There has been some buzz about Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism since it was first teased that it was about to be released. I debated whether or not I would even get the book. I opted to get the book so that I could see for myself what was being said. Well, it arrived in the mail yesterday. I immediately opened the book and headed for Dr. Kevin Bauder’s opening chapter, desirous to see what he was really going to say. His first two paragraphs and accompanying footnotes floored me. He opens with this;
“Imagine the difficulty of explaining fundamentalism in a book about evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is generally treated like the cryptozoology of the theological world. It need not be argued against. It can simply be dismissed.1
Part of the fault lies with fundamentalists themselves. For a generation or more, they have produced few sustained expositions of their ideas. Perhaps a certain amount of stereotyping is excusable, and maybe even unavoidable. No fundamentalist has produced a critical history of fundamentalism.2 Nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available.3 By virtue of its length, this essay can provide neither. Instead, it offers a very brief introduction to fundamentalism. No one can speak for all fundamentalists. Consequently, this essay reflects my own vision of fundamentalism. I occasionally indicate areas in which I believe most fundamentalist would agree with me.”
Here are the footnotes;
1While fundamentalists generally consider themselves to be evangelicals, some self-identified evangelicals question whether an evangelical can be a fundamentalist. See Steve Wilkens and Don Thorsen, Everything you Know about Evangelicals is Wrong (Well, Almost Everything): An Insider’s Look at Myths and Realities (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 139-140
2Fundamentalist have published two full-length histories. Each makes a modest contribution to fundamentalist historiography, but both are essentially popular works that were written to legitimate one particular version of fundamentalism. The two are George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1973); and David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1986).
3The best expositions of core fundamentalist ideas include Fred Moritz, “Be Ye Holy”: The Call to Christian Separation (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1994); Mark Sidwell, The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1998); Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, 2nd ed. (Schaumburg, Ill.: Regular Baptist Press, 2008). Each of these discussions has value, but all are written for a popular readership, and none deals adequately with the larger orbit of ecclesiological issues that a thoughtful fundamentalism must face.
To use a phrase from the political realm looks like Dr. Bauder has thrown Dr. Dollar, Dr. Beale, Dr. Moritz, Dr. Sidwell, and Dr. Pickering under the bus. Why didn’t Dr. Bauder also include Dr. Moritz’s book, Contending for the Faith, since it covers the same subject matter of the other three books while he was throwing things under the bus?
I wish to pull a few of his sentences out for examination. Here they are; “No fundamentalist has produced a critical history of fundamentalism. Nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available.” And from the footnotes; “Fundamentalist have published two full-length histories. Each makes a modest contribution to fundamentalist historiography, but both are essentially popular works that were written to legitimate one particular version of fundamentalism.” Also; “Each of these discussions has value, but all are written for a popular readership, and none deals adequately with the larger orbit of ecclesiological issues that a thoughtful fundamentalism must face.” I guess we must ask what does Dr. Bauder mean when he says, “a critical history of fundamentalism” has not been written and “nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available”? And there is also, “but both are essentially popular works” and “written for a popular readership.”
To give full disclosure, I am a Bob Jones University alumnus, having received both a bachelors and masters degree from that university which provided the means for publishing most of the books Dr. Bauder refers to. Also, I sat under Dr. Beale in a class during the time he was writing his book on Fundamentalism and the course syllabus was the outline of the book. And again, my wife worked for BJUP for the first 12 years of our marriage while I finished those degrees and beyond. So yes, I am familiar with the works and have read all but Dr. Sidwell’s book.
Now back to my thoughts, Dr. Bauder used the term “critical” in reference to the lack of a “critical history of fundamentalism.” I suppose he is using this meaning of the word critical, “characterized by careful analysis and judgment.” And he defines the word “popular” as, “appealing to or intended for the general public.” (definitions taken from, Webster’s New College Dictionary, 2005) So, he is saying that the two histories of fundamentalism are not careful in their analysis and judgment!? Really?!! And what is so wrong with writing to the masses? They ARE the ones who make up fundamentalism, not academia.
A common mantra coming from the evangelical and liberal communities for decades has been that fundamentalists are not “scholars” or that they do not produce “scholarly” works. Looks like Dr. Bauder has followed their lead in his assessment of these five works. I find it interesting that his assessment of these authors and their books is done in this venue rather than within the realm of fundamentalism. When Dr. Bauder wrote a couple of series on the history of fundamentalism, he did not bring up this lack of “careful analysis and judgment” when he referenced these previous works. Kind of looks like he wanted to get outside of the fort before taking pot shots at fellow fundamentalists.
