I guess I’m not sure why Aaron must produce an article 100% positive on fundamentalism or be denounced a phony fundy. This standard you seek to hold him to is simply made up.Dave’s question is based on my open challenge to SI site publisher, Aaron Blumer to- produce even one front page article at SI that is thoroughly positive and uplifting toward Fundamentalism and edifying for fundamentalists. Aaron has tried, but he cannot produce even one example because there are none. Instead SI continually reaffirms it’s open hostility toward Fundamentalism. What follows is my reply to Dave for your consideration.
Dave: This is one reason why I am calling on Aaron to produce even one front page article that is thoroughly positive on Fundamentalism and edifying for Fundamentalists.
“SI is a fundamentalist place. We welcome readers of every kind, but remember that SI is about how fundamentalists see the world.”That is what, according to Aaron Blumer, SI is about and for, Fundamentalism. Instead we get a steady barrage of articles, Filings, Forums and blogroll sites that besmirch and demonize Fundamentalism. For example the article from Steve Davis1 and the KKK inferred Filing I discuss here, and from Kevin Bauder a three part attack (on the names and legacy of Bob Jones, Jr and John R.Rice)2 and his incendiary Let’s Clear on This3 article.
Aaron and his leadership, Jim Peet in particular, obviously delight in not just posting articles like that of Davis and Bauder, but searching the Internet for non and/or anti-fundamentalists’ cannon fodder for SI to ignite. They are finding new and novel ways to use non-fundamentalists to besmirch and castigate Fundamentalism with the broad brush. The KKK article being the latest and surely will not be the last.
BTW, do you know that Aaron offered Phil Johnson’s Dead Right from 2005 referenced at SI as a positive on Fundamentalism? Large elements of that article was widely criticized by Fundamentalists as out of touch and misguided.
Is it unreasonable to ask Aaron to produce just one article from the SI front page over the last six years that was thoroughly positive on Fundamentalism? No, it is not! And he can’t come up with even one, because there are none.
1) “SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away
2) Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship
3) Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations
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?