Introduction
On December 30th in the year of our Lord 2021, I wrote an article. It was titled Who will You Be After You Recover? It was an honest attempt to address the movement mentality within the Recovering Fundamentalist movement. Within the first paragraph, I made a distinction between the movement and the podcast, and I repeatedly stated that I do not see the movement as inherently problematic. Once the article was posted, I left it up to the providence of God and moved on with my life. For reference, you are welcome to read the article for yourself.
On July 11th, 2022, I received a message from one of the hosts of the Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast, and I wouldn’t describe the conversation as pleasant. Unbeknownst to me, the article had allegedly circulated. From my understanding, the RFP had been receiving questions about why some random guy had beef with them. I, on the other hand, had not received a single message over the past 7 months. Needless to say, this message was a surprise.
Throughout the conversation, the host encouraged me to let our conversation serve as a learning opportunity. I took that encouragement to heart and reflected on the lessons I had learned from our conversation. So here are the lessons I learned from the recovering fundamentalist.
Why I’m Saying Something
One might ask “Why say something, Cory?” It’s a valid question, and it deserves an answer. It would be much easier to just post the conversation and let the reader be the judge. Honestly, I don’t feel it would be right to do that without the host’s permission, and it simply isn’t necessary yet. I do want to note that I have no issue with the conversation being public because I did not say a word that I regret.
This would be a different story if I received the messages back in December. However, we are in July. The host informed me that he has “let it go,” but I guess we all have our breaking point. What brought him to the point of messaging me in July was because “again we were sent your post.” I don’t know who these people were that were asking “What’s this guy’s problem with y’all.” All I can say is that I have not received a single message asking why I have beef. My target audience was the people around me, and my intended message was not lost on them. I warned against a movement mentality, and the warning was received by the ones around me. Regardless, the host was insistent that I had spent the majority of my article speaking against their podcast and took the opportunity to share their feelings with me. So why say something? Because you should let sleeping dogs lie.
Diotrephes and the Dangerous Layman
I’m not one to call people out by name, so this host who messaged me will remain anonymous. However, the host let me know that if the show were gone, “It would change nothing about us three host[s].” He went on to say that “We would still be pastoring the Churches we do.” This is important to me because I was not speaking with just a random podcast host, but rather I was speaking to someone who claims the office of pastor.
This caused me to ask myself a lot of questions. Would I be receiving this treatment if I were in the church he serves? How would I feel if I found out this is what my pastor did in his spare time? The scrutiny many IFB pastors fall under for being quarrelsome is legit, but I have to wonder if this pastor is exempt from similar scrutiny. I feel it’s appropriate to point out that the IFB has little tolerance for speaking out against the pastor, and doing so can result in similar responses. How is this scenario any different from what these people are recovering from? I noted in my article that the recovering fundamentalist movement is at risk of developing its own form of legalism — parameters for being in the club. I guess not speaking against the leaders is one of those parameters.
5 Lessons I Learned
My RFP friend told me to “chalk this up as a learning lesson for next time.” So, without further ado, here are the lessons I have learned. I hope you benefit from them as much as I did.
1.) The Movement and Podcast aren’t as separate as I thought
In the original article, I did my best to clearly state that I did not see the movement and podcast as synonymous. I gave the benefit of the doubt that these guys could not control what people did with their content. The host refused to see it this way. Everything circled back to the podcast. When I denied that the post was about the podcast, I was accused of “playing dumb,” avoiding “factual criticism,” and capitalizing on the fame of the podcast/movement “for clicks by using our name.”
I found this to be interesting, so I posed a simple question. “Do you claim the movement too?” I asked. He claimed that they never “invited it,” but stated later that “When you talk about recovering fundamentalist. Thats us.” I never intended to make the movement and podcast synonymous, but the host certainly did it for me. So I learned that my original article is a warning against the podcast after all.
2.) I Prefer My Beef to be Organic
Again, I did not think the original article was about the podcast, but I was mistaken. The way I see it is that I spoke against the movement, the podcast claims the movement, so in turn, I spoke against the podcast by speaking against the movement. It was never my intention to have beef, and I do not believe there ever needed to be. “No beef here.” The host explained. Yet, I was looking at his name in my private messages while he expressed his frustrations about my article — 7 months after the article was published. Smells like beef to me.
Maybe he was right — there was no beef. Maybe it was an artificial substitute. The Taco Bell version of beef. Whatever it was, it brought him to the point of teaching a complete nobody a lesson because they said something he didn’t like. I have better taste. I prefer my beef to be organic, and that means that I want it to be real.
I know an emotional, knee-jerk reaction when I see one. There was no beef — there was untamed emotion. Controlled people do not breathe the empty threat of reaching out “to your friends who the warning was given to clarify our position?” Really? However, the result of this emotional outburst is organic beef. There wasn’t conflict, but now there is.
3.) Matthew 18 Was Inspired for a Reason
I am not against confrontation. Confrontation is biblical. However, biblical confrontation is designed to lead both parties to restoration. I allowed the host to present his factual criticism, which he denied the offer. I allowed the host to tell me if I had hurt his feelings, but he denied the offer again. There was not a single movement to suggest that restoration was the goal.
Other than learning a lesson, the only reason I can discern for this conversation was to get an answer. The host had originally asked me if I had listened to their podcast, and I told him that I had. This is a true statement. However, the host refused to believe that I had listened because I wouldn’t have come to the conclusions I did if I had listened to the podcast. So it seems that there were two objectives: teach me a lesson and get an answer.
Regardless of the motive, I am making it known that restoration is still possible. I welcome the opportunity to win a brother. Take it or leave it.
4.) I’m Not Recovered Enough for the Movement
I wondered in my previous article if there would come a point when people would not be recovered enough for the movement. Sadly, I was correct to wonder. I asked the host what should happen next, and he offered some solutions.
He asked “Are you seeking a public response to your public warning about us? Do we just need to look over the warning about us to people we don’t know? Do we need to reach out to your friends who the warning was given to clarify our position?”
I told him that he was welcome to publicly address this, but he responded that it “would just stroke your ego.” He told me to “keep writing posts about people and then whine and play dumb when they respond.” He referred to this as a “Classic IFB tactic.” The funny thing is that I am anything but IFB. I am hard pressed to believe that there is a single movement IFB church that would have me. Yet, I’m being accused of being IFB by the recovering fundamentalist. This is the logic. Speak against me and you will be labeled as IFB. Honestly, I had anticipated this, and I was happy that he articulated it. I let him know that I knew he had pegged me as IFB. He replied, “Sucks to be pegged huh.”
I made it clear in my article that I feared the movement would become more and more closed off as it moved forward. I had a hunch that the hateful disposition of the IFB would eventually make its way into this movement. I guess I’m not fundamentalist enough for the fundies, and I’m not recovered enough for the recovering fundies. I’ve been told there’s no country for moderate men, and I believe that.
5.) My Article Is Staying Where I Left It
Simple as that. Now more than ever, I stand by what I said.
Conclusion
With this in mind, I want to say thank you to the RFP. Thank you for the lessons you taught me. I have grown from our conversation, and I have learned my lessons. I don’t think I’ll ever be the same moving forward. For the Kingdom — not yours.
— The Stick