Dead Man's Curve

Dead man’s curve, it seems that every community has one. As we travel the back roads we come across that sharp curve and we find there on the shoulder those markers of remembrance. Crosses, wreaths, flowers, stuff animals mark the spot where a friend or a loved one crashed their vehicle. Usually they are young people and when the full details are revealed we find that they were driving too fast for that section of road. Curves made to be taken at 35 mph are not usually negotiated at a speed of say 70 mph.  Sad as one accident is the sadder thing is that there are usually multiple markers showing multiple accidents. For some strange reason individuals think that they can succeed doing the same thing that others have failed in doing. They think, “just because so-and-so didn’t make the curve at 70 doesn’t mean that I can’t.” So foolishly they try, maybe they make it farther through the turn but they too are not able to stay on the road and they too crash and become another fatality. They failed to learn the lesson of the markers of remembrance.

We see this same kind of failure in the realm of Christianity. Specifically, I am referring to the failure of some to see that others have “crashed” when trying to negotiate a convergence between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. I cite one example. Let’s look at Dr. Jerry Falwell. In his early days he was considered a Fundamentalist. He was identified clearly within the Fundamentalist’s ranks. Then he started making efforts at “fellowshipping” with Evangelicals. I commend to you, Evangelist Dave Sproul’s, An Open Letter to Jerry Falwell, written October 15, 1979. It was published by Fundamental Press of Tempe, AZ. Bro. Sproul well documents the case against Falwell. Now, as we have come down through the corridor of time, would any Fundamental pastor recommend sending their young people to Liberty? No, those ministries crashed with their departure from Fundamentalism and its separatist position. Another example would be Jack Van Impe, and there are scores of lesser known men and ministries (the Pac NW is dotted with casualties) that have followed the same road to the same fate.

With that said, we have some today who wish to repeat the effort. Do they expect a different outcome? This coming week Dr. Tim Jordan of Calvary Baptist Church and Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA, is hosting a conference titled, Advancing the Church. The keynote speaker is Dr. Mark Dever, pastor of Capital Heights Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., a Southern Baptist pastor. For a bit of a critique of Pastor Dever I commend to you a few articles (here and here and here). Alongside of him will be Drs. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran. Do these Fundamentalists expect to succeed with their, “careful, limited forms of fellowship” where others have failed? Do these men think that their ministries will not end up where Falwell’s are now? How foolish.

To change metaphors, these men have started on the slippery slope of compromise with Evangelicalism. Doing so removes them from the firm, level ground of Biblical separation. All who have stepped over have moved from their original position. For those who would try to make the case that what the conservatives did within the SBC goes counter to the claim of slippery slopes, I would say, where the SBC is at currently is nowhere near where they once were before the separatists started their exodus. So while I would concede that some things within the SBC may have moved up the slope some, they are still a far cry from the firm, level ground of Biblical separation. I am using separation as the reference point since it is its repudiation primarily that moved the New Evangelicals out from Fundamentalism.

Back to the original metaphor, how many more crashes must we witness before men will take the warnings that the markers of remembrance give us? Obey the posted speed signs. In this case, obey the Biblical admonitions, Rom. 16:17; II Cor. 6:14-18; II Thess. 3:6, 14, 15; I John 2:15-17, to name a few.

The Folly of “The Fortress” or a pitfall of the allegory

Dr. Kevin Bauder has recently posted an article (you may find it on your own, I care not to link to it) which is at certain levels a bit entertaining. He has chosen to write this article in an allegorical style. This is the style which John Bunyan used when he wrote, The Pilgrim’s Progress. An allegorical approach to writing can be quite picturesque, as Dr. Bauder has shown in his article. It is quite easy to conjure up a mental picture as you read his article.

There is a pitfall, though, to writing allegory. The author must clearly articulate the meaning of the characters. An “apology” must be written so that the readers have a proper understanding of what the author is intending to convey in the allegory. Otherwise, the reader is left to his own devices to give understanding to what is written. This is very much like the chaos that the Israelites had during the period of the Judges when, “everyone did that which was right in his own eyes.” Going back to Bunyan’s work, he wrote a poetic apology for The Pilgrim’s Progress, and it usually forms kind of a preface to the book. If a reader reads the book for the first time without having read the apology, he is left with a mind full of questions as to the intent of Bunyan for a host of events and people portrayed.

Dr. Bauder has left us to speculation with his allegory. Now maybe this is on purpose, so that he has plausible deniability when readers start placing their own interpretations to the characters and events portrayed. He can quickly say “no” to any number of interpretations and all interpretations, since he has not articulated what the real interpretation is. Or maybe it is for his own enjoyment, when people bring their own meanings to it and blast away because of their perceived ideas as to what he means. He can sit back and enjoy the fireworks display. Which brings me to calling this whole thing a folly (a lack of understanding, sense, or rational conduct), since we have not the real meaning presented to us, then we really have no meaning being given to us.

Now, I have sent a message to Dr. Bauder requesting that he give an apology for his article. We will have to wait to see if he is so inclined to do so. My own reading of the article and understanding of it is a bit disturbing. I see a continued effort by the writer to distort, redefine, and revise the history of Fundamentalism as he has done in a couple of series of articles recently. But then, who am I to properly understand his allegorical method? To use a phrase from one of his fellow professors at the seminary of which Dr. Bauder is the president, I am just a “pastor of a pretty small church.” I could very well have missed the mark in my interpretation of his article. Since I could be off in my understanding, I am left to neither condemn outright nor condone the message of the article. I do, in one sense, condemn the article because it is a useless piece of writing without its apology to properly understand what the writer wishes to articulate. It is somewhat like what Paul speaks of to the Corinthian church about speaking a foreign language in church. If no one there understands the language spoken and there is no one to interpret, then it is of no profit to the congregation.

For those who stop by and read my articles, I trust that you will read with discernment. We could jump to conclusions about Dr. Bauder and this article which are not founded upon the truth he wishes to express in the article, so I would encourage you not to engage with comments concerning those conclusions jumped to since we don’t really know what he means.