JackHammer

How much does it matter how I feel?  The people of Israel were in trouble, Hosea said in 4:6, because of a lack of what?  Knowledge.  I’m sure they had plenty of feelings.  We are sanctified through the truth, not through our feelings.

Have you noticed how exalted feelings have become in determining the will of God?  I think peace is important, but as a byproduct.  We go through all the objective criteria and we have good feelings in the end if everything lines up with the Word of God.

I can’t argue with your feelings.  I’m sure you have them, but they don’t prove anything.  They mean something to you.  I can “feel” sorry about how you “feel.”  I might even say, “I’m sorry you feel that way.”  That probably won’t change how I think about something though.

My friends and I in college often joked about someone having a basic youth conflict.  If you don’t get the humor of that; you can ask me sometime.  Usually the said youth was hung up on one of the latest fashion fads. Today they call those props. Well, maybe 5-10 years ago they called them props and probably have a new word for them now. Those were the days (those days when I was in college, think Calvin Coolidge) you’d hear about a generation gap. The older folks and the youths sometimes seem to talk past one another.  Young people often don’t think their elders understand them.  But then, the ancients don’t sense those of lesser years like to listen too much. They hear you; just that it goes through one ear and. . . . right. They act like they know it. . . . right. That’s why they’re called cliches. Why am I even saying this? You already know everything anyway.

I was informing one of the basketball players on the team I coach that if he didn’t start running, he might get to experience one of my size thirteens. He ran faster. That’s good. We didn’t fail to communicate. Another young man behind me quietly said within hearing of the rest of the team: “That would be itchy.” Guess what? Now everything that is bad is itchy in our school. If someone falls down, that’s itchy. A bad grade? It’s itchy. Starting to get a cold? Itchy. You might be surprised in a few years when, in Webster’s, “itchy” has another meaning. Mosquito bites can be itchy too, but you’ll need to look closer to the top of the definition.

Why is it that we often can’t get anywhere in a doctrinal discussion?  The usual.  Fear.  Pride.   Youth do have extra doses of these.  Christians will grow.  Life has a way of knocking people down.  The young ones haven’t had the equal share of smack-down that older folks have.  I want to hone in on what I think is a major fear factor that throws obstacles across the trail of truth.  Many men have some loyalty to non-Scriptural institutions that inject fealty into their followers, keeping the serfs on the manor.  They pipe in fear through the I-V tubes.

I may be mixing my metaphors, but pay attention better and I wouldn’t be making this look so hard.

When we threw away our binkies and blankies, we men should have rid ourselves of the need to cling.  Large organizations feel safe and provide cover, if only for fragile egos.  Nothing like a pat on the head from the powerful man behind the curtain.  Sure he might be a bumbling professor, but that’s a mighty kingdom he’s a part of.  Perhaps we can call it the Baruch Syndrome.  Jeremiah and he were doing big work, of tremendous value.  Problem was, no one was buying it, even at the blue light special.  When he looked in the mirror, it always came back “fairest preacher of them all,” but no one else seemed to recognize it.  He started shrinking in that mirror until he looked like a dwarf.  He was getting his view of himself from the populace instead of from his position before the Lord.  So God gave him this therapy:

Seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not.  Jeremiah 45:5

The B in Baptist is supposed to be:  Bible Sole Authority for Faith and Practice.  We sort through the Bible and do what it says.  But men begin thinking that they report back to the big blankie in Greenville or Detroit or Lansdale or Watertown or Minneapolis or Hammond or Chattanooga.  Instead of What Did Jesus Do, it is:  What does BJ approve?  Can you say honorary doctorate?  Can you say preaching invitation with large “love” offering?  Can you say Jason Janz will let me swim in his in ground swimming pool?  Can you say you get my drift?  Or do we have a failure to communicate?

So, here I am. I’ve crawled out of my hiding spot, and I’m here to give a few words concerning discourse. The first word stands alone and it is listening. It may seem ironic that listening is an important word to the subject of discourse, but it is true.

Proverbs 15:28  The heart of the righteous studieth to answer…

Proverbs 18:13  He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Proverbs 29:11  A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.

Proverbs 29:20  Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

James 1:19  …let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

It seems clear that a good portion of heat could be taken out of many disputes if the people involved would just listen to what the others are saying. In my observation of many “spats,” most of them end up with the people involved no different than when they started.  That is because the two parties never really wanted to understand anything. They just wanted to voice their strong opinion. I’ve seen this on the issues of calvinism, salvation, ecclesiology, standards, fundamentalism, and others. Many times, people are too concerned with what they believe or are going to say, to stop to listen to the other person’s point of view. It becomes humorous and painful to follow some discussions because no one is listening.

This also applies to monologues. “The heart of the righteous studieth to answer.”  There is hardly a thing more distressing than hearing someone I essentially agree with, tearing up (and down) a straw man. This shows that he did not study to answer. Sure, he may have studied his presentation for a long time: but there are different types of things that need studied, and studying delivery styles and the words you’ve prepared must come after you’ve studied the topic you’re addressing. If you’re going to fight a battle, you may as well be shooting at the real enemy. You’ll look foolish (even to your friends) if you waste all your time and ammunition on a dummy outpost. You also don’t thwart the enemy at all. So whether we are trying to persuade a friend or defeat the enemy, we must listen to know what’s going on.

The next two words are related to each other: satire and sarcasm.

Satire: A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

Sarcasm: A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.

These two words are quite similar and at times, may be identical on the surface. The difference is the intent. Satire’s intent is beneficial, and sarcasm’s intent is harmful. Many times, the off-handed comment is sarcastic. It may be true, but the spirit of the delivery is only to make yourself look better and to demean the person that receives it. It is quite difficult to distinguish between satire and sarcasm on paper, but it seems that prepared wit and irony is satirical, and reactionary wit and irony is sarcastic. At the same time, there are some who see the folly immediately and can deliver the satire quickly.  The point is that on paper both look the same on first appearance. We must be God to immediately be able to judge intent. So, if you see the irony in everything, and you like to deride, be sure to use your skills to edify believers or crush enemies–don’t look for self-approval because of your wit.

