August 24, 2007
Dissidens is Shimei
I am very amused by the fact that one who rants incessantly about the decline of culture and derides all his opponents, particularly those within fundamentalism, as boorish sciolists, provides for his adoring bootlickers a sophisticated and cultured retort to “Dave” (who I surmise to be a seminary president of no mean intelligence) with these cultured words:
Remonstrans regrets that it is not in a position to provide a bucket for you to barf into upon reading that last comment.
Impressive. Particularly when the Guru himself pompously huffs and puffs scorn on anyone who disagrees with him on anything with words such as these:
Now they speak to us of culture. Uncultivated rustics whose knowledge of arts and letters is partial and recent, the smell of the farm still in their clothing, hold forth on matters of meaning and manners.
I can’t wait until I mature to the point that I can say “provide a bucket for you to barf into” in a retort to a serious response, albeit possibly wrong, without feeling the squeamish compunctions of basic Christianity. Dissidens holds forth on meanings and manners, no doubt, but there’s an odor, a bad one, all over him. Perhaps that’s why he is such an effective critic. It takes one to know one. His blog is one non-stop jeremiad on the disgrace of the Church of Jesus Christ, especially that part of the Body called “fundamentalism.”
My own theory as to why he attacks fundamentalism the most is because he, unlike his fawning admirers, really knows that the best of the Body of Christ has been evidenced in fundamentalism in spite of all its brokenness. He seems to admire David Wells, but even Wells has admitted that in the end fundamentalism may get the last laugh. Yet, Dissidens is not as much about healing as he is about sickness. What does it matter if an eloquent genius can describe with perfect elocution the goriest details of a bleeding sore while never so much as suggesting a balm? His usefulness is suddenly eclipsed when the barefoot and pregnant mommy with the ninth-grade education tenderly applies an ointment even though she cannot even pronounce the name on the tube or recognize a boil from pimple.
Some have observed already (and I think they’re right) that the ugly side of fundamentalism can best be seen by these ex-fundamentalist who have quite nicely purged from themselves the ignorance, the inarticulateness, the sentimentalism, and politics of the dark side of fundamentalism. Nothing is left really. They’ve purged it all out except for the pontificating and preening attitude of holier-than-thou isolationism, the legacy of fundamentalism’s dark side. The irrelevant side of fundamentalism. Thus, if you are really interested in an undiluted distillation of fundamentalism’s ugliness and the reason for much of its irrelevance, read Dissidens.
Dissidens has no solutions worth listening to, but reading him can be profitable for the few of us who really care. He and his band remind me that there are no solutions that are extra-biblical. And, while he certainly has little to say as far as answers, he raises a lot of good questions by his snarky criticisms.
I think that his attacks may be helpful. But he is a Shimei. And he ought to be regarded as such. As a Shimei he has demonstrated little if any real love for the Body of Christ and is proving himself great at throwing dirt while screeching invectives. But he and his ilk are never God’s chosen for leadership. It’s the ones who let him live to hurl his insults that are the chosen ones.
When you read Remonstrans, your intelligence will sometimes be insulted. It’s a pain to read through the slurp of sycophants. They’ll comment every time. But he and his boy-band of clod-tossers actually seem to be helplessly caught up in a fantasy that they are daring knights defending the honor of Queen Veritas when in actuality, like Shimei, they have happened upon one lonely truth that dignified and longsuffering servants of God are humble enough to be reminded of: God’s Chosen is hurting.
God’s Chosen is hurting. I concur. But that’s all they can say. And, frankly, it is a statement of the obvious. Shimeis, I think, enjoy stating the obvious when they know the obvious is what is painful. Shimeis instinctively know when a king is down and out. And maybe even why. They are probably accurate in many of their charges and may even have a reassuring sense that they are the voice of God. But they are only the voice temporarily. They’ll be banished at the restoration. I have no doubt that if God were to grant His Church another Awakening the Shimeis will miss it. They are so enchanted with the sound of their own curses that they have forgotten that blessings are actually better. They will have a serious case of older-brother-ism when the prodigal finally does come home.
They are so enamored with the sense of being right and the fact that God is making His servants listen that they don’t realize that they are merely pawns in the hands of a God who is not nearly as angry as He is gracious. They know that leaders listen to them. Or at least let them live to talk. But Shimeis are too stupid to realize that though they have the upper-hand in the king’s humiliation and have been granted blathering rights, they are on the wrong side. Poor idiots. They’re hypnotized by their one-note dirge.
