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

Since mid-2009 I have been identifying Sharper Iron (SI) as a “pseudo- fundamentalist” 1 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 Façade & 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.4 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?

“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?

SI’s Censorship by Omission: A New Low

Sharper Iron’s (SI) site publisher Aaron Blumer has authorized reports at SI on a number of news making sexual scandals within the church. Most recently Blumer’s SI has been particularly eager to highlight the case in New Hampshire (NH) aired in a recent ABC network 20/20 news special that is currently making its way through the judicial system there. On that case Blumer has uploaded three Filings at SI with the latest posted in recent days. Blumer has overseen two forum discussions. He has participated in and personally encouraged discussion in the threads.

SI is infamous for bias and playing favorites on behalf of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals and its castigation of Fundamentalism through contributors and Blogroll. In the news arena over reports of sexual abuse in the church SI under Blumer has continued their pattern of bias and censorship by omission.

Why is it that Blumer as well as most of SI’s administrators and moderators eagerly post articles on and participate in discussions of the NH case, but when it comes to published allegations of sexual predation by SI’s former and first site publisher, Pastor Jason Janz, SI’s current leadership is silent?

Sources close to SI and Pastor Janz reported that the week after ABC’s 20/20 program aired friends who had talked to Janz were saying that a soon-to-come statement would explain why and what he confessed. “Soon to come…” were Jason’s words to a friend. “Soon to come” has come and gone. Janz is clearly past that timing now.

Of course, and predictably, SI is going to ignore this. SI’s history of bias has found a new journalistic low. An alleged sexual predator (incest) is the beneficiary of SI and Blumer’s practice of censorship by omission. In the meantime, Blumer and SI eagerly publicize, encourage and participate in discussions of a (former) pastor of the NH church who is not accused of or culpable for any actual sexual abuse.

How any one could participate with or spend advertising dollars at SI with this kind of blatant, egregious, biased behavior on the part of its site publisher is difficult to understand. This latest act of censorship by omission removes any doubt that SI is political first.


Site Publisher’s Note:
While the controversy continues, which SI ignores; why does SI continue posting advertisements for Janz’s book, Alone With God? Is it possible that sorely needed advertising dollars is behind this book’s on-going presence at SI?.

SI Playing Favorites: Again???

Dear Guests of SI-ITIS:

It is very rare that I will have something beneficial to report on from the pseudo-Fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI), but today is an exception. I have to go back to August for this article, which was to post then, but I held in reserve to instead focus on other more pressing issues at the time.

On August 26, 2010 SI posted the Central Seminary (Kevin Bauder’s) Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism. The thread opened with a comment by an RPittman, whom I am not personally familiar with. At the close of Pittman’s first comment (in the thread) on Central’s ethos statement he asked,

“Is this the torpedo that sank the talks between Faith and Central?

Kevin Bauder, who rarely acknowledges any legitimate critical questions or comments, reacted with sarcasm and ad hominem insinuations. Brother Pittman followed with a fair, pointed and balanced reaction to Kevin Bauder. With that a portion of Brother Pittman’s response at SI follows.

“Dr. Bauder, I regret that our conversation has to begin with sarcasm. However, I must have missed something. Would you please kindly point out in my post where I questioned your motivation? You are reading something that is not there. I have made no pretense of judging you or your faculty’s motivation. I suppose that I should know my own mind and intentions better than you because I wrote the post. I don’t like this stratagem because it has the effect of putting me in a bad light from the start. Furthermore, I am plain-spoken and candid in my comments....You’ve aired these or similar views previously. I do not, however, think this statement* is representative of Central’s position on separation in the past. Do you think that old-time Fundamentalist Dr. R. V. Clearwaters would have agreed to this statement? Do you think George W. Dollar [would] be [in] agreement with this position? BTW, W. B. Riley made statements that are very close to KJVOism. Perhaps, you ought to broaden your perspective.”

With a growing number of blogs and individuals beginning to publish open criticism of the way in which Kevin Bauder has been trying to redefine, and castigate Fundamentalism, chip away at biblical separatism, plus run interference for the evangelical’s doctrinal aberrations and ecumenical compromises I get the definite impression that he is beginning to find that militancy in Fundamentalism is not a dead as he might like for it to be.