At least, I hope. Maybe I should call it “an attempt.” I would like to hope that this will answer the issue once and for all. Except that between the time I post this article, and the time I come back and look at it again, I shall find myself disagreeing with something that is written therein. Ahhhh! Such is the nature of discourse.

THE ISSUE
When it comes to our speech, God gives us a weighty responsibility. We must speak with grace, and season our speech with salt. “Gentleness” must characterize Christian discourse. This requires civility and charity.

And we find numerous examples of this throughout the pages of Scripture. Consider this fine exhibition of gentleness:

Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy, which say to their masters, Bring, and let us drink. Amos 4:1

In other words, “perk up your ears, all you heifers of Houston…” Yep! That’s grace for you. But never fear, for Amos tempers his tone with a few patronizing statements, some sentimental ooze to ensure that his audience (those notorious Houston Heifers) will know that, really, he loves them. Consider…

The Lord GOD hath sworn by his holiness, that, lo, the days shall come upon you, that he will take you away with hooks, and your posterity with fishhooks. And ye shall go out at the breaches, every cow at that which is before her; and ye shall cast them into the palace, saith the LORD. Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years: And offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, and proclaim and publish the free offerings: for this liketh you, O ye children of Israel, saith the Lord GOD. Amos 4:2-5

Amos uses (gasp!) sarcasm! How can that be grace? You call that “gentle,” MISTER Amos??? I call that a lack of grace!

Amos, surprisingly, is not a rare example. Consider this:

Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Luke 3:7-8

Ad hominem! Ad hominem! I can hear it now! Oh, wait… this was inspired. That’s different. Isn’t it? I mean, after all, God can say what he wants. I mean, I know that God is holy and all, and I know he commands us to be imitators of him. But he doesn’t mean in everything… does he? I mean, we can’t always imitate him, can we?

Maybe Christ will set a better example of charitableness in discourse. Let’s see:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matthew 23:29-33

Boy oh boy! If that isn’t ad hominem, I don’t know what is. And hell-fire-damnation too!

So, here’s the issue. God requires that our speech be always with grace, that we be “gentle and easy to be entreated,” and then God shows us exactly what he means by “grace” and “gentleness.” And the question is, where is the balance?

AND THE PITCH…
How does one understand the very “harsh” tone used by Christ, and the less than perfect gentleness modeled by some of the prophets and apostles of the Bible? Before making my feeble attempt at an answer, allow me to point out that the Biblical standards of grace and gentleness are not subjective. We must not define them in arbitrary terms. Grace and gentleness are not determined by the opinion of the beholder. Nor do those at the receiving end of the tirade get to determine whether the speech was gentle enough or not.

Grace and gentleness are exemplified for us in Scripture. Christ, the pattern for meekness and gentleness, demonstrates them in every exchange. Christ demonstrated what gentleness is when he upturned the tables, when he told Peter, “get thee behind me, Satan,” when he called the Pharisees “whited sepulchres full of dead men’s bones.” Christ sets the example. He is meek. He speaks always with grace. Just listen.

And we are left to scratch our heads. How do we understand this? First, let me say that I understand the quandary that we all find ourselves in on this. We don’t wish to sound like we hate people. And we have all experienced the proverbial “bull in the China shop.” Some will use their liberty as a license… 

SWING AND A…
We can only comprehend the rhetoric of Christ in terms of His holiness. Apart from this, we simply grope in the dark. Christ spoke to people, not based on what they were, but based on what HE was. He was holy, he was righteous, and there was no guile found in his lips. When he encountered folly in any form, he confronted it and attacked it. If the folly showed up in Peter, he pounded it. If the Pharisees paraded some folly, he scorched it. In the money-changers, he smashed it.

With this understanding, we can comprehend why Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, why Isaiah ridiculed the Hebrew girls at the market-place, why Christ called Peter “the rock.” Christ lived by a standard of charity. The standard was objective, not subjective.

But how can we live by this standard? After all, if the standard is, “speak to people, not based on what they are, but based on what you are,” then we better sit down and shut up! We aren’t Christ. Not even close. So, how can we keep this standard?

The standard must not be “what am I as a man.” The standard must be “what am I in Christ.” In other words, as a believer, Christ has re-made me in His own image. I bear the image of Christ, and I am commanded to walk in the spirit. The earthly, sensual, devilish kind of wisdom must not characterize my speech. I need the wisdom that is from above, and if I lack it, I must seek it from the God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not. I must speak as one who has that wisdom that is from above.

Subjectivity plagues our discourse. Otherwise good men attack others viciously and subjectively. And other men whine and complain subjectively about the lack of grace and charity. Both probably have a point. On at least one level, the complaints are legitimate.

A Biblical return to objectivity offers the only real answer. When we encounter folly and silliness, no matter how pious, we should attack it with ridicule, mockery, and vigorous outrage. We should warm up the ole’ JackHammer. And whatever is beautiful and true, we should honor and defend and respect, even if we find it among the “Type C’s.” (Philippians 4:8)

Are young people more rebellious today in the United States?  Can they not be ordered or commanded?  Are they different in that they must be asked and nicely, maybe even sweetly?  Do their leaders need to explain, tip-toe, and coddle?  Some say that it has always been that way, that is, every older generation thinks the younger is softer and more disrespectful than they, and every younger generation thinks that their older counterparts are impatient and authoritarian, even despotic.

Today the latter is termed “old school.”  “Old school” physically lifts the chin of the pupil so that he looks him in the eyes, the student sending a signal of independence with his indifferent body language.  “Old school” requires fixated, thoughtful attention out of deference commensurate to his superior position.  “New school” expects placating, conversational tones and vocabulary that treats everyone as equals.   “New school” needs regular admission of error from leadership and even some sense of doubt that begs for suggestions and advice.  “Old school” speaks dogmatically and “new school” repels absolutes.  “Old school” takes charge, talking confidently, and “new school” expects the inmates to have a major say at the asylum.  “Old school” sees things more in black and white, while “new school” sees things more grey and fuzzy.