To help shed some light on this idea, let’s look at the two histories mentioned. In Dr. Dollar’s book, he covers his topic in 289 pages. From pages 299 to 395 he included a biographical index of 77 pages, a glossary of 9 pages, and a selective bibliography of 9 pages, all in relatively small font. In those 289 pages he has footnoted his work a total of 524 times.
Dr. Beale’s book covers some 356 pages, plus another 82 pages of reference only, appendixes, and bibliography. He has 536 footnotes in those 356 pages plus another 35 in the reference only section. Now I readily concede that these statistics do not qualitatively nor quantitatively tell us that these two works rise to the level of being called “critical” works on the history of fundamentalism but I do call into question Dr. Bauder’s use of this term against these two works. The history of fundamentalism is of necessity a history of personages and as such it is almost impossible to do an exhaustive book recounting the influences of every single person. With that said though, these two works have put before us a credible look into fundamentalism and in my own opinion rate far better than this poor assessment by Dr. Bauder.
Dr. Bauder goes on and states that, “nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available” when referencing the books primarily dealing with the doctrine of separation. So these books are neither scholarly nor theological in their dealing with this doctrine? Are The Fundamentals also to be included in his list of non-scholarly, non-theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas as well? At what point does a work become a “critical” “scholarly” piece of literature? X number of footnotes? Or quoting past theologians in original language used like Latin, French, German, etc. as is often the case in works done by men of the 19th century (systematic theologies come immediately to mind by Hodge and Strong)? What is the distinction between a “critical” work and a “popular” work?
Another concern I have is with, “Part of the fault lies with fundamentalists themselves. For a generation or more, they have produced few sustained expositions of their ideas. Perhaps a certain amount of stereotyping is excusable, and maybe even unavoidable.” Fundamentalism is not an “option” on the smorgasbord of philosophies/belief systems that are available to the world at large. We are not to be out there “hawking our wares,” touting the magnificent benefits of our way against others. Ours is the presentation, in Word and deed, of the life changing grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ. Period, end of story. He seems to give the impression that somehow there is this need to voice to the world and particularly to others along this spectrum of Christianity what our ideas are so as to avoid these caricatures of fundamentalism. Really, would that have helped people to understand fundamentalism? For the most part those who have misrepresented fundamentalism have been purposeful in their misrepresentation. They understood clearly and wanted nothing to do with fundamentalism or its increase.
Admittedly, I have not read Dr. Bauder’s contribution in its entirety but this initial reading does not give me hope that he is actually presenting fundamentalism properly and then defending its historic position. My initial reaction is that here is a man seeking to find common ground, acceptance with evangelicals by this disparaging of fundamentalism. Another reaction I have, should I be using his criteria for examining his own works which he has posted at his blog?
I know there are those out there that may say, well who are you to speak? I am just a pastor of a small church who gets out into cyberspace and reads articles and comments on them. Sure, there are those professors who think my kind (pastors of small churches) should be seen (maybe) and (definitely) not heard out in cyberspace, while they pontificate and rant on. But then they are cloistered in the halls of academia away from the real world of ministry within the local church setting so I take their thoughts with a pinch. My concern is with these men articulating these words about fundamentalism in such ways that instead of moving the cause of Christ further they hinder, they disparage the work instead. I am part of the warp and woof that is fundamentalism and do not care to see it misrepresented by those without or those within.
I will be reading this book in the coming days and may well do more articles giving my assessment but right now I am not impressed with the initial effort of the so-called fundamentalist author articulating the fundamentalist view.
46 comments:
And why is Bauder not really writing any books himself? A quick look at Amazon.com shows that he has contributed to only two books that I was able to find. The men he mentions as having written books (although they are not "critical" books on the subject matter) were at least writing! And writing multiple books! If writing books is so necessary, then Bauder, you get busy yourself. IF there is any blame to be made here, Bauder has to take as much as anyone else for not writing "critical" works. Maybe the reason there have been no "critical" works written in the last 100 years is because Fundamental pastors have been busy expounding on the one true Book, our only Authority for Faith and Practice-the BIBLE-to their congregations and not some mans "critical" thoughts. That's my 2 cents worth...but what do I know...I haven't even graduated from Bible college yet!
