SI Equates Dr. Al Mohler to Apostle Paul

Dear Guests of SIITIS:

Today (4/15/10) pseudo-fundamentalist SI posted an article that within the first paragraphs equates Dr. Al Mohler to the Apostle Paul. The article attempts to portray Al Mohler as a suffering martyr whose reputation is being impugned today just as the Apostle Paul was in the first century church.

The SI writer discusses how the Apostle Paul reputation was impugned and equates Al Mohler to Paul’s issues.

“Speaking their hearts but lacking or ignoring the truth about the other person, they claim the servant of God to be what he is not—guilty of some imagined sin or error. From Athanasius to Al Mohler, God’s dear servants have been the subjects of gossip, smear campaigns, character assassinations, rumors, backbiting, and generally poor treatment...”

Is this a legitimate comparison? Mohler’s track record of ecumenical compromise is well-documented public record in secular and Christian media outlets.

See, Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration: Was This a First Foray Toward Ecumenism?

I produced a series of articles that began with Al Mohler, along with Ligon Duncan, having signed the Manhattan Declaration. Their action gave the deadly “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18) Christian recognition and compromised the Gospel. That was only the latest in a series of egregious ecumenical compromises in Mohler’s resume.

Let’s compare the “generally poor treatment” resumes of the Apostle Paul and Dr. Mohler.

Apostle Paul:

Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. (2 Cor. 11:23-28).

Dr. Mohler:

*Names the SBTS School of Missions and Evangelism for Billy Graham, the high priest of new evangelicalism.
*Honors liberal theologian (former SBTS president) Duke McCall and names another wing of SBTS after him.
*Chaired the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville.
*Signs the Manhattan Declaration.
*Board member Focus on the Family.
*Projecting he (Mohler) will embrace Rick Warren at Desiring God.

The SI author is woefully unaware of or is purposely ignoring these facts in Mohler’s resume to provide cover for Mohler. In any event, to utter the name “Mohler” in the same breath as “Paul” as though they share an equal experience is irresponsible at best.

One might recognize the obvious bias of SI with this latest attempt to legitimize and run interference for the so-called conservative evangelicalism stars, which has been SI’s pattern from its inception.

There appears to be another installment coming in the SI series. Will the next provide a veneer of martyrdom for new evangelical John Piper after his (Piper’s) *invitation to Rick Warren to speak at desiring God? We’ll watch.


LM

*John Piper to Feature Rick Warren at 2010 Desiring God

UPDATE: I just received e-mails from two pastors who read that Paul/Mohler article at SI. They are in the thread for your consideration.

Aaron Blumer: Learned it From Fundamentalists

Today, (3/15/10) SI site publisher posted and article titled I Learned it From Fundamentalists. It is a genuine well written and heart felt depiction of his life’s journey in and around historic Fundamentalism. I commend him for this article and his expression of it. It does, however, raise some legitimate questions and comments that I would put to Aaron in his capacity as SI site publisher.

We can appreciate many of the sentiments Blumer expresses for Fundamentalism. It is, however, irrefutable that Aaron presides over a site that has been-

A conduit for inflicting great harm to the legacy and men of Fundamentalism.

Harm to those men and elements that would not be identified with what Blumer defined as “alot of fundamentalist ugliness.”

Blumer close his article by stating,

I don’t know what all this “goes to show,” if anything.

What it shows is that there is a huge gap between the appreciation he expresses for Fundamentalism and what he allows for at SI (including the SI Blogroll) from men like Kevin Bauder and any number of angry YF’s to vilify and besmirch Fundamentalism with impunity. This makes one wonder just who is in charge at SI. Is it the site publisher or SI moderators and remaining members who gush over “conservative” evangelicalism and furthermore vilify Fundamentalism, which is about all SI has left of its membership.