But where does SI playing favorites come in?

I just read a comment (#25) from RPittman (RP)to Aaron Blumer (SI site publisher) that is so emblematic of how things have always worked at SI. RP asked Aaron,

“Now, Aaron, why did you fly to the good Doctor's defense? Why didn’t you defend me when Dr. Bauder direct sarcasm toward me?”

The history of SI has always, always been to play favorites; to gang-tackle, bully and/or marginalize anyone who does not toe the SI party line, attack and chide anyone who dares to confront Bauder or one of the stars of evangelicalism. The SI moderators pounce on, malign and impugn others at will with no admonition from Blumer whatsoever.

Blumer, Rogier, Peet, SusanR, et. al., gang-tackle any non-Calvinist, non-LS, non-gusher over the evangelicals who dares raise a legitimate challenge and this has been another glaring example. Bauder, of course, is given free rein to speak down to Brother Pittman with impunity.

This is the history of SI’s bullying those who are not in the SI fold and why so many have quit and/or never joined in the first place. Many remember how the SI team attacked John Himes over Bauder’s unprovoked attack on John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr. How the SI moderators and Blumer maligned and scolded Dwight Smith over his clever letter from “Doc” Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder. (See- A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder)

Aaron Blumer and his moderators exemplified once again the obvious bias against those who express legitimate concern with Kevin Bauder’s articles, Calvinism, the star personalities of evangelicalism and their fellowships. Playing favorites and political bias is the hallmark and history of SI’s site publisher, admins and moderators.

And Aaron has to conduct surveys to figure why SI is failing, why so many have quit participating; why he has to keep appealing for operating funds from what is left of SI's membership through various means?


LM

*Bauder wrote, “What is surprising is that anyone would think this statement says something new. It is a fair representation of the mainstream Fundamentalism in which I was reared.”

I Had to Ask: Does This Sharpen Me?

Dear Guests of SI-ITIS:

Last week I posted two articles in regard to Sharper Iron. The first was posted at my this blog blog. The article was composed by Ps. Brian Ernsberger who recently quit SI and explained his departure. Please see, SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another for details. The second article I posted was a response to Aaron Blumer’s article (9/2) A Few Answers to SI Critics. An article in which he complains about long time, wide spread legitimate criticism of SI. You may read SI Sizzles In & Over the Iron Skillet for a complete reaction to Blumer’s complaints. Today, Aaron is hearing from another former, long time member of SI who shares his experience with SI. An experience, which typifies what is commonplace at SI and why so many have quit SI or would never join in the first place. Let’s now consider why one would ask: Does This Sharpen Me?

I’ve recently come to a decision. It wasn’t earth shattering, and quite honestly, the effect of my decision will likely go unnoticed by the very individuals that necessitated it. In May 2005, I joined the self-identified, fundamentalist website, Sharper Iron. Since that time I posted literally hundreds of times on a variety of topics, some serious and others not. My purpose in joining was to reacquaint myself with some of the current issues in fundamentalism as I approached my ordination some twelve years removed from my graduate work. In those early days, I found much to praise at Sharper Iron. I learned a lot. I solidified a number of positions as I observed, and occasionally partook in, the discussions. I entered the fray decidedly separated in my personal life, as well as, ecclesiastically. I am also convinced of the superiority of the traditional family of Greek texts, and I am a non-Calvinist.

While I rarely dealt with threads on Calvinism or the text issue, I derived much personal edification from the interactions of men like Scott and Christian Markle, Jon Gleason, Lou Martuneac, John R. Himes, and others. These men represented a brand of fundamentalism with which I identify. It is a thoughtful, church-centered fundamentalism, but not one that easily tolerates error or compromise. It is also a loving fundamentalism, although you would never know that by listening to its detractors. (I have more than a few anecdotal stories to prove my point here, however). Unfortunately, those men, and effectively this whole segment of fundamentalism, are gone from the threads and pages at Sharper Iron.

Increasingly, the threads are filled with intimations of “serious doctrinal error” hurled toward fellow fundamentalists, while the compromise and errors of Conservative Evangelical personalities are glossed over as praise is lavished on their ministries, as in a recent series of articles by Dr. Kevin Bauder.