Bauder is often insufferable to read. He comes across as elitist and arrogant, talking down to the dummies who can't see things as clearly as he can in the rarified air of scholarly thinking.
I think he means by "critical" more of the "scholarly" and "peer reviewed" bilge he favors. Perhaps Beale and Dollar didn't write for that audience. Quite frankly, who cares? The ministry is to the populace. Let the scholars go on in their rarified darkness. If they can't be bothered to consider the populace and the popular worthy of their time and attention, then let it be so.
You could say I have no strong feelings on the matter! You should go to Naselli's blog and click on the video where Andy and Colin Hanson explain their ideas in creating the book. Too bad. Naselli is an intelligent guy, but in some ways his intelligence is his own worst enemy.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thanks for dropping by and adding to the conversation.
Don, I have seen a video clip making the rounds on fb with Naselli and Hanson speaking about the book. Naselli is a bit telling about himself; moving into fundamentalism and then out in evangelicalism.
Stephen, yes, you do bring up a valid point. Dr. Bauder has been rather critical of fundamentalism for its lack of written material. Well, typically written material is by those in academia and at last check Dr. Bauder was indeed part of academia. So where are the books Dr. Bauder?
I would also draw your attention to Lou Martuneac's blog, In Defense of the Gospel, and specifically two recent articles, (http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/10/are-we-forced-to-tolerate-evils-within.html) and (http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/09/is-kevin-bauder-right-choice-to-argue.html) for further discussion on this topic.
Stephen:
You wrote, "And why is Bauder not really writing any books himself?"
That gives me an opportunity to ask a question that has been on my mind since Bauder left the Central presidency for his new position. My question: Just how long will Central keep Kevin Bauder on the payroll to produce (increasingly uninteresting) articles for the seminary's obscure In the Nick of Time?
IMO, Andy Naselli did Bauder a huge (unintended) favor slotting him for this book.
LM
Don wrote, "Bauder is often insufferable to read. He comes across as elitist and arrogant, talking down to the dummies who can't see things as clearly as he can in the rarified air of scholarly thinking."
Without a doubt! I tackled the elitism and arrogance of Kevin Bauder in my very first article with him as a subject. I'll just link you to that article, which is:
Theological Pedigree to Gain a Hearing
Don:
I have heard Kevin Bauder speak in person and on audio recording. He is insufferable to read as you noted, but in person is double insufferable for the same reasons you mention, but then add an uninteresting speaking style that keeps him distant /disconnected from his audience. The attitude of "talking down to dummies" really comes through. Its as if he is annoyed that he has to be drilling his pontifications in the skulls full of mush before him.
My impression of his delivery anyway.
Okay, guys, let's get back on message a bit more. I do acknowledge that pulpit presence has some bearing but the issue at hand is Dr. Bauder's contribution to this book. I don't want this to degrade into ad hominem. There is enough substance from Dr. Bauder to keep us above that level of interaction.
Shepherds,
When you go to exegete a Greek passage before speaking to your congregation, do you consult any of those insufferable, condescending, scholarly type works, or only the popular volumes.
I'd say there's not only room for both, both are critical (to repurpose the word). And one is lacking in our circles. We cannot fix problems we do not acknowledge.
A mere Sheep.
Thanks for stopping by Dave and adding to the conversation. Any shepherd worth his salt will be looking at both. With that said, and I will state in another way what I have questioned in the article, what does a "critical" history have to have in its contents to be termed "critical" instead of Bauder's assessment of them being "popular"?
This is not intended to pit "popular" against "critical." I am simply pointing out that Dr. Bauder may very well be trying to do exactly that in opposite with his statement that there lacks a "critical" history and the ones we do have are "popular" works and are therefore wanting in their historicity.
Now maybe someone can get answer to that from Dr. Bauder. I've tried on other occasions to get clarification from him and have received nothing to date.
I'm guessing a partial answer is latent in his statements in the book. Any history written even partially to "to legitimate one particular version of fundamentalism" is likely to criticize, attack, or even dismiss other versions of fundamentalism and justify its any suggested shortcomings of its favorite version.
If he is right that these books are the only type available, the opportunity to evaluate the various brands of fundamentalism are available to neither the clergy or laity.