Again, is all of this a regular repeat in history, every generation, or is it symptomatic of a failing culture and a dying civilization?  In answer to this, consider the nation Judah, Eighth century B. C.  She had trusted Assyria for protection against Samaria and Damascus.  Now she allied herself with Egypt for help against the Assyrians.  God didn’t want this.  He sent His “old school” prophet, Isaiah, to deliver His message again and again.  Isaiah was a type A, fundamental guy going to the softer, gentler generation with his muscular warnings.  He delivered a dogmatic doom and deliverance message, a definite my-way-or-the-highway job, that didn’t set well with their sense and sensibilities.  Isaiah portrays those young fundies with this description (Isaiah 30:9, 10):

[T]his is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:  which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things.

This younger crowd was very particular about their message.  They wanted it positive, laced with humor, with plenty of room to maneuver; oprah-esque really.  Nothing straight, always with plenty of creamer.  Careful of the tone.  Empathetic.  Perceptive of feelings.  And expressed with just a pinch of doubt—too much certainty can be dangerous, lead to harmful divisiveness.  Ironically, they’re dogmatic about one thing:  tolerance.  Well, at least tolerance of something on the looser side.  That liberty thing.  Must be prudent never to be a prude.  Lax about liberty; emphatic about indulgence.

What doesn’t new school like about old school?  New school doesn’t like that old school makes emphatic statements, absolutes without relativity or nuance.  New school often agrees to disagree.  They like agreeableness and old school seems disagreeable when it disagrees.  They can’t tolerate that tolerantly.   New school loves latitude.  It wants evidence from you, really more than enough proof, but it likes you to respect its opinion—its very humble opinion, of course, it will have you know.  New school doesn’t mind inferences from Scripture unless they cramp its lifestyle.  If the logic doesn’t make them feel good, it suffers from a fault in the major premise, so it won’t be in their new curriculum.  All in all, the credo on the official seal for new school is:  Speak Unto Us Smooth Things.

I had this mainly written, when someone with which I differ on a few important doctrines[1] spoke about this very same matter.  We have the same world view in many ways, so that Dave Doran wrote:

Talk is pretty worthless if it isn’t correct, and testing its correctness is what seems to be missing. We are rapidly descending into a culture where everyone is free to say whatever they want, but no one is allowed to challenge or refute whatever is said. It doesn’t matter if they are right; what matters is that they feel that way. That kind of mush-headedness might be acceptable for the afternoon talk show circuit, but it can’t be accepted by God’s people. What matters most is always what God thinks, and we know what God thinks because He has spoken to us. . . . At the root of my concerns is the question of authority, that is, what will our functional authority be in matters like this? In principle, I imagine we all agree that the Bible is our authority. In practice, sometimes I wonder. How often can we appeal to our experiences without revealing something about the authority that experience wields over our thinking? To what degree have we become saturated with our culture’s relativistic, sentimentalized spirit? The common retorts show evidence of this: “Well, that’s just your view” or “That’s how I feel about it” or “I’ve had lots of people tell me the same thing.”

And then he dittoed my thoughts later:

People with a deep commitment to the Lord and His truth should be marked by the balance of earnestness and humility. We should care enough about truth to take discussions about it seriously. We should recognize that the truth matters more than we do, so we want to be sharpened and shaped by it, even if it comes through confrontation. It is a testament to the spiritual weakness and ill-health of contemporary fundamentalism that disagreements are so quickly personalized. This aspect of the whole discussion was disheartening.

I am amazed somewhat that he and I think the same on this, but I was happy to hear it.  It is highly possible that a large segment of men would more likely listen to him than to me.  I hope what he said at least changes the climate of discussions—puts the badges of the new school tone police back into their boxes of cracker jacks and their whiney victimization with it.

The new school preference on discourse parallels the cry of Judah to its prophets.  They don’t like being told in a straight, no-nonsense fashion.  It is not just a phenomena that repeats itself every generation.  It is a symptom of a dying culture that has reached the stage where it is near collapse.  You know that when the frat house reaches the White House that you’ve got big problems.  When the same kind of people are making the rules for theological discussion, you should know that the safeguard of orthodox doctrine is not all that’s at stake.  New school won’t even be able to protect the water supply.

 

[1] I am not a Calvinist; he is.  I believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture; he doesn’t.  I believe the church is local only; he believes the true church is universal.  His dress standards are different than mine.  His fellowship is wider than mine.

A Review of Joel Tetreau’s THREE LINES IN THE SAND

The long-awaited toy, mail-ordered from the cereal box company, has finally arrived. On the box, it looked so enticing. I was sure it would be even better than advertised. I rip open the package, anxious to get my sweaty palms on the new playthingy. I dig down through the packing peanuts to the plastic baggy at the bottom of the box. With all my might, I rip open the baggy containing my new greatest toy. I pull it out. My mouth drops. I stare incredulously. “I waited all this time for THIS!” I say to myself before tossing it aside.

Yes folks, finally, the long-promised and eagerly anticipated “careful” analysis of Fundamentalism has arrived. We could hardly wait, but now it is here. Joel, you should have waited a bit longer. Really, you should have. Because if you had, we would still be thinking that you were serious.

In the serious debate of issues, it is important that we treat our counterpart’s arguments with the dignity that it deserves. And THREE LINES IN THE SAND by Joel Tetreau, begs to be treated lightly. It reminds me of the Emperor, wearing the outfit that only the smart people can see. The rest of us are giggling at those flesh-colored “clothes”. Joel talks about a dream he’s apparently had about running down the street buck-naked. I’m thinking that this isn’t a dream, it’s a reality. I’m trying to catch my breath, but I’m laughing too hard. I’m wheezing, choking, gasping for air, pointing my finger. Look… that guy out there… on the street… the one with the crown… parading down the street… and he ain’t wearin’ no clothes! Forgive me for pointing, but I think the emperor might be streakin’.