When a concerned member recently posted a thoughtful response to one of Dr. Bauder’s articles, his response A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder was sharply criticized by SI moderators (Rogier, JayC and Linscott) and ultimately removed by Aaron Blumer. A few days later, an SI Filing/thread was posted by Sharper Iron leadership (Jim Peet, Aaron Blumer) introducing and eagerly promoting a website that was nothing more than a vicious personal attack on Lou Martuneac.

Just last week an SI filing referencing a blog post by Dave Doran provided an illustration of some of the concerns I am articulating in this article. It was one of the clearest examples in a long line of the double standards that exist at Sharper Iron. Doran hurled an ad hominem attack at an unnamed fundamentalist(s) using the phrase “pathetic and disingenuous” to describe those who opposed or were relieved the merger of Faith and Central had not gone through. When one commenter called SI to the carpet over this filing he was firmly rebuked. It appears there is a lot of “respecting of persons” going on over there, and now I suspected and have confirmed yet another conservative fundamentalist has left the SI ranks.

If homogeneity was their goal at SI, they have very nearly accomplished it.

It seems serious concerns brought in from the “right end” of the fundamentalist spectrum are scrutinized far more closely at SI than the attacks thrown back the other way. I find that disheartening at best. My alma mater has been a regular source of ridicule, yet such ridicule is rarely hurled at Conservative Evangelical institutions. It smacks of a bias away from the southern brand of fundamentalists and away, it seems, from me.

I’ve watched over the years as non-Calvinists, traditional text men, and those who hold to a certain standard of personal separation were repeatedly shouted down by SI moderators and other members. Of course, a vigorous debate is desirable in many cases; however, on the internet, such debates often become a numerical dog-pile where reasoned arguments carry less weight than the shear number of responses. The result is that the admittedly minority viewpoints eventually “wore out” and stopped posting.

Today SI is a place where Calvinism is the settled opinion of the overwhelming majority of posters. The traditional text family is seen as inferior and those who hold to it are routinely labeled obscurantist or ignorant. Personal separatism to a degree held by our parents and grandparents is regularly declared legalism and almost anything now appears acceptable under an understanding of Romans 14 that puts the perceived rights of the “strong” over concern for the weak.

I find that SI is not a place that welcomes my viewpoint, nor is it a place that holds the Conservative Evangelical camp to the same standard it holds my “camp.” 

 Well, I, for one, am tired. The old caricature of the angry, fightin’ fundy, so repudiated by the SI majority is quickly becoming the new face of that very site (moderators and remaining membership), only in reverse. It’s a strange, almost surreal thing to realize that you’ve become the very thing you’ve opposed. Unfortunately, I am almost sure the SI leadership does not even recognize the shift.

I am sure there will be those who believe my assessment is wrong, but I know that I am not alone in this opinion. When a number of different individuals with no connection to one another outside of this website bring the same concerns to light, it should raise the concerns of the site leadership. As for me, I wish them no ill, but I had to ask, “Does this sharpen me?” So, I’ve chosen to leave Sharper Iron for good. As I said, in the beginning, I doubt they even noticed.

(Disclaimer: I have submitted this article anonymously. I am obligated to do so by my current ministry situation.)

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
The author is one of many in a long line who have quit SI because of its obvious bias. Many of these raised and tried to resolve genuine concerns with SI’s leadership prior to departing, but without success. Aaron Blumer claims he wants to hear from critics, but when wide spread legitimate concerns with SI were posted in his (9/2) thread by a fundamentalist pastor (Marc Monte) SI moderators immediately set upon him. Blumer responded with, “It’s not like everybody has to like SI. If a few dozen or a few hundred don’t see much value in it (or worse yet, think it’s toxic) that’s OK. They have no obligation to even care about what happens here. But if they do, the contact form is there. I have nothing more to say than that…. And we’ve given folks lots of opportunities to communicate. Until they do, the whole matter is moot. I’m not going to chase ghosts”

That reaction typified why the pseudo-fundamentalist SI has hemorrhaged so many members over the last several years. Typifies why SI will never be able to win back the departed. Typifies why SI is not a welcome place for fundamentalist preachers like Marc Monte, Brian Ernsberger and the author of this article. SI is a place whose leadership eagerly welcomes those who wish to heap lavish praise on the star personalities of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals, welcomes those who will tolerate and excuse the aberrant theology and ecumenism of conservative evangelicals, welcomes those who castigate fundamentalism with the broad brush and line up against any who dare to offer legitimate criticism of conservative evangelicalism, defend fundamentalism or question SI’s obvious bias.