Oh, and about the lack of sustained articulation of Fundamentalist principles--surely we differentiate between the principles of Fundamentalism and the Fundamentals. I have not read The Fundamentals so you may correct me if it articulates the former in addition defending the latter.
In short, I don't think the statements you've chosen to isolate here are particularly audacious.
Dave, no one here has even hinted or suggested that Bauder's statements are audacious, leastwise me, the author of the article. I am questioning his bringing these things up in the venue he did, besides questioning even the relativeness of them being mentioned in the first place.
Now if (and that's a big word), if Dr. Bauder would rather have stated that there is not an "exhaustive" history of fundamentalism, then I have no problem and would heartily agree. There isn't one and probably never will be because of the complex nature of fundamentalism over the last one hundred years.
I would also suggest you reread my article, it looks like you are trying to nitpick at things instead of looking at the whole picture, but I could be wrong.
Brian,
I reread, and yes I responded to particular and limited statements or implications in the article/comments.
I won't take the time to interact with the remainder of your article other than this one rather bold assertion: "Fundamentalism is not an “option” on the smorgasbord of philosophies/belief systems that are available to the world at large . . Ours is the presentation, in Word and deed, of the life changing grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ. Period, end of story."
I would counter with these few thoughts: my guess is that most, if not all of the scholarly commentaries and resources we use when preparing lessons or sermons are written by those outside the "fort". To say that the Conservative Evangelicals' (Ryrie, MacArthur, Dever, etc) theology is somehow not the presentation, in Word and deed, of the life changing grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ" in comparison to ours seems to me to be rank tribalism and shortsighted in light of the fact that those outside of the realm of separatism do most of the theological heavy lifting for those of us inside.
Dave as far as your concluding quote of mine to which you take issue, please put it back in the context. My statement is in relation to the articulation of fundamentalist ideas that Dr. Bauder says has been lacking. Dr. Bauder seems to imply with this statement that fundamentalists have missed the boat in the presenting of fundamentalism in the marketplace of ideas and as a result we have stereotyping of fundamentalism which is undesirable. It has nothing to do with who's writing the theological stuff.
On a lighter side and diverging a bit, I would think "tribalism" is an acceptable thing these days since this is what MacDonald and Driscoll are advocating over at The Elephant Room. Not that I am advocating it but I find it a bit ironic that you would choose that word.
Have the book. Read the Bauder chapter. He's just talking about the difference between popular level writing and more serious scholarly work. There's no bus throwing going on.
I'm glad Brian included enough of the context and the full footnotes so that readers can see how mild his observations actually are.
(As for getting paid to do Nick of Time... I seriously doubt there's any bonus for that. He gets paid for being a prof.)
Great work Brian. This is an example of thoughtful, careful commentary. Bauder should learn some respect.
James
Well, Brian, I may be having a hard time parsing this for your primary point. I'll take full responsibility for that.
Can you give me a one or two sentence summary of what exactly you think he's done wrong?
Thanks for stopping by Aaron, James.
Aaron, there are no "drive by shootings" here. I try to get the context before launching into an article. As far as any "mildness" to Bauder's thoughts, that is not what has been brought up here. This concerns, yes, his statements, their tone (which, admittedly is not easily grasped on the printed page) and their placement (in a decidedly non-fundamentalist setting). These comments of Bauder's were never brought up in his various series on fundamentalism that he has produced over the past couple of years, even when he has mentioned those particular histories.
To the unnamed anonymous whose comments started, "Bauder and I are on opposite sides of the fence on many issues."
Please submit your comments again, and sign your name like James has done with his post. Whether you agree or disagree, you should be man (or woman) enough to own up to your words by giving your name.
Dave,
I have not said that Bauder has done anything "wrong." Please read what I wrote in response to Aaron.
I find it to be rather calculated on Bauder's part to have brought up this issue of the works of fundamentalism within the context of book focused on evangelicalism, instead of in his articles of on fundamentalism which he has done over the past couple of years in which he has mentioned those works with none of the commenting as he has done here.
Brian,
Have you read "A Fundamentalism Worth Saving"? He articulated versions of these issues to fundamentalists 6 years ago. The pdf is available online.