Sorry folks, but we won’t be waiting for the promised fourth installment to give this thing the treatment it deserves. If your curiosity gets the better of you, and you have to look at the fourth part, go right ahead. But be warned ahead of time, because it’s bound to be as ridiculous as the first three.

I have to be honest here. When I first encountered the “Type A” stuff, I thought that Joel Tetreau had something serious to say, some Biblical objections to us. But then, I read his first three articles. Looks like our clay modeling is still in the play dough stage. Once in a while, he actually alludes to the Bible. But never fear, they are only allusions. You won’t find any Biblical objections to what Joel calls the “Type A’s”. Just Joel assuming what he should be proving.

THREE LINES IN THE SAND amounts to fundamentalist stereotyping. (There Joel. This “Type A” just used the word “Fundamentalist” as an adjective). The fourth article, slated to make its appearance on SHARPER IRON on Friday (the day this review should be posted), will deal with “Type C” fundamentalism. He’s saving the best for last, no doubt. The first three articles were designed to lambaste “Type A” fundamentalism, the “dictator-type” pastor-dominated churches that characterize what some have affectionately dubbed “IFBx-dom”. His major point is to urge a more moderate stance, and to argue the superiority of “elder-rule” that characterizes the “Type B” fundamentalists.

Tetreau makes great pains to stress his desire for “unity”, with statements like this in part 1:

Let me say before you read this that I am not your enemy if you find yourself something other than what I call a Type B fundamentalist. I have friends with a variety of approaches to ministry. You do not have to agree with all of this to be my friend. Furthermore, I would never accuse anyone with a different approach of not being spiritual.

And this in part 2:

At the end of the day, I really am not trying to divide A, B, and C.

And this classic in part 3:

First, here’s a word about my chart. It’s my chart. I am not attempting to come up with the “Tetreau Scale” that’s universally accepted by all or even most “out there.”

Along with this in part 3:

I also believe that the Spirit of God is wounded when we fight, cut, and separate from men and ministries, accusing them of being disobedient when, in reality and in the eyes of God, they are merely different than we are.

And this, also in part 3:

It seems to me that each type ought to be able to reach over and fellowship and have some cooperation with other fundamentalists who are different types.

But, then the shrieking starts. We might call it self-contradiction. Joel would never accuse anyone with a different approach of not being spiritual. Only “dictatorial,” “can’t work with anyone else (except hand-picked “yes men”),” men who “lead by pride and a sense that I’m always right because I’m the pastor,” men who have the “Messiah Syndrome,” “spiritually abusive,” “a dark-sided form of abusive leadership,” and an “odd ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’ syndrome.” Consider this quote from part 2:

There is something in the genetic DNA of some Type A’s that carry this heavy-handed and abusive tendency with leadership.

So now it’s a genetic deficiency. How about this humdinger from the discussion of part 2 (post #46):

…but friends this is one discussion about one hill that Tetreau is willing to die on. I’m “Anolish” on my view of the dangers of the dictatorial aspect that is too often embedded into the DNA of Type A ministries (no offense to Scott - just comparing my passion for this with his passion on the music deal).

I have too often had to dig some Type A’s or (even more frequently) Type A+ battle axe out of the scull of a dear believer who crawled all bloodied to the door of our church. I’ve too often had to apply first-aid to a believer who had been beaten instead of feeden (sorry - couldn’t resist) by a so-called shepherd. Because of that……I’ve put a stake in the ground. I’ve had it. I’m done being Mr. nice Joel on this point. In the future when I see God’s sheep being wounded by Type A’s who are abusing their authority (or for that matter even Type B’s or Type C’s) If the Lord let’s me - I will be on my horse with my lance aimed at the wolf in sheep’s clothing called “whoever.”

So no, Type A’s aren’t unspiritual. They’re just… unspiritual. But we find this kind of inconsistency throughout the three articles. We shouldn’t be surprised. Moses the man of God drew a line and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side?” Joel draws three lines in the sand, and asks, “which line are you on?” “Stand in your line straight, now, boys and girls.” “Now, lets play hopscotch.” He has a three-sided box, and he wants to put you in one.

THREE LINES IN THE SAND is really all about the moderates. The “Type B’s” are Joel’s version of the moderates, and the “Type A’s” are the “radical right” as we’re referred to in political circles. Joel is a moderate, and he can’t stand the extremists. That is the bottom line. He has an aversion to the “cowboys” on the right. He doesn’t like the “John Wayne-ishness” of the Type A’s. We are militant like George Patton. That is bad. Joel wants us to fight like George Washington. He wants us to be “gentlemen soldiers.” George Washington was a nice guy. Joel says so. George Patton wasn’t. And we’re all supposed to be nice guys. John Wayne wasn’t a nice guy. We want Roy Rogers. Or was that Mr. Rogers…

Consider this quote from part 3:

Most Type A’s view legitimate Fundamentalism as a single circle of fellowship. Many Type A’s believe and preach that only the guys who view doctrine (especially separation) as they do in their regional or national group are “all that’s left of real Fundamentalism.” Type A’s view Fundamentalism as a patriot views his country.

And this is bad. This is really, really bad. Too extremist. Almost backwards. Tetreau wants a new kind of militancy. For instance, Tetreau makes the following statements about the difference between “Type B’s” and the “Pseudo- Fundamentalists:”

The overwhelming majority of independent Baptists supporting “PF” did so for stereotypical and national/political reasons.

But, of course, those embracing “moderate Fundamentalism” or “neo-Fundamentalism” are not doing so for “stereotypical and national/political reasons.” That’s just an illusion of the clear-thinking right. You better get that out of your head, you Type A’s! How dare you compare Tetreau and his entourage with neo’s? Consider this statement:

Indiscriminately joining hands with the evangelical movement as a whole would be treason.

