Monday, August 29, 2011

SI, “YOU LIE!”

"You Lie!"
Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC), yelled out “You Lie!” during President Obama’s speech on healthcare in September of 2009.

In today’s SI Filings Aaron Blumer posted the following headline that originates from an article the Filing links to,
Fundamentalism provided fertile recruiting soil for another powerful movement -- the Ku Klux Klan.
No qualifying statement, nothing. At SI, under About SI, you find this statement, “SI is a fundamentalist place...This is how Fundamentalists see the world?” Which is it? Is SI “a Fundamentalist place,” or is the site, its publisher, admins/moderators hypocrites and impostors?

The evidence of hypocrisy is overwhelming and irrefutable. From this point forward anytime Aaron Blumer, his admins or moderators suggest that SI is not hostile toward Fundamentalism, that SI is for and about fairness toward or advancing the best of historic, balanced Fundamentalism, the right response is, “You Lie!

The open challenge to Aaron Blumer is still on the table. Produce even one front page article at SI that is thoroughly positive and uplifting toward Fundamentalism and edifying for fundamentalists. Aaron tried, but he cannot produce even one example because there are none. Instead this SI Filing reaffirms SI’s open hostility.

I urge any persons or ministries that participate at or support SI in any way to end the relationship. Your participation perpetuates a site that is not the friend of historic, balanced Fundamentalism.


LM

Addendum: SI administrator Jim Peet acknowledged that he personally uploaded the Filings. Aaron Blumer is site publisher and therefore responsible for all SI content. Furthermore, this Filing is just one of many examples at SI of it’s eagerness to besmirch and castigate Fundamentalism. SI's bias, hostility and aggression toward Fundamentalism is irrefutable.

For Related Reading:
“SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away

Is That the Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

SI Gang Tackles “Doc” Clearwaters

Thursday, August 18, 2011

SI and New Evangelical Reasoning

Introduction:
In a brand new series of articles in the Iron Skillet we have been demonstrating that SI, contrary to its claims, does NOT exist on behalf of or for the advancement of authentic Fundamentalism. Instead SI (the majority of its leadership) has primarily operated the site and directed their personal efforts to the advancement of so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

In a series of new comments at SI one poster named DonP is insisting that authentic, historic fundamentalism is embodied in the current day so-called “conservative” evangelical movement. If that is true then we are to accept that John Piper’s embrace of Rick Warren and Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration exemplify what contemporary fundamentalism has become.

SI has, furthermore, begun to allow for elements of raw “New” evangelical thinking to be voiced from its front page. (See the controversial article from August 5, Church Planting Thirty Years Later by Pastor Steve Davis.)

The SI moderators and site publisher (Aaron Blumer) have consistently taken hostile stances against those at the site whom identify with Fundamentalism that have tried to represent and/or defend authentic Fundamentalism from the many redefinitions of or assaults on Fundamentalism’s legacy and/or personalities. That hostility reared its ugly head once again in the Steve Davis article discussion thread.

Several pastors who took exception to elements of the articles content were set upon by Pastor Davis and several SI leaders (Jim Peet, SusanR, JayC and Aaron Blumer). Yet, not one word of caution (I am aware of to date) by SI moderators about or opposition to the new evangelical themes in the article. No voiced concern by SI leadership over the author’s position that in addition to the Genesis account of a literal six-day creation other valid theories exist to explain the existence of all life we see today around us. Again, no one I am aware of from the SI leadership raised objection to that position by Steve Davis. No SI leader took any exception to the author suggesting the possibility that certain Charismatic sign gifts (tongues, prophecy, plus dreams and visions) "non-cessationism" may be in existence and in practice today. Can Steve Davis state, without qualification, those gifts are NOT in existence, are NOT for the church today, should NOT be encouraged or sought after?

With all of that in clear view SI’s publisher Aaron Blumer insists that he, and by extension the SI site are “proud” to be counted as Fundamental.  See, Is That The Voice of a “Proud” [SI] Fundamentalist?

