accusations and generalisations credibility. As I mentioned in the original comment, I think “the reason Joe Z’s accusations and generalisations have traction is that there are too many people who have experienced the things he’s talking about.” As much as we hate to see it and say it, it rings true to too many people.

I too am deeply saddened by this situation and am thankful for those who are taking a clear stand. I’m not bashing historic Fundamentalism. But there are segments of Fundamentalism that are what he has suggested… too many of them. I respect you and what you stand for and I respect the leadership at NBBC, but you and NBBC are not the norm unfortunately.

We know that what he’s saying may not be true about some of the people we think he’s saying it about, but he hasn’t told us who he’s saying it about and is saying it about the movement in general. This makes it harder to respond because, well, it seems what he’s saying is true of certain segments of the movement.

Dave,

I agree in the main with what you’re saying, but I would nuance it with this: the Zichterman story is important because, like it or not, lots of people knew him and now are wondering what in the world the Emergent Conversation is. Only a few years ago he was honored at BJU with an honorary. Now four years later it seems incongruous to suddenly say he was a nobody.

Those who know need to not blow it off, but look it square in the face and start answering tough questions about the CGM and Emergent. All over again.

But isn’t that what the teaching ministry is about? Re-visiting old truths in the face of new opposition?

If one group of fundamentalism treats it like a petty squabble where poor Joe got his toes stepped on by a mean ole Fundy and the other group tries to blow him off like he is totally insignificant (even though they called him “doctor”)neither are going to actually address the hard questions and both are going to confirm his credibility in the minds of doctrinal simpletons.

Janz, my friend. . .

You said that you have known of their direction for some time and you were waiting for them to go public before you said anything. You have had plenty of break, my friend. You were not surprised by this.

I’d be more than happy to converse on the phone, but if you are implying that I am somehow out of line for calling you to be more aggressive publicly, I don’t think so. You said publicly that you have known of their direction for some time.

You have said how you want to minister to pastors, be a leader of leaders. Well, I’m thinking that one thing leaders instinctively understand is timing. Those of us who know about the Emergent and CGM are the rare birds who like to read and study when there is no tabloid-ish provocation. But we also know — or should know — that most people in the pew are not going to give a hoot about these trends until the composer of their favorite song makes a big splash. And if we are not savvy enough and prepared enough to hit when the iron is hot lose a golden opportunity.

I was not accusing you of anything. I am merely being as public as my personal blog will allow and waiting for SharperIron to bring this question to the forefront.

And, by the way, I am not asking for my articles to be on your site. I said, “scholarly fundamentalist” and that clearly banishes me. (I’m saying that for the muddled thinkers that wrote me to say that I was trying to blackmail you into posting my article on your site!).

Janz, our friendship will ride this one out. But this doctrine cuts to the core of what fundamentalism is about and I believe you need to step up to the plate in the next few months and use the influence of your site to shed some light on the issues. I think it can be done in an academic way without probing into the particulars of Zichterman’s case. His personality needs to fade out quickly, but while the interest is there, the substance of the argument needs to be taught.

That’s my opinion.

I might be wrong on this, but I would say that Zichterman was fairly influential among “pew sitters” in churches of a particular branch of Fundamentalism because of 1. Songs he has written that are sung often (When I was in youth ministry, I could have sang “A Passion For Thee” every week if we’d taken requests), 2. The women’s magazine he and his wife published, and 3. The well-publicized health condition of his wife. In fact, I would suggest that because of these links to the more “common man,” he was very influential, because Fundamentalism is essentially a populist movement. He was certainly more immediately influential than theologians and pastors in Fundamentalism we may find to be significant. I would guess that more people in the last two congregations I have been a part of would know who Joe Zichterman was than would, say, Mark Minnick, John Vaughn, Dave Doran, Rolland McCune, and so on. I’m not saying that’s a good thing- just making an experiential observation.

Scratch “influential.” What I have said would be better expressed, perhaps, as “well-known,” “beloved,” or at least “conspicuous.”

Well said, Greg.

Jason,

Thanks for the kind reply. I still, however, disagree. I do not believe that merely because an accusation receives attention it is correct. The standard is not how many times people repeat something or how many people tune in to hear it repeated. If anything, the current state of our culture offers an abundance of counter evidence to this thinking—the sheer volume of false accusations that have become accepted simply because of repetition is staggering. All the interest reveals is curiousity, not accuracy.

And specifically connnected to the case at hand, how can we conclude that Joe’s statements are accruate at all if they are not accurate about the people and places where he has actually served? Consider the logic of this: Joe’s wrong about NBBC, but he’s right about the other places in fundamentalism (or at least some of them, though we aren’t quite sure where they are).

It seems well past time that we all learn to dismiss the kinds of accusations that Joe makes. If there is a problem within fundamentalism that needs to be addressed in light of all this, this is it—fundamentalism too often manifests the human tendency to accept the false caricatures of its opponents and itself.