Joel’s doing it discriminately. Come on! Can’t you see the difference, you zombies, you lemmings, you… you… sheep? Next thing, you’ll be accusing him of fellowshipping with non-fundamentalists. He doesn’t do that. Listen to his explanation:

However, when a ministry demonstrates a consistent attempt to actively obey Scripture and consistently contend for the Biblical faith once delivered, Type B and Type C fundamentalists grant a type of “fundamentalist standing” to such a ministry, even if that ministry is not officially functioning within a fundamentalist association.

See! If they aren’t fundamentalists, we’ll just call them fundamentalists. That way at least we can feel good about it. Which is similar to the way Joel treats this whole stereotyping system anyway. Abraham Lincoln once asked, “If I called the dog’s tail a leg, how many legs would the dog have?” And when his friends answered “five,” Lincoln smiled (notice, you Type A’s, he smiled) and said, “calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” But this is exactly what Joel is doing. He stands on the left shoulder and insists that this is the middle of the road. “At least, it ought to be. And I’m going to act like it is.”

The best example of self-defeating rhetoric comes in his section denying that his brand of moderate fundamentalism is neo-evangelical. Consider these statements:

It is my belief that Type C fundamentalists (in one sense) are perhaps the truest heirs to the fundamentalists from the 20’s and 30’s who were attempting to “purge” liberalism and unbelief from their ranks.

(But that statement actually explains a big part of why I don’t like to think of myself as a Fundamentalist to begin with. Joel might be relieved.)

But how about these. You might think that this is me talking about Joel. Sorry folks, this is Joel talking about the neo’s. Now, pick your jaw up off the ground and take him seriously…

New-evangelicals were to infiltrate, not with militant confrontation, but with smooth dialogue and politics.

New-Evangelicalism said, “Wow them with your intellect, superior apologetics, and sensitive attitude toward social issues.”

There is this sissy, let’s-get-along-with-everyone attitude that frankly is not consistent with the Pauline metaphor of “contending for the faith.”

That’s what I was thinking about the new militancy being promoted by “Pryde and Prejudice.”

And what is Tetreau’s problem with the “Type A’s?” Consider…

First, the social concept of leadership in those generations tended to be more “John Wayne-ish.”

Speaking of past “fundamentalists”. But with the current “Type A’s:”

One of the central characteristics of Type A is a consistent practice of secondary (ecclesiastical) separation. (emphasis his)

Yep. That’s a problem, alright. A big one too. And Joel is careful to extend that out into the utterly ridiculous:

Certainly all Bible-believers should desire a consistency in any application of Scripture. In an attempt to be consistent, some in Type A have moved from the secondary level of separation to third, fourth, fifth levels and beyond.

But don’t worry. Joel still wants to demonstrate his “sissy, let’s-get-along-with-everyone attitude that frankly is not consistent with the Pauline metaphor of “contending for the faith.” Of the “Type A’s,” he says:

The motives of these men should not be called into question, even if one does not agree with the degrees of their separation.

And one more problem.

Type A Fundamentalism typically leans toward an isolationistic approach to society. Because of their understanding of separation passages, they have developed their own forms of music, literature, even Bible versions.

And here, all this time, I thought we were singing the great old hymns of our fathers, and using the Bible version of our Puritan forebears. Silly me!

Oh, and one more problem.

“Fundamentalism” to Type A’s is a noun.

We could go on and on. I’ve wasted too much of your time already. This is the world according to Joel. We should remember that. It is his chart. He says that…

First, here’s a word about my chart. It’s my chart.

Classic. Extraordinary. Brilliant. This is his view, his chart, his stereotypes. He wants “Fundamentalism” to be an adjective. He doesn’t want to be like those nasty ole’ “Type A’s” who make “Fundamentalism” a noun. He doesn’t see “Fundamentalism” as a noun. It’s an adjective. Never mind the fact that he uses it almost exclusively as a noun. That’s beside the point. Because, see, he’s seeing it as an adjective even as he uses it as a noun. He uses it as a noun because, well, ya have to. But if he could think of how to use it as an adjective, he would.

But that only serves to illustrate the absurdity of the entire series. And to think, Sharper Iron filled over twenty pages of “serious” discussion of each of these articles in a few short hours. Glad to see that the guys over at SI take these things seriously. It ranks right up there with the very serious debate about Rap music’s place in worship.

It’s three chalk-marks, pastel chalk-marks mind you, on the sidewalk. Please, don’t anyone step on them. Especially not the pink one.

The sign said “Fine Food,” but the best they had was two-day-old donuts.  That’s fine, you know, if someone is starving, but beyond that it more than strains credulity.  The masthead said “Sharper Iron,” but more accurate would be “Sharper Spatula,” or something like that.  Something might get sharpened, but put away anything that might inflict damage either direction.

Whatever anyone might say, I haven’t been banned at the online forum called Sharper Iron.  I lost posting privileges, and don’t try to look for what I’ve written; the little word “guest” is written under my name.  My introduction to Sharper Iron was a review of a book that slandered me in its footnotes.  I came on defending myself and was treated rudely.  That was also my welcome to online forums.  I had never been in one.  Now I know that by conversing in them, someone can learn about the nature, content, and tone of discourse between professing believers on often controversial issues in these types of forums.  You won’t find my initial conversation in that forum’s archives, as it was lost in something like a hard-drive or server crash.  In that first conversation, I was harshly and personally confronted by a woman I had never met.  Sharper Iron has a very limited view of male headship.  If you are a man, do not plan to answer a pushy woman in kind.  The bossy woman is a protected species at Sharper Iron.

One of their three rules is:  “How do I get in trouble on Sharper Iron?  By being shrill, attacking people or their motives, coming across harsh and reactionary, and acting like you have arrived.”  You can get banned for breaking their rules.  The truth is that you will not normally get banned for breaking their rules, but you will for breaking the rules if you take positions unpopular with the owner, Jason Janz.   You schmooze or you lose.  In the post that actually sent me into Sharper Iron oblivion, I critized the inflammatory, rule-busting article they displayed on their front page.

Here was that post:

Good old Doug Kutilek…..

Quote:

Dr. Bauder in a very recent thread writes: Somebody else mentioned the King James issue. We should be able to discuss that issue charitably. Problems arise when one group (and it is almost always the same group) makes their view a test of orthodoxy or moral integrity.