In a previous article on SI (at my IDOTG blog) Alex G. noted what is the common practice of SI moderators. A pattern of hostility that has existed from SI’s inception. He wrote,
Articles that are sympathetic to any form of non-cessationism depart fundamentalism and the failure to scrutinize its errors by those publishing such articles at their own blog is at the least, tacit approval and at best, disingenuous to the claims of their own fundamentalism. And I am quite familiar with the double standard at SI. I have been gang tackled often and threatened with expulsion, but usually because I point out someone’s hypocrisy or dare use a polemic style in disagreeing.” (Comment #1)
Let’s turn our attention to an extended reaction to the controversial Steve Davis article. This time we again read from Bob Topartzer who wrote,

Aaron [Blumer], let’s keep our attention focused. My response to SusanR on this thread was to her obvious rebuke to church leaders. On this thread she was the first one to post against another poster or posters regarding conduct and not about the thread subject. I posted regarding her rebuke because she is an SI administrator and moderator. I raised the gender issue because it was and is appropriate because she was attempting to rebuke church leaders and was doing so because she wrongly perceived this as a situation one where appropriate compassion was not in view.

Now please focus and understand this. I have not, to my remembrance, complained of being mistreated on SI by any unless it was in response to a poster having gone off topic and first posted against me in a personal attack. I am not offended by personal attack except that it is off subject and usually by someone who has little else to say to the issues so attacks a poster. My posts on this thread regarding SI, the Internet, etc., were because you opened the door for general remarks and opinion. I do not view my post on that as overly negative but also a thanks and recognizing SI for the good, but that it also has flaws.

In my opinion there is a definite bias on SI and some who have left off posting on SI had some valid observations. Why are you now addressing me? I have called no names such as Jim Peet did me! I have not rebuked anyone on here but only called Susan’s attention to the errors of her judgment regarding the situation here. My telling Steve Davis to not let the door hit him in the back was harsh, but not overly or unduly harsh when compared to some of his responses on this thread and others with nasty remarks made to others (not me).

Steve has been standing in the door way leading from Fundamentalism and/or IFB for some time and calling our attention to look at him and his leaving and continually complaining about the attitudes of those he is leaving while giving classic New Evangelical reasons, and some double speak. Example of Steve doublespeak is trying to repeatedly convince me and others that he has not rejected literal 6 day creation, but that he sees it as valid but also sees another theory (Revelatory day) theory as also valid. Oh, OK. So when Robert Schuller states that he believes in literal salvation thru Christ as valid but also believes that salvation may be possible thru other faiths, it is also valid. He has not really rejected Christ, but just believes he is not the only way. That’s OK if God will accept that. Of course he will not as that attitude lacks the sole reliance of real faith.

Now, Steve’s view of the creation account is a lesser issue, but with the same approach. If the Genesis literal day creation is valid, but also other views are also valid, then that’s also OK if God will accept that. The problem is He won’t. He [God] doesn’t intend to teach both. He wrote a clear account as part of a historical statement and expects us to accept it. Or was God having fun and being unclear and expecting us to have fun guessing as to what He really meant. Most all Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals dogmatically believe there are no valid reasons for doubt of the normal meaning. The issue is not salvation, but is an issue of how we approach scripture and truth. A former professor at Biola University wrote a book titled; “God Did It But How?” His conclusion was we just don’t know. His reasons were that we need to fit the Genesis account to the time line of uniformitarian Geology and the “overwhelming evidence of Evolution.” This of course is a classic principle of New Evangelicalism popularized in the fifties by Bernard Ramm. We must accommodate scripture to science. Steve Davis has done this, but IMHO is behind the curve.

Uniformitarianism has been shattered by solid science and evolution has fallen apart as its foundations have been doubted by even evolutionary science itself. New alternate theories are now set forth. Creation science is advocated by scientists with highly regarded credentials. On this one issue alone Steve advocates theory, approach and doubt, that is an unacceptable compromise of scripture.

Then there is his advocacy of present visions and dreams, which he calls “soft,” but which has the same foundation as the signs and wonder evangelism espoused at Fuller and the Charismatic movement. These issues are now decades old, but here on SI they have been presented as a new enlightenment indicative of a more accepting, spiritual, and loving Christianity. They are in fact as dangerous as when first advocated by the likes of Bernard Ramm, Russell Mixture, Daniel Fuller, Sanford La Sor, Oral Roberts, C. Peter Wagner, John Wimber, and Benny Hinn, among many.

There probably should be no objection to SI publishing these papers of Steve Davis. It was interesting information and worthy of debate. But I think there should great and serious objection to the accusations that those posting against Steve were overly harsh. There should be great question regarding the posting by some SI moderators.