IMO, Blumer is in a tough spot. After 5 years of SI allowing for its moderators and/or members to besmirch and vilify Fundamentalism with impunity, passionately endorse conservative evangelicalism’s star personalities with virtually no cautions whatsoever, Aaron has almost no one left in his membership who have not been driven off that would represent the best of what Fundamentalism is.

If Aaron were to attempt to be transparent about and allow for open criticism of the conservative evangelical camp, and genuinely embrace Fundamentalism most of what is left of SI’s membership would have none of it and they’d leave. Furthermore, the damage done to Fundamentalism through and by SI guarantees that virtually no balanced Fundamentalist would ever come back again even if Aaron did take these steps. It’s too late!

Aaron Blumer had a chance to bring some balance to SI that it never had when he bought SI from Jason Janz. Aaron, however, let the angry YF’s and others hostile toward Fundamentalism have free run of the forums and Blogroll, which ensured SI would never be balanced. Even at the beginning of Aaron’s tenure as site publisher he allowed for and authorized this description of SI.

The site has four thousand members (several hundred active) who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.

That was and still is an accurate depiction of what SI is about and for. Once I raise awareness of that statement’s implications on two levels it was suddenly revised to appear as follows.

The site has over a thousand active* members who identify with Fundamentalism (more than four thousand archived members).

While some might appreciate the revision it is way too little and way too late. A statement buried deep in the site does not change what SI truly and primarily is: A place for the advocacy of conservative evangelicalism’s star personalities and their conferences and furthermore a conduit for the vilification of historic Fundamentalism. There is the rare bone thrown to appease Fundamentalist at SI, but it is merely window-dressing.

If Aaron were truly serious about getting some balance at SI he could start by dealing with his most high profile contributor Kevin Bauder. He could instruct Bauder to cease with the incessant attacks on Fundamentalism. Aaron could refuse to post any more articles from Bauder that take needless potshots at Fundamentalism. He could openly admonish or remove Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This article just like he *yanked Dwight Smith’s Richard V. Clearwaters Letter to Kevin Bauder. Aaron can’t do any of that. If he did what is left of SI membership and most of his moderators would pounce on and/or leave him.

These things may seem harsh but, I believe Blumer is in a corner that he inherited. He never tightened his belt to make the difficult decisions to get SI under control, break out of that corner if he ever had it in mind to do in the first place.


LM

*That recent incident exemplifies the obvious two way bias of SI and Aaron Blumer when it comes to the conservative evangelicals and SI's chief apologist for them, Kevin Bauder.

Return to A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters

Addendum: This is an excerpt from an e-mail I received that is in regard to the subject matter of this article. The writer is a pastor of a local IFB church.

Lou, regarding Blumer’s post this morning at SI, which you correctly critiqued [here] at the Skillet: I agree with your assessment totally. To me, he was trying to payback those of us who have been run off from SI. Reminds me of a basketball game in which the referees realize they made a bad call, so they call another foul to payback the offended team. In Blumer’s case, it's too little too late.

What surprised me about Blumer’s post is what he didn’t say about what Fundamentalism taught him. My Fundamentalism training taught me to be a separatist, to be militant at it, and to do it for the cause of truth and the glory of God. My training taught me to rightly divide the Word of truth and to guard my associations and alliances lest I besmirch the glory of God. I could go on, but you get my drift.

SI Gang-Tackles “Doc” Clearwaters! Well, Sort Of

Dear Guests of the Iron Skillet:

This is a companion article to A Letter From Richard V. Clearwaters at my primary blog In Defense of the Gospel. Today we’re going to turn the heat up under the skillet just a little.

On March 12 Evangelist Dwight Smith posted an open letter to Dr. Kevin Bauder. Smith was the author, but he posted it as if it had been written by “Doc” R. V. Clearwaters himself; quite clever actually. It was originally posted in a thread at the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron site. Today, with Evangelist Smith's permission it was reproduced at my primary blog, In Defense of the Gospel.

The letter and its true author were first vilified by certain SI team members and finally deleted by site publisher Aaron Blumer. Objective, experienced readers of SI expected the bias of SI moderators and Aaron’s decision to delete the letter to Bauder. It is obvious.

