February 15, 2007SharperIron and pop music
For better or for worse, SharperIron is the undisputed king of fundamentalist blogdom. No other fundamentalist blog comes close to matching SI for readership and influence. So, although I am often frustrated with the content and discussions of that blog, I have not been able to abandon it entirely, as it is still a useful means of communication.In the past, SI has taken some doctrinal stands that have resulted in the banning of certain members. The most flagrant violation involved a man who denied the Trinity. However, they have also removed members who frequently posted in support of KJV-onlyism. Obviously, the decisions to ban these members establish theological boundaries for what will and will not be tolerated at SI; the former position is already banned by the site's doctrinal statement, while the second is not (at least not explicitly). Interestingly, a very recent article on the posting policy of SI said this:
This is a free speech place. Ideas will not be censored. All are encouraged to freely express ideas, ask questions, and dialogue with other Christian brothers and sisters while walking in the Spirit. I am sure we will have to have rules for appropriate discussion, but if we exemplify the fruit of the Spirit, there is no need for law (Galatians 5:23).Contrary this pronouncement, all opinions are not welcome; the vehicle of the conversation itself limits the sorts of opinions that will be allowed a voice.
Please don't misunderstand: I support both of these decisions to ban members. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of blog discussions is a lack of theological and philosophical unity, unity that must be assumed if intelligent discussion is to be possible. For example, as recent conversations at SI have demonstrated, discussing soteriology with a person who is operating from a bizarre hermeneutic will not be tremendously profitable.
I am not for a moment suggesting that SI does not have a right to do what they have done (and what they are currently doing in the situation I'm about to reference). People who claim a right to free speech in cases like this are hopelessly confused; your right to free speech is not infringed when a particular medium of expression is taken away from you. If you want to express an opinion, get your own blog. Your right to free speech is being infringed only when the police knock on your door to haul you away based on the content of the ideas that you are expressing. SI is a privately-owned website; they are completely free to take whatever positions that they wish.
But that's just the point: to restrict the expression of a particular point of view from a blog is a very clear indication of the position of the blog. To me, that makes some current developments at SI very interesting, and, honestly, quite disturbing.
A recent thread at SI requests prayer for the continued success and evangelistic opportunities of Chris Sligh, one of the 24 finalists for American Idol; he is a former student at Bob Jones University (our times at BJU overlapped; I knew who he was, although I don't believe we ever met personally, and I doubt that he would know me). (His lengthy description of his journey from fundamentalism to pop music was found here. It appears that the content of his blog was removed recently, seemingly to comply with American Idol policies. A Google-cached version of it can be found here.) Of course, such a thread is a lightening-rod for controversy; for many conservatives at SI, such a post is akin to requesting prayer for a girl in your church to be a good witness in her new job at the strip club. I exaggerate, but not excessively.
Not surprisingly, then, the thread drew a number of critical comments, none of which (at least that I saw) were even remotely mean-spirited. They simply pointed out the inconsistencies between Christianity and the genre of music that Chris is pursuing. (In his blog profile, Chris says that he "feels sorry" for anyone who thinks that being a "Christ-follower" and a "rock star" are "diametrically opposed"). These critical comments were subsequently deleted by the blog moderators. One of the deleted posts was from the pastor of my old church; he had pointed out the disconnect presented by a Christian entering a contest in which the stated goal is to become an "idol," citing Exodus 20.
Re-read SI's comment policy:
This is a free speech place. Ideas will not be censored. All are encouraged to freely express ideas, ask questions, and dialogue with other Christian brothers and sisters while walking in the Spirit. I am sure we will have to have rules for appropriate discussion, but if we exemplify the fruit of the Spirit, there is no need for law (Galatians 5:23).Perhaps I'm over-reading this, but it seems that the logical implication of SI's recent action is that they believe that those who are critical of Chris Sligh are not walking in the Spirit.
There have been two reasons stated for this censorship. The first argument, specific to the thread requesting prayer for Chris, is that posts critical of his venture were off-topic. I personally believe that this explanation is a bit disengenuous; I'll be watching with interest over the next several days threads like this to see if critical comments are removed there as well. (An earlier thread on the topic was already closed.) I anticipate that they will be, at least the ones deemed too egregious.
The second reason stated for the censorship is that "public threads here are google (and other) seachable"; the implication is that, should Sligh continue on in this contest, his abandoning of his fundamentalist background makes for a good news story, and SI doesn't want the negative publicity that would result from being associated with disparaging remarks about him. As I've argued already, I think that this is a telling admission about the beliefs of those who maintain SI; this is not an issue that they're willing to take heat for.
And they're welcome to that position. I just find it interesting.