Here are some sweeping general statements: (1) for every one power hungry, pervert pastor there are 50 faithfully serving Jesus Christ; and (2) for every abusive spiritual leader there are dozens of humble servants. Something sick in the human heart loves to hear and talk about the one rather than the fifty. That’s why the numbers at SI spike when Bob Gray-like stuff is posted.

Though I am no follower or fan of Young Fundamentalism, I hold even less affection for the Emergent Church.

For those fundy pastors/students secretly casting longing eyes at the E.C. with its bogus promises of freedom and unity, please, please do NOT make the jump. As an employee of Wheaton College, I am no expert at discernment, perhaps, but my position has offered me a unique point of observation. When the E.C. talks (through occasional cigar smoke and cussing) I don’t hear Christianity, I hear crypto-Buddhism. There aren’t many strains of Christianity from which I will separate, but their presence on campus for our Theology Conference a few weeks ago sent chills down my back. The disapproval leveled against them are not exaggerations. Here I am an outspoken critic. Their’s is a deliberate attack against conservative Christianity. Behind the coolness, the E.C. is rotten, and Joe Z. is playing with disease. I hope he’ll see that soon.

Ironically, one week ago today, Robert Webber, former BJU student and beloved former Wheaton professor, died. He was probably the first high-profile ex-fundy (if ever he was one to begin with) to make the break. In fact, in recent years he became a sort of grandfather to the E.C. movement. He left behind dozens of books explaining his passion for worship and reasoning for embracing liturgical worship. Following his publications, one can easily trace the trajectory of Bob Webber’s thought, whether you agree or not.

Joe Z.’s reasons are less clear. As a grownup, he can do whatever he likes; but I’ve got very close friends who’ve been deeply hurt by his actions. They’ve sung his songs and listened to him as he stood in their pulpits. He surely owes a more thorough explanation than the one he’s given.

Greg,

Doesn’t your clarifying post cut the nerve of the one it clarifies? Are we to equate celebrity with significance? Does singing a song written by someone translated into beloved or even well-known?

How many times in the SI thread did a commentor say something like “I don’t know Joe or anything about Joe, but…”? Quite a few. How many people have read anything by Joe other than the lyrics of a few songs? Or heard Joe speak?

To be clear, I do not have a problem with his departure being noted or his arguments being critiqued. But it seems as if he said nothing significant in his departure, and the announcement of his departure was intended to merely provoke publicity. The subsequent discussion ended up being filled with fuzzy statements about fundamentalism.

For further clarification, if any of the men that you listed were to depart from fundamentalism, then I hope that they would offer some substantive reasons why and that the ensuing discussion would focus on those reasons, not on whether they were hurt by someone and how fundamentalism hurts people. I am confident that those men would depart, if they did, over theological issues, not personal ones. And there departure should be discussed on those grounds too.

The fact of life is that I am afraid our entire sub-culture is self-deceived about our importance. At the end of the day, even our most well-known (and deservedly so) people are relatively unknown except to ourselves. And that’s not a bad thing.

Bob,

I think I understand your point about the Emerging and Church Growth issues, but it seems that you presuppose that folks are not already addressing these things. About every conference I have been to in the past few years deals with these things in some form or another. Some have even written on them.

I hope you’ll excuse my lack of confidence that getting an honorary doctorate means anything substantial at this point in time. Who even knows who gets what donated diginity from what donor these days? And who cares? A person’s immediate circle appreciates the recognition, but it doesn’t go beyond that anymore (and never should have).

I don’t believe that any of the schools ever viewed an honorary doctorate as conferring authority; it was a statement of appreciation and recognition for some contribution. It’s a elaborate expression of gratitude, nothing more. Unless someone announced it, I don’t think anyone would even know that Joe had an honorary degree. Nor would they care. And I don’t think the donors would have said he was now an authority on church growth (since I think it was a music degree).

Oh well, I am reminded again of what a hole the weblog world can be once you step into it. I am a short, fat guy, so I can’t get too deep or I will never get out. Here’s to climbing out and moving on.

Are we to equate celebrity with significance? Does singing a song written by someone translated into beloved or even well-known?

I’m not saying we should… but people do, whether they should or not, because they to some extent, at least, mirror the values of the world around them.

The fact of life is that I am afraid our entire sub-culture is self-deceived about our importance. At the end of the day, even our most well-known (and deservedly so) people are relatively unknown except to ourselves. And that’s not a bad thing.

To that I say a hearty Amen.

well, from a person in the pews, i hope S.I. or somebody around here does start talking about Emergent issues. i don’t go to pastors’ conferences, nor do i hear much about it. i was introduced to it when my husband learned about it in a seminary class. I guess i should pull out the D.A Carson book he read about it. But i think *dialog* (buzzword!) would be somewhat helpful. it’s all fuzzy and i couldn’t state clearly what is good or bad about ECM and the specific problems it has. So this is a teaching moment. many people are ready to be your students if you will blogon, blogon, blogon . . . .