I also did not now or at any time complain that I was offended by younger posters. I have not felt mistreated by them. The reality is that I am a lawyer still involved in constant debate and contest. I am also involved in ministry. SI is an occasional bump in the road. My approach is that people should stop trying to correct or call attention to ones wording unless it is very extreme or is name calling. I would also recommend a reassessment of not only the words of Christ, but of the Apostles in Acts and epistles before calling something too harsh.

That fact that this SI thread has degenerated from the serious issues to discuss posters is somewhat pathetic. The leadership of the moderators into opinions of how the debate was worded, or perceived attitudes of posters, is a perfect example of fireman discussing how a caller of 911 spoke or sounded when they called to report a fire instead of recognizing that the fire is the issue and it needs to be seen, assessed, and handled.
This new series will continue in the days ahead. In the meantime, please refer back to the previous offerings in the series:

“SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away

“SI May Fit the Description of Being ‘PSEUDO- FUNDAMENTALIST’”

For related reading see my answer to Aaron Blumer’s (Sept. 2010) on line reaction to the Iron Skillet blog. See, SI: Sizzles In and Over the Iron Skillet


LM

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
For those who identify with or simply appreciate the best of fundamentalism and still participate at SI I would encourage you to consider ending your active participation there. Your participation is somewhat of a lifeline for SI to continue its crusade on behalf the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism (ce), promoting a convergence with the star personalities and fellowships of the ce camp, and positioning against what we find to be the best of fundamentalism’s history, legacy, leaders and practices today. Your participation feeds the SI threads and fuels SI moderators and certain other participants to promote pro-evangelical personalities, doctrines and agendas at the expense of fundamentalism.

I would also encourage the few current or potential advertisers who feel strongly about fundamentalism to consider this: Is Sharper Iron the best place to invest the resources God has entrusted to you? Do you want to reach and/or attract the kind of persons to your college or ministry who frequent and support SI? SI is a site that frequently allows for, promotes, and its leadership happily joins in on, the redefining, castigation and besmirching of fundamentalism. SI, furthermore, heaps lavish praise on the so-called “conservative” evangelicals.  SI does not tolerate legitimate criticism of it’s star personalities, preferred doctrinal positions or fellowships. Should those kind of messages from SI be sustained by financial support from fundamentalist institutions?

Friday, August 12, 2011

“SI May Fit the Description of Being ‘PSEUDO- FUNDAMENTALIST’”

Since mid-2009 I have been identifying Sharper Iron (SI) as a “pseudo- fundamentalist1 site. This week at SI the opinion that it is a “pseudo- fundamentalist” site has been reiterated and reinforced by a current and long time participant there. I refer to Bob Topartzer who directed his shared opinion and reasons to SI site publisher Aaron Blumer in the August 5 article Church Planting Thirty Years Later, a worthwhile subject that the article had almost nothing to do with. That article was subject of my previous article, “SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Fa├žade & Veneer is Stripped Away!

In the thread (Tuesday, 8/9)2 BobT (Bob Topartzer) submitted the following comment to site publisher, Aaron Blumer. It is worth a careful read for it reveals much of the wide spread complaints about the methods of SI and its leadership.

Aaron, I just reread your post and noticed the ending.
Fundamentalism needs a warm and winsome apologetic, not a ‘How dare you differ?!’ and ‘Don’t let the door hit you on your way out’ apologetic (the latter is not an apologetic at all... and we wonder why the quantity of fundamentalists is shrinking).
With this statement you have given evidence that you yourself and SI may fit the description of being “PSEUDO- FUNDAMENTALIST” as some former posters have labeled the site. 
WHY?

Because you have failed to properly recognize the errors, misjudgments, and harmful attitude and dangers of Steve Davis and his opinions, as expressed on published articles at SI. As I said before, I have no objection to the publication of these articles. However, your attitude and the attitude of the moderators appears to be that those who sought to challenge, expose, and rebuke the opinions were overly harsh and lacking the apologetic of Christian love. In so doing you have gone against every admonition and warning of scripture regarding confronting dangerous error.