Quote:

And then Doug Kutilek writes: At any rate, accepting what these men (such as D. A. Waite, David Cloud, and a host of like-minded lemmings) affirm in principle, let us examine how it plays out in practice.

Quote:

Definitions for “lemmings”:The reputation of lemmings as mindless creatures who will unhesitatingly run off a cliff, heedless of the danger. A member of a crowd with no originality or voice of his own. One who speaks or repeats only what he has been told.

This would be the equivalent of my saying: At any rate, accepting what these men (such as Bruce Metzger, Benjamin Warfield, and a host of mind-numbed robots) affirm in principle in the evolutionary principles of textual criticism.

I’ve got to get to a school orientation, but I will be back to answer the question. I have a very definite one, but must leave because of traffic.

Pretty offensive, huh?  By the way, I was never let on actually to answer the article they published by Doug Kutilek.  However, SI allowed a whole thread to open that discussed what “would have been my answer”—that without giving me an opportunity to respond.  The guy who opened the thread is a young man once a member of our church who took a left turn completely out of what even SI calls Fundamentalism.  What would you call those kinds of ethics?

Now consider some examples of men who not only can still post on Sharper Iron, but were not confronted for their shrillness, personal attacks, etc.

Let’s start with the owner himself, Jason Janz.  Janz promised me in my first week at SI that I could post a rebuttal to the review of the book that slandered me.  He wasn’t telling the truth about that.  His answer when I asked:  “Nope.  C’ya.”  The general guideline for SI posting is “Walk in the Spirit.”  This is the Janz example of respecting an older pastor.  And that despite what his friend Joel Tetrau, definitely no fan of mine, wrote generally about me in one post:

Kent Brandenburg has often done that - but he comes at it with Scripture in hand, and a careful thought-out reason to when and where he disagrees.

Here are a few sample Janz comments:

Name calling:

Someone get Tetreau on the line - we’ve got a new one! The AAA Fundamentalist.   Post #22.

That was written to a young man attempting to get a grasp on what he saw was amazing worldliness among SI members.  This was Janz’ first attempt to “help.”  Here’s another of the same kind:

Believe me, I didn’t say you were a nutcase…yet.  Post #26.

I noticed that with Jason, this was some of his best argumentation.  I like the way someone else described it to me:  “Jason is the neighbor kid whose family owns the inground pool.  Not everyone likes him.  They just want to use his pool.”

Here are some undisturbed, unmoderated comments of other ongoing SI members:

Every town has its village idiot, I guess.  Post #4.

You’re right in that I doubt such a school like West Coast (or Ambassador, maybe especially Ambassador) is aiming to produce scholars or men who are capable of addressing issues like Calvinism in a Christian, scholarly, manner. I don’t know how typical this is currently, but I’m familiar with men from both institutions who have pitiful training in actual theology (i.e man’s opinion), and that is a big contributor to their ignorance about Calvinism and their inability to characterize it fairly. If they get stuff with the calibre of Comfort’s sermon on “The Fruits of Calvinism”, well, that explains a lot.  Post #73.

Stay safely within the clear teachings of the Bible, and you will have plenty to talk about and deal with without straying into pants on women, the KJV issue, and the rest of the extrabibilical hogwash that gets lumped into IFB churches today.  Post #54.

Oops my wife is waking me up. She has her slacks on and is ready for the evening service. Better get my shorts and thongs on and get ready to go. Oops, forgot I am preaching tonight. Need to take off my thongs and put on my socks and running shoes. We have a formal service!  Post #27.

Here is one of several that were directed at my friend, Dr. Thomas Strouse, in his absence, in response to one of his articles they posted with the expressed purpose of ridiculing it.

Thank you to yet another crack pot who I will be glad to not associate myself with in 20 years when he decides that he’s not really a Fundamentalist afterall and starts his own movement cause he’s so incredibly separated from the rest of Fundamentalism by his own hobby horse teachings.  Post #92.

Many, many personal attacks were written just like this.  If it were not for a seminary professor, who disagrees a whole lot with Strouse, stepping in to stop the ad hominem attacks, they would have gotten even worse.

The Young Fundamentalist (35 and younger) complains about the abrasive and mean-spirited tone of the older preachers, but you have read a sampling of what they themselves find acceptable.  Sharper Iron, which claims to represent the Young Fundamentalist, is a case study in hypocritical discourse.

JackHammers probably wouldn’t make the best fly swatters. Yet, in the current climate of discourse, some wield their sledgehammer with glee whenever they see a fly buzzing around their opponent’s head. Certainly, a sledgehammer will kill the fly. But the collateral damage concerns us.

If discourse is a lost art, and I believe that it is, then it is up to believers to recover it. Having recently concluded yet another long and exhausting political season, we should know that the politicians won’t be straightening things out any time soon. Nor should we expect them to straighten things if we don’t.

One could address many problems in the current climate of discourse, particularly in the blog world. We struggle to meet and defeat our opponent’s arguments, we fail to precisely present our own position, we strain at gnats and swallow elephants. Our aggravations and frustrations increase with our increasing inability to make a point. These issues need to be addressed, and probably by someone more qualified than myself.

As a casual observer of some of the debates at Sharper Iron, I have found myself disappointed at times and disgusted at other times. It is not my intention to address the problems I see with Sharper Iron. They have their rules, and they will enforce them as they see fit, as is their right. When it comes to the rules for posting, and particularly their rules demanding graciousness, they can be consistently inconsistent if they choose.

My intention here is not to address the number of times they jaded us for harshness. If they let one side call us lemmings and then kick us out for protesting, that is their right. We don’t get a level playing field. If they don’t like our tone or our rhetoric, then they get to ban us.

But I want to address our tone. Forget about theirs. When I stand before God, I’ll not give an account for their tone. I’ll give an account for mine.