Bob,

I’m in agreement with your concerns about Joe and his attachments to Emergent and CGM. I think you and the others are right on.

I’m not sure you’re right about not being willing to meet with him over coffee and a sandwich. I think there are three or four reasons such a meeting would be right (of course Joe would have to agree to such a meeting). I just wrote a beautiful paragraph on each reason….To much of my thinking for a Friday….Let me leave it like this for now.

Straight Ahead!

Joel

Dave,

Well, it looks like we don’t agree on the spelling of occurrence, but at least we’ve proven that the law of noncontradiction does not rule out both parties in a discussion being wrong — we can’t both be right but we can both be wrong!

Seriously, though, sorry about the less than clear writing in my previous post. I agree that nothing you wrote implied that you think that “Church Growth” or “Emergent” leadership is on trial in this Zichterman affair.

The reason I said that I agree with “most” of your comment was that I have no idea whether or not Zichterman was influential in fundamentalism. You say he wasn’t. Others say he was. I don’t know, so I can’t agree or disagree.

I suspect that it all depends on how you define “influential.” I’m sure you could stipulate a legitimate definition that would exclude Zichterman. However, I can also imagine that others could stipulate a legitimate definition that would include him — I mean, to be a teacher at Northland, to have been somebody at The Wilds, to be a composer/song-leader published by Patch the Pirate, and to have an honorary doctorate from BJU (no matter how worthless you find such doctorates) would likely fit the understanding of influential held by many a “fundamentalist in the pew.”

That said, what I wrote after “However” wasn’t really intended to refute something you wrote, but merely to add something.

In the little bit I’ve read about this occurrence, it seems that quite a few bloggers want to recognize the diversity within “fundamentalism” all the while implying that “CGM” and “Emerging/Emergent” lack similar diversity.

Also, it seems to me that quite a few fundamentalists are willing to put “evangelicalism” on trial whenever Billy Graham, or Rick Warren, or Bill Hybels, or some other big name evangelical, says or does something ridiculous. Well, if we can’t put “fundamentalism” on trial because it is not a unified institution and it lacks an official leadership team, then the same must hold true for “evangelicalism.”

Keith,

FWIW, my point somewhere on this blog today about the use of caricatures means that I don’t disagree with you as much as you might think. That is, I don’t believe it is proper to attribute the foibles of a few evangelicals to all of evangelicalism.

Where I probably differ is that the matters that are most often highlighted in the ministries of the men you list are indicative of the genius of the movement, whereas the items normally used against fundamentalism are not. Graham, Warren, and Hybels promote a certain theological and ministerial approach that issues forth in the things which are attacked. What seems lacking is proof that fundamentalism does likewise in the areas where it is attacked.

That said, I have no desire to claim that one side is flawless and the other not. That would be a fool’s errand.

Dave,

I’ve enjoyed your part in this discussion. I appreciated the ladder statement……feeling your pain my brother…..this is God’s ordained way of keeping us humble.

In the words of Calvin…..good luck with those Red-Wings……Bad luck with those Pistons…..Go Suns!

Joel

PS - One content comment….you were right on the mark about Joe’s accusations not being able to “stick” across the board to leadership of fundamentalism (as if fundamentalism as a whole and in the main is such and such) because (as you state) there is no such “official animal” as “the leadership” of fundamentalism. Of course we may think (sometimes with higher degrees of confidence)that we can find examples of the accusations Joe makes here and there (I believe the things said have been true….but I’m more concerned these days that they be absent from my own life and ministry than from others….true statement there) in fundamentalism…..I fear that Joe will find these same characteristics in other movements our brother may rotate through in the coming years.

This is exactly why our loyalty must be to our Lord and Biblical truth applied to an approach of ministry (healthy fundamentalism) instead of loyalty to a group (or individuals) in name of ministry (unhealthy fundamentalism, and other “ism’s”) or even loyalty to a reactionary group (as we are the “not fundamentalists”).

That’s enough…..Later!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Thanks for your thoughts Bob.

I’m surprised that the comment about women hasn’t received more attention.
“extremely suppressed” would not describe me or any other woman in fundamentalism I know.
Was his wife?

His leaving won’t rile up anyone in my circles. I don’t think he’s as influential as some think he was.

The magazine was short lived and let me say this as positively as I can. I did not spend my money on it.

C’mon, Bob. Fight fair. Have you even talked with Jason? Joe? Do the right thing before you do the write thing.

“That said, I believe there is a reason why the SI thread has exploded with 22,000+ hits. The leaders of Fundamentalism are on trial. Maybe that’s not fair. But I believe the reason Joe Z’s accusations and generalisations have traction is that there are too many people who have experienced the things he’s talking about.”

Boy, is that EVER true!!!
PH