Steve himself has repeatedly demeaned the fundamentalist and IBF movements as a whole. He has shown disdain for those who have and do hold to a different doctrinal viewpoint on doctrinal issues he has raised. In typical NEW EVANGELICAL fashion and method he has alluded to the lack of love and proper ecumenical spirit of others he is leaving while he himself demeaned them in an unloving manner. He often met posters who disagreed with him with demeaning remarks and sharp words. All this has been accepted by you [Aaron] without admonishment or appropriate response.

Now you come and seek to admonish those who differed with Steve. NO ONE said or gave an attitude of “How dare you differ?” It was rather how could you differ? We argued against his reasons and rightly labeled his transition and change of doctrinal positions and view as the same as that expressed in history as New Evangelical and therefore labeled Steve with the same label they did give themselves. I expressed righteous indignation at Steve’s continued effort to make his leaving the general Fundamentalist and IFB movement an issue of the conduct and narrow doctrinal of others. He did so

Also, I received an Email yesterday from a longtime SI poster stating that he has posted his last post on SI with his last post on the Steve Davis thread.3

Keep up the good work and you and the moderators will be able to post one another without any other posters interfering. Then you can admonish one another for your wording and get them all just the way you want.

This is said in Christian love. Love for Christ and His Word and concern and distress for those who will not adequately protect his flock and discern the truth.

An apologetic of love includes 1Cor. 13:6.

Bob wrote, “Keep up the good work and you and the moderators will be able to post one another without any other posters interfering.”

I have been telling Aaron Blumer for years that unless he got his moderators under control and behaving in unbiased ways he’d be left with almost no one but moderators to comment. Actually, in recent years if it weren’t for the moderators actively participating in the threads, most of SI would grind to a halt.

In the Steve Davis thread Aaron has furthermore shown the capacity to be just as biased and hostile as any SI moderators have ever been. Most notable in hostility have been Jim Peet, Larry Rogier and SusanR. Aaron has taken sides with his moderators against those whom they do not agree.

Later in the SI thread Bob notified Aaron,
As far as posts go this is my last on this subject. Perhaps my last on SI. Too much time has been given to this. SI is no better than the sum of its parts and is not really ministry but just information and discussion of a specialty type.
Yet another has been driven away by SI bias and its moderator’s actions.Isn’t it time for SI to finally get honest about its primary purpose, which irrefutably is NOT for, or on behalf of Fundamentalism? The only kind of Fundamentalism SI promotes and defends is one that its leadership and certain key contributors redefine into a mushy, unity at the expense of fidelity to the whole counsel of God, non-separatist evangelicalism.

I will close with a challenge to Aaron Blumer. An opportunity I have given him in private and public for over two years. In the About SI section of the site we read, “SI is a fundamentalist place…SI is about how fundamentalists see the world
Can you (Aaron) produce any front page article from SI that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and edifying for Fundamentalists?
Aaron’s failure to produce such an article is due to the fact that there are none. Even if SI began posting positive articles no one would take it seriously. It would IMO be a disingenuous portrayal of an attitude for Fundamentalism that does not exist among SI’s leadership. IMO it would be nothing more than an attempt to portray SI as if it embraces fundamentalism, which SI never has. It would be a way-to-late attempt to salvage what is left of the site at it continues to alienate and drive off men who do take historic, balanced Fundamentalism seriously and have done what they could at SI to share those views.
The claim that SI is a fundamentalist place and for how fundamentalists see the world cannot be taken seriously.

LM

For Related Reading See: SI, “You LIE!”

Footnotes:
1) “Pseudo”- 1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham. 2. almost, approaching, or trying to be. (Dictionary.com)

2) Thread Comment

3) Alienating members/participants is quite common place at SI. See-
I Had to Ask: How Does This Sharpen Me?

SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Of Another

SI Gang-Tackles "Doc" Clearwaters

4) SI Site Admin Jim Peet, who was offensive in the thread to begin with, couldn't resist giving Bob a parting shot. Of course, Jim excuses his behavior as trying to be humorous. of course similar attempts at humor if it comes from non-favored persons at SI, spring the SI moderators into action and they immediately pounce upon the offender, especially if the humor is directed at a favored and protected position or personality at SI.