SI Sizzles In & Over the Iron Skillet

Aaron Blumer, site publisher of the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI) has reacted to articles at my obscure blog SI: In the Iron Skillet and criticism of SI various threads at this blog. See this commentary, and this commentary and for example consider the following edited excerpt,

Last night a preacher sent me an e-mail advising me of this recent quote at SI, from one of its leadership, “SI is not trying to redefine Fundamentalism or doctrine.” Is he kidding or incredibly naïve? Since its inception SI has been trying to castigate and redefine Fundamentalism (with Kevin Bauder taking SI’s lead in these efforts) and furthermore make fundamentalism compatible and tasteful for the evangelicals whom SI heaps lavish praise on. One guest at my blog asked, “Even if SI gang tackles certain people, aren’t they just acting like so many have in the past?” SI moderators have historically and certainly do gang tackle participants with whom they have issues. The fiasco with Dwight Smith over the “Doc” Clearwaters Letter to Kevin Bauder being among the most recent. From 2009 SI moderators and Blumer piling on John Himes who tried to address Kevin Bauder’s unprovoked attacks on John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr. So, YES they act like so many in the past the very attitudes they denounce. The problem is: SI does not even realize that they (moderators and some vocal members) have become the very thing they decry and detest from Fundamentalism’s past.

Aaron Blumer has reacted to the legitimate criticism coming from various sources to the obvious bias and other verifiable issues with SI. Not unexpectedly he does not disclose vital facts that would be problematic to his team and site. Nevertheless, I have two articles, among many more, that detail with archived material from SI, verifying legitimate criticism that Aaron understandably does not want to fully disclose to what is left of SI’s membership and advertisers. I encourage you to, among other examples, carefully read,

Blowing the Whistle on the SI “Referees”

SI May Fit the Description of Pseudo- Fundamentalist

In 2009 Aaron Blumer misrepresented the membership numbers to his advertisers when he opened SI 3.0. Aaron was claiming “4,000 members, with several hundred active,” that he knew he did not have and could not produce in June 2009. Only after I contacted him, drove home the point that he was misrepresenting the true membership count did he reluctantly revise his claims to a more accurate number. Blumer, in his words, “updated the page with more precise wording,” after I explained to him that his misrepresentation of the membership count is commonly known as “cooking the books.” His update was not “more precise wording,” it was more honest wording.

You will also note that Aaron did describe SI as site, “with 4,000 members who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.” The “little switcheroo misquote” obviously is his own and I am happy to be able to refresh his memory of how he did describe SI. That was verbatim how he defined SI, but again responded to me and changed the wording when I pointed out to him that the statement was accurate and verified who and what SI is for, which is conservative evangelicalism.

Incidentally, in his complaint piece he states, “‘3.0’ does not have members and never will.” Well, I'm happy to refresh his memory again. The quote above about his “4,000 members,” those are his words that he posted at the current SI 3.0! Plus, in the comment threads under the name of every participant is an icon. Go to SI and hold your cursor over any of those check mark icons and you will see this word appear, “MEMBER.” Furthermore, when a member quits SI, his icon (half moon) is changed to “former member.” Aaron, SI 2.0 and 3.0 have always had “members!”

I would encourage the few current or potential advertisers who feel strongly about Fundamentalism to consider if SI is the best place to invest the resources God has entrusted to you. SI is a site that frequently allows for, promotes, and its leadership happily joins in on, the redefining, castigation and besmirchment of fundamentalism. SI, furthermore, heaps lavish praise on the so-called “conservative” evangelicals and can barely tolerate legitimate criticism of it’s star personalities or fellowships. Is the kind of site that deserves to be sustained with financial support from fundamentalist institutions?