In his deletion comments, however, Blumer noted, “He [Smith] did clearly indicate his own authorship of the post at the bottom. No problem there.” Yet, in spite of Blumer’s and any objective readers recognition that full disclosure had been made, Smith’s ethics and honesty were called into question by SI moderator Larry Rogier. It was Rogier who scolded Evangelist Smith for drafting the letter suggesting it was unethical and/or dishonest. Rogier appeared to have been deeply troubled that SI readers needed reassurance that “Doc” Clearwaters had passed on and/or had not resurrected to compose that letter to Bauder.

After Blumer’s deletion one pastor said,

“One irony is that, while Kevin Bauder may not have liked the content, I’d think he had to appreciate Dwight’s clever means of delivering his message since, from what I can tell, KB takes a fancy to things literary. Even those on the other side of the fence would have to admit it was a creative, well-written, and insightful critique.”

The content of the Clearwaters letter was spot on in much of its argumentation. Anyone with objective experience at SI knew SI’s leadership would never let it stand. Kill the message and/or messenger is SI’s MO when Bauder or the conservative and New Evangelicals that he (Bauder) and SI advocate on behalf of are called down and justifiably so.

At SI Kevin Bauder is free to malign, demonize and besmirch Fundamentalism’s heritage, history and any number of its personalities past and present with impunity. He is congratulated for and encouraged in it by SI leadership. Examples of his incendiary cogitations have in the past been dismissed as “Bauderian hyperbole.” The SI team runs interference for Bauder when his inflammatory rhetoric is challenged. Those who dare to raise legitimate concerns are gang-tackled by SI team members/moderators. Evangelist Smith was targeted and tackled by Greg Linscott (SI Good Cop) and Larry Rogier (SI Bad Cop), which Smith dealt with admirably.

In Aaron’s explanation for deleting the Clearwaters letter, he wrote,

“However, the post contained a mixture of allowable opinion but also some of what I deemed to be personal attacks... in addition to straying a bit widely from the topic…. I’m inviting Dwight and those sympathetic to his point of view to post again, but let’s try to avoid anything that calls a man’s character, genuineness as a Christian or motivations into question.”

Straying off topic is a favorite catch-phrase of SI moderators to stifle conversation that they deem, in this instance for example, harmful to its advocacy of conservative evangelicalism, its star personalities and Kevin Bauder who is the evangelical’s chief apologist at SI.

Aaron invited Dwight to post again, but “fool me once...” appears to be the best response. We might applaud Aaron for asking folks to, “avoid anything that calls a man’s character, genuineness as a Christian or motivations into question.” Commendable indeed, until, of course, you recognize:

1. SI will be at the ready to chop anything that comes to close to and is a blunt challenge to Bauder’s obvious biases…
2. Exceptions are allowed for Bauder’s incessant attacks on and deriding the “vices” of Fundamental Baptists…
3. When SI moderators call into question a guest’s ethics and honesty this is, of course, perfectly acceptable behavior.

The SI team gang-tackle of Evangelist Smith (and Missionary John Himes in Summer 2009 during the last Bauderian fiasco) exemplifies just one of the reasons why so many have quit or would never participate at SI in the first place. SI’s history of bias against, suspicion of and contempt for those who reject Calvinism, Lordship Salvation, the rush to embrace and endorse conservative evangelicalism is irrefutable.

For many who have quit or refuse to get involved at the pseudo- fundamentalist SI there appears to be one recurring primary common denominator. The theme that many have articulated is that posting at SI, contrary to SI team personal biases, will get you set upon, surrounded and suffocated by SI moderators and/or admins.

In a recent e-mail one preacher, who is among those who quit participating at SI, noted the following after witnessing what just transpired at SI:

The CE wannabe’s tend to “bum rush” the more conservative fundamentalist viewpoints. It goes beyond civil debate into what appears to be an all-out attempt to silence them. I’ve chosen to allow SI to marginalize itself as it drives more and more good men away.