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
For those who identify with or simply appreciate the best of fundamentalism and still participate at SI I would encourage you to consider ending your active participation there. Your participation is somewhat of a lifeline for SI to continue its crusade on behalf the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism (ce), promoting a convergence with the star personalities and fellowships of the ce camp, and positioning against what we find to be the best of fundamentalism’s history, legacy, leaders and practices today. Your participation feeds the SI threads and fuels SI moderators and certain other participants to promote pro-evangelical personalities, doctrines and agendas at the expense of fundamentalism.

I would also encourage the few current or potential advertisers who feel strongly about fundamentalism to consider this: Is Sharper Iron the best place to invest the resources God has entrusted to you? Do you want to reach and/or attract the kind of persons to your college or ministry who frequent and support SI? SI is a site that frequently allows for, promotes, and its leadership happily joins in on, the redefining, castigation and besmirching of fundamentalism. SI, furthermore, heaps lavish praise on the so-called “conservative” evangelicals.  SI does not tolerate legitimate criticism of it’s star personalities, preferred doctrinal positions or fellowships. Should those kind of messages from SI be sustained by financial support from fundamentalist institutions?

Sunday, August 7, 2011

“SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away

Introduction (8/8):
Aaron Blumer links to this article from the controversial Steve Davis article at SI. I have one major point to share about his commentary there. He still does NOT and can not cite even one example from SI's front page that is thoroughly positive toward and edifying about Fundamentalism.

Incredibly Blumer cites the Dead Right article by Phil Johnson, which was widely criticized and documented by Fundamentalists as unfair and out-of-balance for a variety of legitimate reasons. Does Aaron really want to stick with Johnson’s Dead Right as an example of a positive from SI on Fundamentalism?

If Aaron has any front page article at SI that is thoroughly positive toward and supportive of mainstream, historic Fundamentalism he would have shared it by now. He can't because it does not exist. Yet, we can read a host of anti-fundamentalism articles at SI over its history. The latest being the Steve Davis article, the 2009 three part attack series by Kevin Bauder and the many hostile articles through SI’s Blogroll. If you are visiting for the first time, peruse other articles in the Iron Skillet (see links to right), all are thoroughly documented and prove the bias of SI and its leadership against historic Fundamentalism. Please continue to the main text of this article.

At Shaper Iron (SI), under the About SI page, the following statement appears,
SI is a fundamentalist place. We welcome readers of every kind, but remember that SI is about how fundamentalists see the world.
The facade that SI exists for and on behalf of Fundamentalism has never been a credible claim. With the latest article at SI, an open attack on Fundamentalism written by a self-described former Fundamentalist, any legitimacy of the SI statement has been stripped away.

On Friday (8/5) Sharper Iron (SI) site publisher Aaron Blumer posted an article at SI’s main page that ends the debate on the bent and bias of SI against Fundamentalism. The article is titled, Church Planting Thirty Years Later by Pastor Steve Davis. You might ask how an article with that title could be hostile toward Fundamentalism. There is very little I need to add to affirm what this article exemplifies and how it typifies the attack mentality of SI toward Fundamentalism. SI provides its own irrefutable evidence of the hostility toward Fundamentalism. I will post three examples from the discussion thread that make clear the nature of the article.

