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.

Ed, I don’t find that you usually advance the discussion. You seem to just want to take potshots at people. That isn’t what my blog is after, in spite of my polemic style and frequent subject matter.

In any case, I posted this message simply to answer your charge about Lou. I appreciate Lou and his fundamentalist convictions. I think he sometimes errs in things he says, or in the way he says them, but I do appreciate his faithful fundamentalist testimony. Lou could tell you that I don’t approve all of his posts either. In fact, Lou probably gets more posts trashed on oxgoad than anyone else. My reasoning for that is two-fold: 1) Lou has his own blog where he can promote his positions, 2) Lou can get quite intense and make multiple posts on a single topic – I don’t want him to become the dominant poster in any thread (that’s MY spot!!!). However, I don’t think I can simply ban Lou. He is not intemperate in his language, he is usually on topic, and he is often right.

Others, who seem to want to just snipe and criticize and make arguments that have already been made and answered, may find less of a welcome here.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Dave, I don’t think the guys who have backed out of participation in SI are demanding obsequiousness or obeisance. They might be willing to contribute to the discussions if they weren’t met by rudeness and the unrestrained ‘shouting down’ that often goes on.

I realize that moderation is not easy, but rude behaviour is allowed to continue far far too long. The current anti-Phelps thread is a prime example. The clowns involved are obsessed with this issue. It is the only thing they ever talk about, whether it be attacking Chuck, Dr Bob, or BJU. It is endless, foolish, and unprofitable.

I also recognize that it is easy to cross the line and be too blunt. I try to argue dispassionately, but I do let the emotions run riot at times. I should just walk away from the computer when that happens, but I of course think I am in control, perfect control, no problems here…

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I’m not expecting you to post this comment since you didn’t post my last, but I just wanted to point out that this is another example of what I’ve mentioned to you before: your inconsistency regarding BJU and the FBF. You are critical of those attacking Phelps, now a board member of BJU and a board member of the FBF. You even say they are lynching him.

However, you say nothing about Lou, who has slandered Bauder and Doran repeatedly, calling for people to boycott their ministries. As well, he has lied about SI and continues to be on a mission against it. Yet you simply allow his comments to stand. Since it’s your blog you are free to say and allow whatever you want. Just don’t be surprised when people take what you say less seriously because they see the inconsistency.

Ed

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.

If someone from my church (or, for that matter, my family) goes to the site and sees me involved in a discussion, and see the kinds of comments that some people make, what is the impact on them? They aren’t likely to think less of me. That factor doesn’t really come into it, for me.

The real danger is that they will slip into sinful attitudes towards the person who has appointed himself to attack me — and they will (at least in their heart, if not in writing) attack back.

A significant factor in my greatly reduced involvement is that I concluded I needed to “protect myself” because of the need to protect others from wrong attitudes. This is certain — those who know, love, and respect Don, if they see how he is treated sometimes on SI, are going to be tempted to anger. Those who know, love, and respect Dr. McCune will have been tempted to let fly. In that sense, men like Mike Harding provided a real service by giving a voice to those people in a spiritually mature fashion.

There are other reasons I’ve pulled back from SI significantly, especially compared to my involvement in the past, but the one I’ve described here is one others have rarely mentioned.

Who knew that a thread on “propaganda” would end up discussing SI participation? :)

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

My uncle used to say that he didn’t know if Christians could become demon possessed, but they could certainly become demon-obsessed. There is a whole class of people for whom this demon is their obsession. It goes beyond discussion. They are ought to crucify people.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

If people have what they feel are legitimate problems regarding that situation, why not discuss them?

I agree that it is difficult to manage online fora, but there seems to be little effort to restrain the most obnoxious. There is also a bit of a generation gap – the older generation simply has a hard time dealing with what seems to be a very rude younger generation. They just choose to ignore it for the most part. I think that is a mistake, but you can’t change what people are, generally speaking.

It’s like how I describe the ministry, often like herding cats.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3