What Shimeis do not realize is that kings listen to them because kings are kings, not ranting mudslingers whose only aspiration in life is to besmirch men better than they. Kings are great men with great loves; and they love God most. Thus when even a self-infatuated Shimei accuses him of failing his God, a king listens. But what the fulminating Shimei clearly does not understand is that the king is actually hearing more than just the words of the cluster-bomber. The words are merely symbolic. He is trying to discern the purpose of God for allowing the berserk little bozo to be screaming the obvious when he was already feeling quite badly about himself.
To be sure, Shimeis have fans. But their fans are losers who will never move beyond skulking at the fringes of a kingdom that is led by people who are humble enough to let Shimeis have their day in the sun and graced enough to be the chosen ones.
In the same way, it seems to me that the Dissidens Divines are persistently pouting about church, but none, as far as I can tell, are actually leading the church to greater glory. How can they? There seems to be no one in the Body of the Church Militant that they love. Who would want to follow anyone whose main agenda is down-putting? And down-putters are, by necessity, intransigently proud. They have to be. Humility simply does not have the energy or the stomach to constantly smack the Bride of Christ in the face. Even with tears oppressed.
God is a builder and a lifter-up of the humble. He also loves His Church. And it is He, not the purveyors of treacly gospel music, that has said that the distinguishing mark of His disciples would be love, particularly a love for what He loves: His Body.
Of course, Shimeis will say they love the Body. Of course. But what Dissidens loves is an abstract, non-existent ideal. (Whether his ideal is even biblical is another topic to debate). Loving an abstract ideal is not love. Saying you love your wife while imagining a fantasy is not love. The reality is that the Church of Jesus Christ is comprised of fallen people. The reality is that the Church of Jesus Christ is comprised largely of evangelicals and fundamentalists. The reality is that this is the Church that Jesus loves. It is people. Real people in a real culture in a real era. Dissidens does not love that people in that culture in that era. He embraces a bubble and spits on flesh and blood.
And Shimeis won’t shut up. They can’t. Poor creatures. Blot out their curses and you end up with nothing but a splotchy collection of nothing. Their raison d’être is to throw dirt at downed dignity.
Let them throw. Dignity keeps walking. Downed dignity will rise again.
Posted by Bob Bixby at August 24, 2007 01:06 PM | eMail this entry! | 1405 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Fundamentalism
I’ve been over there twice ever…I saw nothing of value there. He may raise some good questions, but I have no desire to dig through all the dross and tripe to find them. There is nothing remotely edifying or beneficial over there - I make these comments as a guy who has been quite critical of fundamentalism over the years myself…
Posted by: Ellis at August 24, 2007 05:22 PMUmm… that would be ‘Shimei’, wouldn’t it???
Your hyper-fundamentalist spell-checker.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
BTW, I tend to agree with your assessment, FWIW.
Posted by: Don Johnson at August 24, 2007 05:22 PMWow Bob!
This was a fun one to read. You’ve made your analysis here with clarity, even if it has a bit of a point to it. A great observation about the downward spiral that occurs when we forget God is more gracious than he is angry. The trick is to be able to communicate that with those who forget it, without forgetting that our-self. I’m not saying you’ve done that here. I will say I’ve done that too often. Perhaps our brothers will carefully consider your points.
Thankful you made it safely back home.
Straight Ahead!
Joel
Posted by: Joel Tetreau at August 25, 2007 01:03 AMThanks for this post, Bob. Your analysis is incredibly eloquent, pointed, and most of all, correct. Too many notable quotes to even try to mention, but I appreciate your tremendous effort to put biblical context around the elephant in the room over there.
I have tried to learn from Dissidens, and as you pointed out, some of his comments and arguments have caused me to think more critically about some things. But the unbiblical stench of his arrogance and bitterness and the preening blather of his “sycophants” have just worn me down. And at the end of the day, I believe you are spot on — they can only criticize, but they don’t have any solutions that advance the cause of Christ.
Thank you again for the clarion call, which I can only hope some of Dissidens’ younger followers will heed.
Posted by: Kent McCune at August 25, 2007 10:37 AMBob,
This may well have been your most eloquent post ever (and that’s saying something) and you hit the nail right on the head. Great, articulate thoughts. I’m not hopeful that they’ll be considered much by the subject or his sycophants, but good perspective and a warning for the rest of us plebians.
Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
Posted by: Dan Burrell at August 25, 2007 10:42 AMYou’re right, Don. Thanks.
Posted by: bob at August 25, 2007 01:10 PMWow…Bob…you outdid yourself on that one. Not much left to say…I agree. (NeoFundamentalist, Remonstrans, and the Culture of Criticism)
Posted by: NeoFundy at August 27, 2007 12:37 AMWhen we respond to perceived mockery with mockery, do we not risk becoming like those we criticize? When we judge them for their mockery and then mock them, do we not risk judgment by the same standard that we proclaim?
When our criticism fails to distinguish between one’s issues and positions and one’s approach to addressing them, do we not risk losing our effectiveness with those we wish to convince? With whom can we expect to be effective if we let ourselves fall into more cursory dismissive remarks and derogatory personal language than careful analysis and articulation of our concerns with the key ideas? Oh, we may find them amusing, even fun, but is it loving or edifying?
I do not suggest excusing weaknesses in anyone’s approach. But dare we minimize or dismiss substantive issues because we reject the approach? If we do, are we any wiser than a patient who proclaims, “Doctor, I reject your diagnosis because your bedside manner is insufferably poor”?
We can do much better. And if we are to be effective, we must.
Posted by: Brent Marshall at August 27, 2007 09:35 PM“Doctor, I reject your diagnosis because your bedside manner is insufferably poor”?
Brent,
The doctor is ineffective because, although he provides diagnosis, he never provides the remedy or cure.
You might say, “Well, he observes something and then sends you to a specialist.” The problem is that, oftentimes, when someone attempts to provide a solution to an issue addressed by remonstrans, he harshly demeans them for any number of reasons.
The author of remonstrans.net appears to be a theological and intellectual bully, and I’m glad Bob has stood up to him.
Posted by: Jeremy at August 28, 2007 01:59 AMJeremy,
Posting on ones own website is hardly “standing up” to anyone. If he were that brave, and that bold, and that assured, he would have posted this on Remonstrans; not here. With that said…
Pastor Bixby,
As a somewhat regular poster on Remonstrans I have to say I agree with most of what you right here. I have not, nor will I, take the time to categorize my agreements and disagreements, but I imagine the outcome would not even be close. Remonstrans has definitely taken a very recent turn for the worse: especially the “discussions” following the posts. By and large they are polluted by thoughts from people who neither love nor lead God’s flock (as you asserted).
Even so, one thing I heartily disagree with you on is the statement that “he…really knows that the best of the Body of Christ has been evidenced in fundamentalism in spite of all its brokenness.” I suppose the fact that you use the past tense may help a bit, but I still find this statement dubious. The fact that you defend “In the Garden” while he encourages Bach, Rachmaninov, and Kiev Seminary Choir, really tells me all I need to know about the sensibilities of fundamentalism. I know your defense was partly in jest, but the song and its sentiment are indefensible. Really.
For a few weeks in the very late 1800’s fundamentalism might have been the best option, but not since. The statement is like a bunch of bums discussing which dumpsters have the best food, all the while ignoring the fact that they are discussing dumpsters.
As has already been noted, you stoop to his level with overstatement. That you would say that no remedies are offered is a clear indication that you are not offering informed information.
Please do not take this as an attack on you, or as a defense of recent happenings at Remonstrans. A few of your statements are indicators to me that you have not grasped what you are addressing. This was one of them.
Dr. Doran,
Thank you.
Jeremy,
Thank you for once again demonstrating the oft repeated statement that those who make Diss’ points the best are often those he speaks against.
My post had no such accusation against Pastor Bixby. To say someone is not brave is not saying that he is necessarily a coward. He is just a man with his thoughts. They were posted on his blog. There is nothing brave about this. It is quite pedestrian. Happens millions of times a day.
Since it appears you need things spelled out for you, I do not think that Pastor Bixby is a C-O-W-A-R-D.
de profundis,
“If he were that brave, and that bold, and that assured, he would have posted this on Remonstrans; not here.”
What you thought was spelled out fairly clearly already.
Posted by: Jeremy at August 28, 2007 09:28 AMde profundis,
Upon further reflection I may agree more with your disagreement than I do my original assertion. I think that you are right that Dissidens doesn’t really know “that the best of the Body of Christ has been evidenced in fundamentalism in spite of all its brokenness.” This is especially true if we are talking about contemporary fundamentalism. I was thinking Machen-ish fundamentalism (or “historic” fundamentalism). In that I was unclear.