To any fundamentalists who still has their membership with or participates at SI: I understand that you feel you may be posting for the lurkers, posting to represent what the best of fundamentalism has to offer. That is very noble and primarily why myself and others used to participate at SI putting up with the moderator’s bias, shrill complaints and gang-tackling. There comes a time, however, when you have to consider whether or not you can post at a site that does not cherish the fundamentalism you do and instead of building up fundamentalism redefines and besmirches it with impunity. Pastor Brian Ernsberger finally had enough of SI and publicly quit last week. See, SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another for details.

If it were not for a few of you left at SI their discussion threads would nearly grind to a halt. Presently if it were not for Blumer and a few of his moderators staying very active in the threads, SI’s threads would surely grind to a halt. So, to those of you who have considered, but not yet quit SI: Is commenting there, keeping its threads active the best use of your time; is that the best way to redeem the time?

Here is the real irony in Blumer’s current complaint piece about the legitimate criticism of SI. In virtually every issue I’ve raised with Aaron, some of which he references in his complaint piece, his reaction to my addressing him resulted in his making changes to the site or its descriptions.

FWIW, twice I offered to buy SI from Aaron. Once when he was trying to raise operating funds in 2009, the first offer was right after I quit SI in June 2009. I offered to give him everything he paid Jason Janz for it. My offer was declined. Too bad, I had a solid business plan for SI.

Incidentally, on Tuesday, September 7th, there will be a new article appearing at my primary blog In Defense of the Gospel. The article is from another pastor who recently quit SI and he will detail, with examples, why he quietly left. They are irrefutable examples of the bias and gamesmanship that is routine at SI and has been from its inception.

If there are any readers who have also quit SI and would like to share your experience you may e-mail your story to me at indefense06@gmail.com. Or if it is brief you may post it in this thread.

Kind regards,


LM

SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another

With Pastor Brian Ernsberger’s permission and desire that it be reproduced publicly I present his resignation from the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron.

Dear Aaron Blumer,

I have reached the end of the road as far as commenting at SI is concerned. It has become abundantly clear over the past week that it is time to leave. I fully understand that SI is your site and you may run it as you desire. With that said, though, the way in which ad hominem attacks have been leveled against individuals who would challenge the claims of an article published is just deplorable. It is one thing for other members to attack this way, but to see moderators get into the melee is just beyond the pale. This truly sickens me.

Whether it was Jim Peet or someone else (it doesn’t really matter who) who pulled my response to Peet’s delineating the comment policy (along with post #13) on the SIfiling of Dave Doran’s comments, this was a cheap shot, to leave the thread with the “public” chiding. I do not remember who posted #13 but I do recall that theirs was not worthy of censure. I do not recall seeing in the comment policy that rhetorical questions were unacceptable commenting, yet my response to bring my side of the policy issue was pulled along with an innocent bystander. Again, the actions by SI make me sick.

I ask you to promptly remove my subscription from SI. I will trouble you no more.

Brian Ernsberger
(Sent to Aaron Blumer on Sunday, August 29, 2010)

Nothing more for Aaron to know and has not heard from others who have quit SI, often for similar abuses by its moderators.

Within minutes of Aaron receiving that resignation from Brian the thread was cut down again. All trace of the abuses by Jim Peet, which Brian detailed in his resignation, were deleted and buried from view. No explanation, no apology to any offended parties. Just move quickly so that Jim Peet’s offenses were covered-up and removed from sight.

In his resignation pastor Ernsberger articulates the double-standards, bias and deplorable moderating behavior that has been SI’s history. SI moderators have from its inception taken up the their war clubs against members who reject Calvinism, Lordship Salvation, offer legitimate criticism of the star personalities of evangelicalism and question Kevin Bauder’s castigating Fundamentalism. Aaron himself has joined the gang-tackling with his moderators. His taking sides and actions against former member John Himes being fresh in mind.

For a detailed look at how SI moderators do NOT moderate, but instead have a pack dog mentality, take sides to get into the meele see, Blowing the Whistle on the SI “Referees”


LM