is it propaganda?

Don,

Speaking for myself, I use the term conservative to refer to a slightly different, more specific bundle of convictions than I intend when I speak of fundamentalist. When I’m writing about being a conservative, issues of the affections and worship are most often (but not always) in play. In those cases, the things that I advocate because I’m a conservative actually run counter to much of the nonsense that still pervades fundamentalism: trite and breezy worship services, manipulative decisionism, intellectual shallowness, etc.

There is no effort on my part at anything like rebranding here. To oversimplify: if we’re talking about the philosophy and practice of separatism, I’m a fundamentalist. But if we’re talking about liturgical issues, I’m a conservative.

Good night. If I’d have known this touched so much on RAM, I’d have read past the first few paragraphs the first time.

I’m ambivalent about the term fundamentalist/ism even if I’m fundamentalistical. But Alex G made a good point at SI tonight, identify with something else and you likely take on more and more significant problems.

So I guess I’m staying in to press for resurgence. :^)

Regarding who will not appear in a forum like SI, there is doubtless some effect from those who leave because of either perceived ganging up, or because of obnoxious posters being allowed to participate (to a point). However, there are also many who have never participated and who won’t on a forum that allows pretty much equal access to all voices. While I wish those men wouldn’t think that way, I would never want a place like SI to be controlled for only those who have “earned a right to speak.” We have enough forums like that already. If that means some voices are lost, then so be it. That’s why I really appreciate it when men like Dr. Bauder and Dr. McCune participate directly.

I agree with D4 that there should probably be some way to handle internet etiquette so that equal access doesn’t result in either fawning or complete disdain, but some of that is the nature of human behavior, and rules only go so far. They are just as hard to administer in a forum as they are in say, a school. You will always get complaints from both sides that things are too strict or too lax. You can’t please everyone.

Don:

You wrote, “He [JamesK] regularly is extremely obnoxious in his posting. I can’t understand why the SI moderators don’t come down on him hard, or throw him off altogether.”

Because IMO JamesK’s targets (persons and positions) for hostile, obnoxious comments are the preferred targets of the SI leadership. If he were obnoxious toward any of the favored persons or positions of the SI leadership he would have been come down hard on and thrown off long ago.

In your last you closed with,

“Last, on SI: I think the guys you wish were still participating in SI have given up on the place because of the unfettered behaviour of clowns like James K, noted above. Also for the swarming tactics used against anyone who has a more traditional fundamentalist point of view. Look at the continued and ongoing public lynching of Chuck Phelps. Those people need to get a life.”

In concise terms you have hit the nail on the head. I still interact in private communication with several who used to participate at SI. They, just as I did, quit SI for the exact reasons (and more of the same) you site above.

The character assassination, the “ongoing public lynching of Chuck Phelps” is obvious, allowed for and participated in by SI leadership.

DB, the ganging up at SI is not perceived, it is fact and frequently practiced at SI by certain members and the moderators, just as Don described it.

LM

Don, first off, if you want to just delete this as being too far off the thread topic, go ahead.

JG, it *is* a bit unusual that this thread took the turn it did, but it may yet turn out to be useful.

To some extent, I see where you are coming from, especially as you are one of the more “mild-mannered” posters out there. I wish SI had more who could (in very “British” fashion) get their point across in a way that was polite while still being very pointed. However, such people are not the norm. For every one like you SI encounters, it sees several similar to the “Jackhammer” persuasion who think SI is far too critical of tone, does not allow enough sparks or sharpening, and is generally too controlling rather than not controlling enough. Some of those people have boards you participate on, and some you would stay away from, but the real difference in most cases between them is *not* the tone, but the target.

Along those lines, there are also those who like sharpness of speech just fine as long as it is coming from the old guard of fundamentalism (they see it as “contending for the faith”), but when equal tone comes back at them, they see it as “ganging up” or even “lynching”, or at least consider it “obnoxious” speech. I.e., there is very much a double standard in place. SI tries to avoid that, but obviously not completely successfully.

Then, there are those like Don, who use plain speech to the point of bluntness (e.g. “Fundamentalism by blunt instrument”), who seem to handle themselves fine, but apparently when spoken to in the same fashion can somehow generate sympathy in others (this is the first I’ve heard of people getting angry at others responses to Don). I appreciate Don’s bluntness because it is much like mine, which I usually have to temper *a lot* before I post. I’ve had to learn the hard way about posting in anger, but I’ve also had time to do so, since I’ve been participating in internet discussions since the mid-late 80’s. Generally, plain speech is preferred, since it can be the most honest, but it can cross the line into disrespect or worse. I think it still beats disdain disguised as politeness.

Although I won’t go into specific policies or posters, I will mention that often, the posts others read represent just the tip of the iceberg, with much of the vitriol either having been deleted outright, or edited by the moderators. It’s a tough line to walk. Just be aware you don’t see everything that goes on behind the scenes, and that there are many discussions about what crosses the line and what doesn’t. We won’t always make the right decision, and if that influences you or others to post less, then so be it. One thing is certain — if SI were a place that was comfortable for all of the old guard of fundamentalism to participate, and it didn’t allow questioning or examination of any traditions or sacred cows, it would be far less useful a place than it is now. I regret that that means some participation is lost (since it’s not a “safe” place for some to speak with impunity), but that makes me even more thankful for those who will take on the task of speaking to the new generation without demanding obsequiousness or obeisance.

Dave, thanks for the lengthy response. Just so you know, Brits don’t always confine themselves to politeness. :)

The concern I raised was not focused on:
a) People disagreeing with me. I encourage people to feel free to express it when they do, even our church members. Then we can talk about it.
b) Blunt speech, even sharp speech, on topic.

What I’m talking about is personal attacks, ad hominems, straw man arguments, etc. SI seems, at times, to drift into a culture where it is acceptable to mock people, and to mock positions that, whether based on sound exegesis or not, are drawn on Scripture.

It violates the entire attitude we are supposed to have towards brothers in Christ.

I don’t care whether someone agrees with my stated positions on separation, or music, or even clapping (for crying out loud — I can’t figure why that was so amazingly controversial, either you agree or disagree. But I’m still getting traffic on that piece).

I do care if someone mischaracterises my position into something it isn’t, or makes the position about me rather than about the Scriptures, or personally denigrates me (which again changes the focus from the Scriptures), or simply makes a mockery of the whole thing.

I would especially care if a member of the SI team engaged in that kind of behaviour, of course. In any event, the culture would need to change considerably before I would feel I could participate at all at the level I did in the past.