I am surprised that very people ever take note of the lack of any real exposition of Scripture in Brother Bauder's articles. They seem to be steeped in philosophical bias rather than any in biblical exegesis. Keven is too knowledgeable a man to be wasting his time on this nonsense that edifies no one with foundational truths from God's Word. Perhaps he needs to be encouraged to redirect his God given gifts to more profitable efforts. I think he has lost his way.
Dave, yes I have read Bauder's article, though it has been awhile. Would have to reread it but do not recall any mention specifically of what he has stated in these opening paragraphs and their corresponding footnotes.
Dave :
Kevin Bauder's idea of a Fundamentalism Worth Saving was shown in stark relief when he and Dave Doran joined Mark Dever in cooperative ministry on the Calvary Baptist Seminary platform in February.
And in March we are going to see another example of Bauder's fundamentalism when Haddon Robinson takes the keynote position at Calvary.
LM
Thanks for stopping by Bro. Ketchum.
Dr. Ketchum:
Amen!
Brian, I didn't mean he mentioned these particular books. He did deal with in-depth history and serious scholarship.
No big deal. Forget I brought it up.
Understand Dave and I would submit to you and all others that the books Dr. Bauder mentioned in the opening of his chapter fits your assessment of what Dr. Bauder was wanting in his 2005 paper to the AACCS (I think that is all the letters), they are in-depth and serious scholarship and yes, written with a bent toward popular readership.
To James, Please let up on the syrup. One posting in this blog is enough. If you wish to actually engage in the conversation then bring something of substance to the table.
Dr. Ketchum:
I remember that just after Kevin Bauder ended his 24 part "Differences" series I went through it specifically to count how many times he actually referenced a passage of Scripture. During that often bloviated series a number of men were noting the conspicuous absence of biblical principles or authority.
Anyway, and this is just from memory, could be short, but I believe there were only 13 Scripture references over the 24 articles.
LM
To James, as I stated earlier, bring something of substance to the table in order to participate in the conversation. Your allusions to the fantasy world of fundy mafia families may find acceptance at SI but not here.
Lou,
Your last three articles at IDOTG, one of which is a criticism of Bauder, contain exactly "ZERO" scripture references.
Often your article quote Pickering and Masters more than the apostles. The verses you do quote tend to be the same handful. Will this drift from a comprehensive Biblical foundation at IDOTG continue?
Dave, I posted your comment as you bring a counter point to Lou on the Scriptures used for articles. As I have already stated once before to all, this article and the ensuing thread is about my initial thoughts on Bauder's chapter. Let's return to that thought. Though it is getting off topic a bit on both sides, I have allowed the comments to stand, but with this warning, no further comments will be allowed if they continue in this vein.
Well, it is refreshing. Dr. Bauder has come to the table and brought some clarification, for which I give my hearty, sincere, and genuine thanks (though I don't think he will receive them unles he comes by this blog).
In the coming days, I will indeed be finishing Dr. Bauders' chapter and the balance of the book. Whether or not future articles will come of my reading will remain to be seen.
Dr. Ketchum wrote: "I am surprised that very people ever take note of the lack of any real exposition of Scripture in Brother Bauder's articles. They seem to be steeped in philosophical bias rather than any in biblical exegesis. Keven is too knowledgeable a man to be wasting his time on this nonsense that edifies no one with foundational truths from God's Word. Perhaps he needs to be encouraged to redirect his God given gifts to more profitable efforts. I think he has lost his way."
Dr. Ketchum, we ought not be surprised though. Dr. Bauder has a strong commitment to scholarship that invariably leads him down this road. And Fundamentalism has not had a plethora of scholars. Dr. Bauder, I think, is trying to remedy that situation by filling the void himself. It is futile, I think, because Fundamentalism is not a rationalist religion. Fundamentalism is based on revelation (i.e. the Scriptures) rather than tradition and rationalism as say Roman Catholicism. Dr. Bauder is on a journey and we don't know yet where he'll end. Recently, I've seen what are encouraging signs that he may be turning the corner. Time will tell.
Brian, I am very disappointed in the course that this thread of your blog has followed. Your original post was a misguided attack on the person of Kevin Bauder with pretty much trumped up charges.
Firstly, you ought to attack ideas and issues instead of the individual.
Secondly, you need to get your information right before making charges. It is sheer folly to attack before you've read the whole article. To say the least, you played right into the hands of those critical of Fundamentalism.
Thirdly, you allowed some inane posts that cast a poor light on our position as Fundamentalist separatists. These confirmed to the public that we are exactly as we're often described--hateful, venomous, ignorant, spiteful, etc.,.