And Aaron Blumer has to conduct surveys to figure out why so many have quit participating at SI?

LM

Return to A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters

Gratifying Responsiveness of SI

Never have I posted two articles in two days, but there is a first for everything. This offering is essentially an extension of the previous article, Blowing the Whistle on the SI “Referees,” ReDux: Who are SI’s Most Active Members?

Happily I want to recognize that the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI) site has and continues to tweak and revise its claims to potential advertisers and membership. SI has added a new * qualifier in the FAQ to its “one thousand active members” statement. The latest qualifier states,

* “‘Active’ here means members who have logged in at the site within the last 12 months.”

While the adjustment is appreciated the problem, a minor problem, with that qualifier is that SI 3.0 has not been open 12 months for members to log in. SI has been open since early June 2009. That is just over 8 months. I am hopeful the 12 months will be revised to eight months or, if I might suggest,

“Active” here means members who have logged in at the site since it reopened in June 2009.

Nevertheless, it is gratifying to see that SI is responsive and moving toward genuine reporting to its membership and potential advertisers.

The evolving current statement represents significant revision from the original statement at SI 3.0, which claimed,

“The site has four thousand members (several hundred active) who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.”

SI 3.0 never had four thousand members, therefore, the long awaited removal of that claim was most welcome.

In 2009 I had several discussions with Aaron Blumer sharing with him how it was highly unethical to claim “four thousand” (4,000) members at SI 3.0 when SI clearly did not, and does not today, have that membership level to produce to its advertisers.

Having been a working professional in the media I understand how, with SI struggling to meet its financial obligations, needs to attract advertising revenue. However, to make claims of a numerical target audience and set advertising fees based on those numbers that cannot be produced or delivered to an advertiser, i.e., that do NOT exist is highly unethical.

I demonstrated to Aaron how the 4,000 members claim is the first cousin of “cooking the books,” which is a serious federal offense. He at first rejected these things, trying to legitimize the claim. Obviously and thankfully Aaron has come to realize that he could not in good conscience stand by a claim of 4,000 members at SI 3.0 and therefore made correction.

The latter portion “who identify with conservative evangelicalism” has, however, been dropped, but should not have been, which will be the subject of a future discussion.

And Still Another Revision at SI:
SI has revised its What to Expect from SI Moderators section. No longer does the following appear,

So Moderators can and do join in the “game,” but mostly do a lot of watching.

The revised portion now reads as follows (note the underlined),

So Moderators can and do join in the “game,” but are not just “players.”

As I have documented in Blowing the Whistle on the SI “Referees” and in Who are SI’s “Most Active Members”, SI admins and moderators step way beyond the bounds of observers or referees. That they do not settle for “the role of referee” in a “game of pick up basketball,” they become the game and dominate the threads because if they did not participate aggressively most would be void of any commentary or discussion whatsoever.

There is nothing inherently wrong with SI moderators taking very active roles in the threads. To have portrayed their role, however, as that of a “referee” and then let them interject personal biases, choosing sides, playing favorites with impunity was inconsistent with SI’s stated role for its moderators. If on the rare occasion someone from what is left of the membership were to take an opposing view to any one of the SI moderator’s personal biases, including, but not limited to Calvinism and especially conservative evangelicalism, at least they will no longer react under the facade of “mostly doing a lot of watching.”

It is again gratifying to recognize the responsiveness of SI.

Responsive when obvious inconsistencies are demonstrated between what SI claims to be and do with the reality of what SI is and does.

I am pleased to recognize that nearly every time legitimate issues with SI’s claims or practices are disclosed, here or in private to the site administrator, the site responds with modest adjustments.


LM

Blowing the Whistle on SI “Referees,” Redux: Who are SI's “Most Active Members?”

