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.