This whole thread had the appearance and feel of a hate fest between two WWE wrestlers. It embodied all the same fakery and nastiness.
Now, I am certainly no defender or fan of Dr. Bauder but I accord him the same respect, courtesy, and trust as any Christian brother. It is not right to question his motives, his manhood, and his patriotism without strong evidence of wrong. Dr. Bauder has roundly criticized me upon occasion and I'm sure that my criticisms have needled him. But, this blog thread is uncalled for.
Now, Brian, you have backed away when faced with the obvious error of your ways but I haven't seen you take ownership of your foibles. You're still laying the implied blame at Bauder's feet by saying, "Well, it is refreshing. Dr. Bauder has come to the table and brought some clarification, for which I give my hearty, sincere, and genuine thanks (though I don't think he will receive them unless he comes by this blog)." The confusion lay in your mind, not Bauder's. I knew immediately that you were lost in cyberspace when I first read your blog article. Bauder wasn't saying what you said that he said.
Furthermore, I hurriedly wrote a critical reply that I didn't sign. You chose not to post it but wrote a snide little post about being man enough to sign one's name. Well, this one is signed. You ought not offer the "anon" option if you won't post from it.
Brian,
I too am pleased that Dr. Bauder brought some clarity to this issue. But I wonder--why no apology for jumping to a wrong conclusion? If you believe Dr. Bauder should be held responsible for what he has written (and I agree) should you not take responsibility for what you have written?
Ed
"Fundamentalism is not a rationalistic religion". Bingo.
BTW, as a former Augustinian/Reformed/Calvinist student, one of the things that strongly influenced me away from rationalism and the basis for my theology was reading through Calvin's Institutes (completely). Because I had a very strong exegetical emphasis early on, I became shocked at the gross lacking of any substantial exegesis by Calvin in his Institutes and his very heavy rationalistic approach.
From there I returned to exegesis first and considered whatever arguments men may have with that in hand.
From my own experience, I came away with the certain instinct which has helped me identify when and where arguments were being built upon rationalism or on exegesis and and when or where the rationalistic position preceded the exegetical one which is basically a misuse of exegesis to support an already determined rationalistic theological view.
Brother Pittman:
I appreciate your comments here. First, and very briefly, no one I know of has a problem with good scholarship. Second and where I have concerns is with whether or not Kevin Bauder is a Fundamentalist scholar. He still circulates in Fundamental circles, but in my opinion based on his writing and new associations he has checked out on Fundamentalism for some kind of evangelicalism hybrid.
You say you are encouraged, that he is turning a corner. I don't know if you mean in scholarship, but in his associations most everyone recognizes that he has turned the corner into a straight ahead trajectory in the direction of non-separatist evangelicalism.
I'd like to hear more from your perspective.
LM
Brother Pittman,
I hope you are right. I have always appreciated Brother Bauder and continue to pray he will get his feet under him once again. He is a good man with honorable intentions. Like I said, I think he has just lost his way. I pray for him regularly. He has so much to offer!
It would have been refreshing to see accountability go both ways with an apology for jumping to a faulty conclusion regarding Bauder's statements. Unfortunately, we see what happens all too often in fundamentalism. Leaders demanding others be held responsible for their actions while excusing themselves.
Ed Gardner
Roland Pittman, my comments will be broken into a couple of postings.
I will address your last one first. You stated;
“Furthermore, I hurriedly wrote a critical reply that I didn't sign. You chose not to post it but wrote a snide little post about being man enough to sign one's name. Well, this one is signed. You ought not offer the ‘anon’ option if you won't post from it.”
First, the “anon” option is part of Blogger, if I were to remove it from the list, as I understand the options then only those who have certain accounts (such as with Google, and other blogging venues such as wordpress) would be the only ones to comment. I recognize the fact that not everyone has such an account, so I have opted to leave “anon” available. As to my being “snide,” please. I was being neither malicious or derisive, just blunt.
You accuse me of “attacking” Dr. Bauder, please , point out to me my words of attack upon the person of Dr. Bauder.
You also say;
“you need to get your information right before making charges. It is sheer folly to attack before you’'ve read the whole article.”