In October 2009 I posted Blowing the Whistle on the SI “Referees”
For example:

At Sharper Iron (SI) under the heading Volunteer Staff the following appears: SharperIron has a volunteer crew of Moderators who work to keep discussions respectful and edifying.

Then under What to expect from SI Moderators… (excerpt)
The Moderator role is not a “spiritual advisor” role, teacher role, or disciple-making role. These functions are far better supplied by your local church. When it comes to rules and moderating, the forums should work like a game of pick up basketball (or maybe a Chess tournament) where someone has the job of stepping into the role of referee when the need arises. So Moderators can and do join in the “game,” but mostly do a lot of watching.

The conclusion was:

In summation: It is obvious to any objective observer that far and away the most active voices in the discussion threads are coming from SI’s moderators. In many cases these men and women do not settle for “the role of referee” in a “game of pick up basketballl,” they become the game.

There is nothing inherently wrong with SI moderators taking very active roles in the threads. To portray their role, however, as that of a “referee” and then let them control the game, its direction and interject personal bias with impunity is inconsistent with SI’s stated role for its moderators.

Today I’d like to update on that issue with some current data from SI’s Foundry page. I’m doing so partially because one SI team leader contacted me to suggest that SI team members do not dominate the discussion threads. To suggest that SI team leaders are not the most “active members.”

Following are two recent samples from the pseudo- fundamentalist SI’s Foundry, under “Most Active Members” heading.

Most Active Members
Most active in the last week (accessed, 2/11/2010)
Jim Peet (40) Moderator
Aaron Blumer (22) Site Publisher
Jay C (15) SI Registrations
Anne Sokol (13)
RPittman (12)
Susan R (8) Moderator
Bob T. (7)
Larry (5) Moderator
Charlie (6)
Joseph (5)

90 of 133 total entries were posted by SI personnel. That is 68% of submitted comments coming from the SI admins and/or moderators.

Most Active Members
Most active in the last week (accessed, 2/17/10)
Jim Peet (50) Moderator
Aaron Blumer (25) Site Publisher
Jay C (19) SI Registrations
Larry (18) Moderator
Susan R (14) Moderator
RPittman (13)
Anne Sokol (10)
Charlie (8)
Joel Tetreau (7)
Ed Vasicek (6)

Of 170 comments- 126 were posted by SI personnel. That is 74% of submitted comments coming from the SI admins and/or moderators.

From SI’s own tracking data any objective observer will recognize:

1) On SI’s FAQ page to advertisers the claim of “over a thousand active members” is a hyper-inflated overstatement.

2) Apart from SI moderators populating the discussion threads- most would have almost no activity whatsoever.

The conclusion is simple: Claims of what to expect from SI’s moderators is window dressing. Do SI moderators, as claimed for them “mostly do a lot of watching?” Do they operate primarily as “referees?” Of course not!

That the SI team are the top posters and the most “active members” is understandable. With SI staff’s personal and/or site biases having alienated or driven off most every non-Calvinistic fundamentalist and/or person who does not embrace the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism there is virtually no one left at SI for what is left of *SI’s membership to engage in a reasonable discussion or debate.

In closing: SI intends to publish results from its recently concluded survey. A few weeks ago a sample of the results was published by site publisher Aaron Blumer. You can read samples at SI “Survey SAYS…”


LM

*SI (2.0) once claimed 4,000 registered members. Today, SI (3.0) claims just over 1,000 members, quite obviously with very few “active members” outside its admins and moderators.

UPDATE:
SI is responding to the revelation of the issues being raised here. SI is revising it claims to members and potential advertisers that are detailed above. Please continue to, Gratifying Responsiveness of SI

SI Survey, “SAYS…”

The pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron blog has been conducting a fact-finding survey. SI has suffered huge losses in membership, dwindling participation in its threads and has been publishing appeals for funds to cover financial shortfalls. If it wasn’t for the SI moderators accounting for the lion’s share of thread commentary the site would very possibly grind to a halt. With these and other issues in view SI publisher Aaron Blumer is looking for some way to rejuvenate SI, encourage participation and attract advertisers.