I think Dissidens would despise even that though (even though he has to know that the Body of Christ was best evidenced in that mindset).
I did not take your post as stating that I am a coward. It really wouldn’t matter to me if you thought that, but I didn’t read it that way. I write for my readers who may wander over to Dissidens. There is an overlap.
Finally, I love Rachmaninoff and Bach. I do not love In the Garden. I was defending it. You think it’s indefensible. Fine. My defense of it was less for the song itself than for the many pure souls that are truly blessed by it. I think that Dissidens fans are more of a product of their culture than they realize and thus have swung from one form of hyper-isolationism to another form of the same. If they actually read Pascal, for example, they would probably begin to understand that they are incredibly small-minded.
Unlike Dissidens’ Divines, I was not introduced to Pascal, Eliot, and others by Dissidens. Therefore, my mind is not the captive of his interpretation of them.
Thankfully.
Posted by: bob at August 28, 2007 09:57 AMPastor Bixby,
Thank you for your kind and gracious words.
Do you think the Machen’s refusal to be labeled a fundamentalist provides a caution to us about how we should evaluate the movement at that time?
Posted by: de profudis at August 28, 2007 10:03 AMIn light of the “syncophant” language which has been utilized here and elsewhere, to whom do the users of such terminology ascribe those labels to? To those who seemingly agree with everything he says; to those who agree with some of what he says, but differ with him also, and thus engage in discussions which include concurring and nonconcurring statements; or…? Who are the syncophant elements?
Joel,
what do you mean about Bob making “analysis here with clarity, even if it has a bit of a point to it?” What is wrong with Bob’s pointedness?
And I am wondering too of the value or truth of stating that “God is more gracious than he is angry?” What do you mean by that?
Also, why is someone thanking “Dr. Doran” when there seem to be no comments from him? Just wondering…
Posted by: Sam Hendrickson at September 5, 2007 09:42 AMSam:
My use of the word sycophant referred to your first definition — those who seemingly agree with everything he says. I would add to that definition the fact that they also try to ape his arrogant, sarcastic style, which leads to a very un-Christlike smugness. All of which makes it quite difficult to interact with them in any biblical way.
I certainly would not put you in that category.
Posted by: Kent McCune at September 5, 2007 11:27 AMI’m confused, here. I infer that Kent McCune and Dan Burrell object to Dissidens’ tone, yet they call these words of Pastor Bixby “eloquent” and “pointed,” and “articulate:”
“rants incessantly . . . adoring bootlickers . . . pompously huffs and puffs . . . there’s an odor, a bad one, all over him . . . fawning admirers . . . pontificating and preening attitude of holier-than-thou isolationism . . . his band . . . snarky . . . screeching . . . slurp of sycophants . . . boy-band of clod-tossers . . . too stupid . . . blathering . . . Poor idiots . . . hypnotized . . . ranting mudslingers . . . self-infatuated . . . fulminating . . . cluster-bomber . . . berserk little bozo . . . screaming . . . fans . . . their fans are losers . . . skulking . . . Dissidens Divines . . . pouting . . . Poor creatures . . . a splotchy collection of nothing”
How can this be?
Another thing confuses me. Pastor Bixby says:
“[Dissidens] is such an effective critic . . . an eloquent genius can describe with perfect elocution . . . reading him can be profitable . . . he raises a lot of good questions . . . I think that his attacks may be helpful . . . probably accurate in many of their charges.”
I’m trying to figure out how that amounts to, “nothing but a splotchy collection of nothing.”
It would be unfair of me to make the same assessment of your post. Let’s see what I am left with, here:
“Dissidens has no solutions worth listening to.”
Translated: He has solutions, but you don’t like them.
Pastor Bixby and those of like mind consider that they “let them live to talk,” that they have “granted blathering rights,” and that it is they who are “humble enough to let Shimeis have their day in the sun and graced enough to be the chosen ones.”
I may be a young, inexperienced pastor, and I am not above criticism in my own use of rhetoric, but this appears to be less than humble, at best — and lording it, at worst.
And I keep wondering if Jeremiah ever heard something like this:
Who would want to follow anyone whose main agenda is down-putting? And down-putters are, by necessity, intransigently proud. They have to be. Humility simply does not have the energy or the stomach to constantly smack the [nation of Judah] in the face. Even [a weeping prophet].Posted by: Todd Mitchell at September 10, 2007 04:43 PM