What “charges” have I laid on Dr. Bauder? Whether I had noted my initial thoughts while reading the entire article and then written or done as I have done, the rest of the chapter adds nothing to change my initial thoughts. So, no it’s not “sheer folly” to bring, not an “attack” but questions to bear on Dr. Bauder’s opening.
You then state;
“…hateful, venomous, ignorant, spiteful, etc.,. This whole thread had the appearance and feel of a hate fest between two WWE wrestlers. It embodied all the same fakery and nastiness.” And your words at SI, “…attacked Kevin’s unprotected backside, he was joined immediately by the whole wolf pack and from the other side there appeared a ready-made flock of circling defenders. It was rip and slash fest all the way!” Have you taken a step back and viewed the thread at SI and then leveled these same accusations there? The answer as of Thursday, October 13, 2011, is a resounding, no! Where is the “hate,” “venomous,” “spiteful,” “a hate fest between two WWE wrestlers,” “wolf pack,” “rip and slash fest”? Please notice your own quote at SI, “…will be as forthright and coming forward to own their own responsibility for their words. Jesus said, “That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment (Matthew 12:36).” You have sought to use strong words here with no evidence to support your claims. You are judged by your own quote.
Part two,
And you state;
“Now, I am certainly no defender or fan of Dr. Bauder but I accord him the same respect, courtesy, and trust as any Christian brother. It is not right to question his motives, his manhood, and his patriotism without strong evidence of wrong.”
Where have I not accorded him, “respect, courtesy, and trust”? Where have I questioned his “manhood” or his “patriotism”? I readily acknowledge that I have questioned his motives and in doing so have never understood it to be wrong to question anybody concerning their words or their motives.
Dr. Bauder has come to the table and brought some clarification, again I say thank you! There is no “implied blame” here. I had legitimate questions about his opening paragraphs and related footnotes. He has brought more light for our understanding. I take him for his word when he says his intentions were not as I perceived.
I do remind all of us that words do have meaning. I bring these words of mine down from the article, “To use a phrase from the political realm looks like…” “Looks like Dr. Bauder has followed their lead…” “Kind of looks like he wanted to get outside…” While I readily acknowledge I am no wordsmith, I do know the meaning of words and how they can change the meaning of a sentence. For example;
“To use a phrase from the political realm looks like Dr. Bauder has thrown Dr. Dollar, Dr. Beale, Dr. Moritz, Dr. Sidwell, and Dr. Pickering under the bus.”
“To use a phrase from the political realm Dr. Bauder has thrown Dr. Dollar, Dr. Beale, Dr. Moritz, Dr. Sidwell, and Dr. Pickering under the bus.”
The meaning is vastly different in these sentences.
And for some of you are trying to intimate that I in my original wording really meant to say the latter, well, I thought mind reading was relegated to the sideshow attractions at carnivals and not mainstream fundamentalism.
Now, as Dr. Bauder has said, “In short, there’s no news here. Move along, folks.”
Brian,
It is commendable that you finally posted the comments that were more critical of your post. However, you have still not taken responsibility for your actions. You blame people for not reading you carefully and misinterpreting your statement, but do not acknowledge that you did the same with Bauder. E.g., you state: "I thought mind reading was relegated to the sideshow attractions at carnivals and not mainstream fundamentalism." Yet, your whole post was an attempt to read Bauder's mind. Perhaps it is time for you to man up :)
Ed
To those who posted comments yesterday and had to wait until today to see them and my reply, I apologize for the slowness. I thought I had posted a note stating that you would have to wait until today to see them but as I looked through the thread I noticed that my post was not posted. Don't know what happened but I am sorry that there was such a delay without explanation. It was not intentional.
Ed, thanks for stopping by.
I am hoping that I am not being dense here, maybe I am just missing your point, but what should I “man up” about? You say my whole post is an attempt to read Bauder's mind? How so? I have nowhere tried to put words into Bauder’s mouth. I have noted my own thoughts about the opening two paragraphs and related footnotes. Dr. Bauder has responded at SI that he was not throwing anyone under a bus. Great! I never said he did. To frame my words in another way; like witnesses at an accident, we all have our observation of the incident and as people gather, the differing views are clarified by others. Okay, Dr. Bauder noted he was not doing what I thought he might be doing. This is encouraging news, I’m satisfied and hopefully others are as well.
And as I have quoted before from Dr. Bauder, “In short, there’s no news here. Move along, folks.”
Post a Comment