In Blumer’s first survey update (posted 12/17) he reveals some of the current survey results and general commentary from some who have participated in the survey. Among other comments the following were included:

“…It is apparent to me that being too honest on this site is not generally welcome by the new publisher and owner. BTW, the site has noticeably deteriorated in the past year in debate quality and thought-provoking information provided. Hence, even though I have considered posting, I have resisted. And to further clarify FYI, I do consider myself a historic fundamentalist even though I share a YF view.”

“You’re talking about censorship, you have moderators deciding who is ill-informed, and personal bias often gets involved, SI has a history of allowing non-Fundamentalists to join.”

“In the past there were times when accusations and slander against individuals being discussed was permitted; I haven’t seen it in a while.”

“It also seems like (especially in the Filings sidebar) that this blog is turning into one of those ‘watchblogs’ where all we like to do is talk about the evil in the apostate churches and the unregenerate world and get all excited about how terrible it all is. Why is that so exciting?”

“While this survey might be helpful to you, the horse left the barn. You already lost virtually every non-Calvinist, balanced Fundamentalist. You have little idea how many have been driven away by your hosting, backing and running interference for Bauder. You aren’t going get any one back and the rest aren’t going to join SI as it is still moving toward evangelicalism and promoting those views and practices. You’re too late! No one believes SI can be returned to a balanced, biblical Fundamentalism because under Janz it never was in the first place and is still moving away under Blumer. You’re too late!”

For the balance of this article I will excerpt a selction of comments from the discussion thread under the survey update.

“I was surprised that only 44% (total) claimed to be either 4 or 5 point Calvinists (I am a 4). Reading the posts, one would think that it would be more like 85%!”

Agreed, because about all SI has left on its rolls are those who are Calvinistic in their theology.

“I also think SI should advertise itself as a “Fundamentalist/Conservative Evangelical” site to attract more participation.”

SI had been advertising itself a place for *Fundamentalists of the “conservative” evangelical variety. Even before that transparent disclosure SI had long since made it clear that is was very fond of and biased toward the “conservative” evengelical camp. That is one of the primary reasons why SI has lost virtually every balanced Fundamentalist that used to or might have participated.

“As for talking Bible content, it’s true we used to have a handful of folks who really enjoyed discussing exposition and these are, for whatever reason, not participating anymore.” (Aaron Blumer)

The reason is very simple: SI moderator’s Calvinistic biases; SI site tolerance for besmirching Fundamentalism, its bent toward the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism steadily drove off virtually every non-Calvinistic fundamentalist. I can name three men who until mid-2009 were discussing exposition. SI lost them and will not get any of them back or new participants to replace them or the many others who left SI prior to 2009.

“I didn’t mention it in the main post, but there was also alot of votes for structured debate with selected participants. So that idea has promise. The challenge there is finding people with the right qualities to participate.” (Aaron Blumer)

SI is highly unlikely to get any participants from a non-Calvinist, pro-dispensational view. SI can’t even get a decent debate going on Calvinism since SI drove off every non-Calvinist member who once enjoyed and would participate in the debates. I have advised as many as I can to refrain from participating at SI. To participate only draws attention to SI and that means they have more opportunity to promote “conservative” evangelicalism, its growing ecumenism, aberrant doctrine and pattern of worldly methods of ministry.

“And, if you say that you’d rather have CE’s than those kinds of Fundamentalists, you’ve really raised the question whether SI Fundamentalists are distinguishable from CE’s.”

Exactly the point! Pretty much all that is left of SI participants are those who have become conservative evangelicals, which is why you can’t distinguish between the alleged SI Fundamentalist and the “conservative” evangelicals.