And yes, tone does matter. It matters what you say, and it matters how you say it. In this debate, which I think was a “sub-debate” in all the debates until Sharper Iron cleaned house, there was an interesting irony. On the one side there were the “tone police”…those who were legalists when it came to tone. On the other side we had the licentious, which saw no limits when it came to tone. The irony was that the legalists when it came to rhetoric tended to be the most licentious when it came to everything else, while the more “legalistic” became the more licentious in these debates. Now, believers don’t answer to bloggers. They answer to the Lord God. And there is a Scriptural balance, for which we all must strive.

The Legalist
The “tone police” set a very high and often legalistic standard. Often, the standard is, “if I was offended, then that was out of bounds.” I admit: I am the best judge of what offends me. But the fact that it offended me does not indicate that my opponent was in the wrong. Perhaps he should have offended me. Perhaps I needed to get whacked. The legalist sets the standard by his own feelings. He is easily offended, and whenever he is offended, “why that just isn’t Christian.” The legalist wants nothing that sounds harsh. He wants arguments to be padded by “gracious” statements at both ends. He demands that all rebukes be sandwiched by niceties and sentimentalist ooze. None of these personal attacks, like “you whitewashed sepulchres, full of dead men’s bones.” He cannot tolerate straw men statements like “you clean the outside of the cup, and leave the inside filthy.” The legalist, I am convinced, would ban Christ from his blog. He writes with acid pen about those who write with acid pen. He scorns and scoffs at anyone who scorns and scoffs, and in the most pietistic terms condemns all scorning and scoffing except his own and those of his friends. Ad hominem attacks are reserved for those who (in his “humble” opinion) use ad hominem attacks. He cannot tolerate intolerance.

In other words, he holds a self-contradictory stance.

The Licentious
Set in contrast against the legalistic “tone police” are those who use rhetoric with no regard for anyone else. They set the standard at the same place as the legalist, but with a different result. For the legalist’s standard is his own feelings, while the brutish man’s standard is his own opinion. The legalist attacks any who “sound” harsh (to himself). The licentious attacks any who disagree with their opinion. Of course, they always have Bible to back it up. And they have Bible to back up their tone as well. After all, Christ was pretty harsh at times. And so, they use Christ’s tone as a license, a blank check to say whatever they want. This man is offensive. He likes to offend. He offends for the sake of offending. He loves to stir up strife. He would attack Christ himself if Christ disagreed with him. He has venom for all, and to spare. He is heavy on the salt, and light on the grace. He would rather raise his voice than reinforce his argument. The law of kindness will not bind him. He hates his enemies, and loves his opinion.

In other words, he holds a self-centered stance.

The Balance
As always, the Word must be the standard. There is a Scriptural balance, and we would do well to find it. How do we balance the polemics of Christ (get thee behind me, Satan; or Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?) with the clear commands of Scripture (in honor preferring one another; or let each esteem other better than himself; or love your enemies; or Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt). There is a balance, and for God’s sake, we must find it.

First, we must understand the difference between being offended and being offensive. It is possible to offend without being offensive. The fact that you were offended does not mean that I sinned. The truth will offend. But I must allow the truth to do the offending, and not my use of the truth. There are times when it is necessary, even Scriptural to set out to give offense. But that does not mean I get to be offensive. Even here, there is a balance. It is possible to offend graciously. In other words, if I tell the truth, and speak it in love, then let the chips fall where they may. But I must not set out to be offensive. The Word does not need my help. Certainly, I can use it as a mallet. But the Bible says,

Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

Note that the Word is the hammer. Not the user of the Word, or the wielder of the hammer. If God’s Word says it, then I don’t need to add my attitude. My attitude adds nothing to the argument. My word must be acceptable in God’s sight. Even when crying out against sin.

Christ sets the example in this. And here we find what is perhaps our greatest struggle. How can I be a peacemaker, when I am at war? The answer is to win the war. The answer is to destroy the opposition. But not in the way that we think. Evangelism is an act of war, and it is an example of peacemaking. The evangelist seeks to make peace by converting his opponent. He would overthrow the lies with The Truth

Here in Utah, we cannot evangelize with a chip on our shoulder. If you lived here, you might struggle with that. When false doctrine is flaunted in your face, when false teachers pawn lies as the truth, it is easy to make it personal. I must be careful that it is the Word, and not my attitude that does the offending. In other words, I cannot allow my flesh to get involved.

We need wisdom in discourse. The wisdom that is from above (James 3:13-18 …YOU need to read this!) We need temperance. We need joy and love. We need peace. We need longsuffering. We need gentleness and meekness. Then, we can be graciously firm, kindly bold, lovingly sarcastic. Then, and only then, can we mock with Christ-like spirit, and smack optimistically.

In other words, then our discourse will be Christ-centered.

I thought that might get your attention.  Hitler still fascinates, doesn’t he?  I got on a Hitler kick several years ago that motivated me to read four or five books about him and the Third Reich.  I think you might be relieved to know that the desire has not returned.  I wanted to know how he ever persuaded the German people to listen to him.  One reason was that Hitler was an amazing speaker.  He certainly could hold an audience, keep their rapt attention for awhile.  You know it wasn’t his dashing good looks.  Yet, I could see how amazing it could have been to have heard such a voice and vocabulary escape the lips of someone so diminuitive and odd.

Hitler moved people who were already primed for someone with unflinching conviction and hope, who knew how to prey on widespread bitterness, resentment, and nationalism.  He knew what buttons to push and when.  I think the Antichrist will have Hitleresque qualities.  Unfortunately, so do many preachers.  What am I talking about?  They know that speaking style and word choice sway people, so they do it.

In 21st century America, Hitler’s act doesn’t make it.  I’m not saying that there are not places in the U.S. or in other parts of the world where someone like Hitler couldn’t find his niche.  Certain third world countries either have or are looking for their own little Hitler.  However, that does not mean that we don’t have men that have taken the general principles and twiqued them to fit the contemporary audience.

I’ve known for awhile that speech is powerful.  We can have an incredible impact on people with the words we use and how we use them.  And this is mein kampf.  Yes, my struggle.  I know it isn’t the right way.  We should be as good as we can be with our language and syntax.  However, we have to be very careful, because our goal cannot be to addict people to a speaking style or a personality.