Pastor Greg Long wrote,
“I am a pastor at a non-fundamentalist church, but count me in with those who struggle to find the value of this article. Steve, brother, I think by now most of us know you are no longer a fundamentalist, and you seem to enjoy letting us know that. Your articles on here seem to be mostly about stirring the pot….”
Pastor Dave Marriott wrote,
I am still struggling to see the publishable value of this article. From my perspective the author basically communicates, “I have left this ‘fundamental’ world because fundamentalists are prideful, smelling of dogmatism in their positions. I continue to affirm the gospel, but I will not quibble over such minor matters as the continuation of spiritual gifts, the kingdom of God, or even whether or not the evening and the morning were really the first day, etc. If anyone still gets bent out of shape over these minor matters, I don't have time for them anymore. Oh and by the way, while I still have the podium, if some of the finest churches in fundamentalism will still invite me to come and preach and influence the next generation, I'd love to. In fact, sign me up! I promise not to be controversial or touch on areas where there may be disagreement.”
Pastor Marriot continued,
“My advice to the author [Steve Davis], albeit unsolicited: You claim to desire to be under the radar ("relative obscurity" is I think how you termed it) and content with just a few ministry friends, but yet you took the time to write a polemic against the fundamentalism of which you have been a part, thus showing up on the radar? If you are going to leave the 'IFB' orbit, just go ahead and do it. But do it quickly. Do whatever it is that you think God has called you to do. However, leaving in this manner makes you look a bit ugly and even desirous to take as many people with you as possible. Go do the missiological work that you have done and for which you have trained, but please stop writing to us, if you are no longer among us.”
JG wrote,
“I did ask if he's now being a missionary to the fundies to show us a better way. I agree with those above who suggested that this article gives that impression, though whether he thought of it in that way is another question. I also wonder why it was published on a fundamentalist site, at least with that title. It's really, ‘How and Why I’ve Left the Fundamentalism I Knew’. At least then we’d know what we’re getting. This article isn’t about church planting at all, and everyone knows it.
Finally from Bob Topartzer,
“We have seen your journey from certainty to increasing doubt in articles you have written and were posted here on SI. Such a journey has been taken by thousands since the 1930’s and 1940’s. In 1947 the journey was given a name by those who were taking it. They called themselves NEW EVANGELICALS. At least SI was able to give you a forum for your journey confessions. Your biography and destiny has already been written about in a book titled ‘Promise Unfulfilled, The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism,’ by Rolland McCune. As it is often said; ‘those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.’ We will, and occasionally do, remember you and others like you in prayer. I have been on that other grass where it looks greener. It is full of yellow spots and dead spots with those getting more numerous and larger all the time. Better watch where you step.”
Why was the article, with its obvious hostility, published at SI? The answer is exactly what I’ve been documenting about SI all along. SI is NOT a site for positive discussion of Fundamentalism or edifying Fundamentalists. JG rightly questions why that article made it on to the SI front page. Easy to answer: It belongs there because it expresses exactly what the attitude of SI's leadership is toward Fundamentalism.

Furthermore, JG, Bob and Dave Marriott have hit the exposed nerves with Steve Davis. The reaction of Pastor Davis was less than cordial, he responded with hostility and condescending tones.

The Davis article exemplifies in stark relief what SI is and has been from its inception. Aaron Blumer authorized its publication on the front page knowing full well the meaning and intent of the article. Later in the thread Aaron posted,
For those who are fond of intimating that SI has ‘gone neo’ and the like, just a reminder that the aim here is to give you stuff to think about.”
Never at SI has any positive or uplifting “stuff” been published on Fundamentalism “to think about.” Why? Because SI is NOT a Fundamentalist site. SI does not exist to promote Fundamentalism in a positive light or to edify Fundamentalists. It NEVER has been either of those things.

In private and publicly I have challenged SI leadership, Aaron Blumer in particular, to produce even one front-page article from SI archives that is thoroughly positive and uplifting on Fundamentalism. To date not one example has been produced because there are none! Aaron Blumer knows there are none and would never allow for a positive expression of Fundamentalism at SI in the first place. SI does not exist to build and encourage Fundamentalists. Instead SI relentlessly seeks to tear down, besmirch and demonize Fundamentalism for the purpose of encouraging an entire generation to join the non-separatists in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

Any SI participant who has tried to defend Fundamentalism and deal squarely with those who tear away at historic Fundamentalism are immediately set upon, gang tackled and/or ridiculed by SI moderators, administrators and the angry (former) YF’s that dominate the threads at SI.

SI’s blog roll has never invited or allowed for any blog to appear that is positive toward Fundamentalism and/or takes an opposing view to doctrines, fellowships or practices that SI stands for and defends. Instead it offers several that are openly hostile toward Fundamentalism such Paleo-Evangelical, Urban-Missional, Pensees, etc.

Will SI’s site publisher Aaron Blumer, continue the facade that SI is a place for Fundamentalism? The veneer that SI is positive place for Fundamentalism has been stripped away. The article by Steve Davis removed any lingering doubt about SI’s bias against and hostility toward Fundamentalism.

I urge any persons or ministries that participate at or support SI in any way to end the relationship. Your participation perpetuates a site that is not the friend of historic, balanced Fundamentalism.


LM

1) Thirty Years of Church Planting

For the related article by Dr. Rick Flanders please visit IDOTG and read, He's Leaving Fundamentalism

For further examples of SI’s hostility please see the following articles:

SI Gang-Tackles “Doc” Clearwaters

Blowing the Whistle on the SI “Referees”

I Had to Ask: How Does This Sharper Me?