This was IMO one of the most poignant comments to date:

“If SI Fundamentalists cannot be differentiated from CE’s, then one of two things must be true. 1) SI Fundamentalists are really CE’s, not Fundamentalists, or 2) CE and Fundamentalist are at least partially overlapping terms. If #1, then SI’s posturing as a site for Fundamentalists is a farce. If #2, then SI is operating with a vocabulary significantly different than most Fundamentalist institutions....”

LM

*In the SI FAQ section, until recently, you would have read this statement

“The site has four thousand members (several hundred active) who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.”

The FAQ statement has been revised as follows,

“The site has over a thousand active members who identify with Fundamentalism (more than four thousand archived members).”

*Since June 2009 SI had for months misrepresented its actual membership count, which as of 02/03/10 is at just over 1,000. Until recently, when the FAQ had been revised, SI was claiming to it advertisers, “4,000 members (with) several hundred active.”

Blowing the Whistle on the SI “Referees”

From the Iron Skillet this morning- At Sharper Iron (SI) under the heading Volunteer Staff the following appears:

SharperIron has a volunteer crew of Moderators who work to keep discussions respectful and edifying.

Then under What to expect from SI Moderators . . (excerpt)

The Moderator role is not a “spiritual advisor” role, teacher role, or disciple-making role. These functions are far better supplied by your local church. When it comes to rules and moderating, the forums should work like a game of pick up basketball (or maybe a Chess tournament) where someone has the job of stepping into the role of referee when the need arises. So Moderators can and do join in the “game,” but mostly do a lot of watching.

This is a fair and acceptable job description of what participants at SI should expect at SI from its moderators. However, do the SI moderators, “mostly do a lot of watching?”

Most of SI’s moderators have operated within the guidelines set out in the description above. However, it is irrefutable that there are frequent examples of moderators tossing aside their zebra striped jersey to join in the game. In some cases, furthermore, openly taking sides in debates.

In old and new SI some of the moderators have done much more than “stepping into the role of referee.” Often times SI moderators bring their personal views into thread discussions, getting into debates and occasionally taking sides in the thread discussions. This was never more stark than when this past summer Aaron Blumer openly took sides against Missionary John Himes over *Kevin Bauder’s unprovoked attack on the legacy of Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and Himes’s grandfather Dr. John R. Rice.

Let’s now look at a recent discussion thread. Are Rules Dangerous? Part 1 (posted 10/13/09). As of October 15 there were 69 posted comments. Approximately 40 of which were posted by SI moderators, administrators or the site publisher. This is a current and clear case, one of many, in which SI moderators go way beyond the role of observers or referees.

It is irrefutable and the evidence is obvious to any objective observer that SI has dwindled in membership and especially in the number of active participants. That trend began over two years ago and has steadily drained SI of members and active participants. Aaron, in his most recent plea for operating funds, (See And Now This, Oct. 20) disclosed an accurate count of actual members at SI, which is just over 1,000 with very few of these active in the threads. This acknowledgement and editing of previous membership claims at the SI FAQ page is a welcome change. Until very recently SI was **cooking its membership books suggesting to potential advertisers that SI “has four thousand members (several hundred active).”

According to Aaron’s accounting from his And Now This fund raising appeal, SI has lost 75% of its former (SI 2.0) membership. The significance of this is that with such drastic losses in membership the SI moderators and Aaron must join in the game or most SI threads would grind to a halt. Even so, many threads languish with little or no commentary whatsoever.

In summation: It is obvious to any objective observer that far and away the most active voices in the discussion threads are coming from SI’s moderators. In many cases these men and women do not settle for “the role of referee” in a “game of pick up basketball,” they become the game.

There is nothing inherently wrong with SI moderators taking very active roles in the threads. To portray their role, however, as that of a “referee” and then let them control the game, its direction and interject personal bias with impunity is inconsistent with SI’s stated role for its moderators.


LM

*For the companion article see- Kevin Bauder: Even More Than “Nuff Said” For His Removal From the National Platform of the FBFI Annual Fellowship

**More on SI’s pulling back from cooking its membership books in a future article.

For an appendix to this topic see the attached comment thread.