We have to talk in a way that will help people continue participating in linear thought.  We must limit ourselves by our material, the Bible.  We want people to love the Bible, not us.  I think I’m good at telling stories.  I think I’m funny.  I think I could just entertain people every week.  But I can’t.  Paul makes this point in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5:

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

That passage alone has restrained me from using many of the techniques I have had available to use on an audience.  One of my responsibilities is to draw attention away from me and toward the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God.  Like John the Baptist said in John 3:30, “He must increase, but I must decrease.”

My struggle, you see, is with my desire to increase.  Yes.  I know our church could be bigger if I cut loose, so to speak.  Well, I would also have to loosen up our doctrine and practice, but to be completely honest, I know that with a larger church comes more fame, and finally, more money.  If I have more money, I have more things.  From that, I’m even more popular than I was with the fame from the speaking.  With more money, more presents for other people and, therefore, more adoration.  I think you get the drift.

Some pastors are very good speakers, but I don’t think they are very good preachers.  They are also not very good pastors.  A good pastor that is a good preacher will elevate the Word of God, not himself, and will fill the minds of those with whom he comes in contact with its Words and Truths.  He will fill himself up first and then those Words will always come spilling out of his mouth.  Not everyone will like that, because it requires thinking.  People will have to sacrifice some to get the Words and their meaning, sort of like getting manna like the hoar frost (Ex. 16:14) off the ground, but they will receive them if they want them.  And when they are done with their struggle, they will say like David, “Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it” (Ps. 119:140).  Not exactly Hitler, is it?

Once upon a time in a village near you, there lived a townsperson with a knife. Well, he didn’t have just a knife. He had several, actually. But his knives were dull. So, one day, he set out to seek a sharpener.

On his way through town, he happened upon another townsperson, who also happened to have a knife. Well, actually, he had other knives too, but none of them were sharp either. After a few minutes conversation, they decided to go together to see if they could find a sharpener.

As they traveled through town, the two townspersons came across another townsperson, and then another, who were also plagued by dull knives. Finally, the First Townsperson spoke up. “This has got to end. Dull knives have now reached epidemic proportions. The body of townspersons is suffering from an overwhelming lack of sharpiness. We need a Sharper Shop.”

The response from the townspersons was overwhelming. Some of them created cute little slogans for themselves. Others waved their dull knives over their heads. Still others clamored for change and tolerance. Finally, the second townsperson spoke up. “First Townsperson, you have really struck on an idea,” he said. A hush settled over the raucous crowd. Dull knives glinted in the sunlight. “I move that we elect First Townsperson to chair a new Committee for the Promotion of Sharper Knives.” A murmur of approval greeted the statement. “First Townsperson, we hereby anoint you head of the Knife Sharpeners.” And the other townspeople roared their approval.

The next day, First Townsperson put out a sign on main street. “Sharper Shop” it read. That day, a stream of townspersons made their way over to the Sharper Shop, dull knives in hand. There at Sharper Shop, fuzzy new towels were handed around, and townspersons diligently polished their dull knives to a very high gloss. Some townspersons even stayed past midnight, so diligent were they to polish those knives.

The next day and the next, the crowds grew larger, and the polishing more feverish. Then one day, a stranger rode through town. Seeing the sign for Sharper Shop, he took his sword and went in. He pulled out his sword, and looked around for the grinder where he could sharpen his sword. He looked and looked. Finally, he asked one of the bystanders to point him in the right direction. The bystander looked at him in confusion. “You must be a stranger around here,” he said. And then he handed him a towel.

The newcomer looked at his sword, looked at the towel, and then quietly walked back outside and rode down the street. A few days later, he was back. “Hey, one of you guys help me for a second,” he said. In a few moments, he and some others lugged in a heavy stone, and placed it on a table. For a few moments, the townspeople watched as the stranger set up the grinding stone. Then, he took out his sword and began to grind. Sparks were flying. Some townspeople let out a low whistle. Others shielded their eyes. Still others put down their towels, and lined up behind the stranger. When he was done, they stepped up with their dull knives, and when they stepped away, the knives were sharper. In the days that followed, more and more people lined up to sharpen their dull knives. Sparks flew, voices raised, and dull knives lost some of their dullness. Things were as they should have been at Sharper Shop.

But then one day, some began to complain about the sparks. Others began to complain about the noise. Still others griped about the smell. In response, some started to grind harder. “You don’t like the way the grinding sounds,” they said? “Well, how about this!” Then, they started grinding knives for the sake of grinding. They made bigger sparks, they made more noise, and they successfully annoyed the townspersons. They would grind and grind and grind for the fun of grinding. And all the while, their blades wore thinner and thinner and thinner. Finally, one ground his blade down to almost nothing.

And that was when First Townsperson stepped in. “Enough already!” he said, and kicked out the primary offender. A murmur rippled through the Sharper Shop, but soon the townspersons were back to their grinding. While they were grinding, a few of the townspersons clustered in a corner and started muttering something about the stranger, the grinder, the sparks, and the smoke. They took their complaint to the Committee for the Promotion of Sharper Knives. Some of the men with dull knives noticed what they were doing, and, embarrassed, stopped their grinding. But the stranger kept right on grinding.

Finally, First Townsperson cleared his throat, stepped up to the stranger, and whispered something in his ear. The stranger stopped, and without another glance, picked up his sword and disappeared.

Things were quiet at Sharper Shop for a while after that. Some of the men commented about the sudden disappearance of the stranger. Others stood around the grinding wheel. “I never liked the smell anyway,” said one of the men. “Me neither,” said another. “Good riddance,” said a third. They picked up their fuzzy towels again. “Besides,” they said, “they made too many sparks.” WE are a Christian Sharper Shop.

Seldom again were the sounds of grinding heard at the Sharper Shop. But, dull as they were, those knives sure were shiny!

The Moral: If iron would sharpen iron, both must be iron.