On July 18, 2014, Dr. Kevin Bauder posted an article
critiquing the national FBFI conference held a little more than a month before
in June. Now, right up front I want to note that I too was at the conference.
On a personal note, I must say, Dr. Bauder, the
handlebar mustache is one hundred plus years too late. Please, if you desire to
be taken seriously then trim the ends of your mustache, the handlebar mustache
gives you a comical look, but I digress.
Back to the article, towards the closing of his
article, Dr. Bauder gets to the real reason for his writing, the criticism of
Calvinism. Now, I give him credit for coming to this in a much better tone than
he did back in the early summer of 2009 when he ranted and ran off on his
tirade against about five minutes of Pastor
Danny Sweatt’s message at the southeast regional FBFI conference in the spring
of that year. Back then, Dr. Bauder didn’t just tirade and rant in one article
but did so in two articles and finished with snippets from his inbox about his
self-made brouhaha. Here in 2014, during the panel discussion Thursday morning
it was mentioned that five point Calvinism had no room in the FBFI. Personally,
I heartily rejoiced with that proclamation.
Anyone who has had any contact with a five point Calvinist knows that
their mindset is, “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts,” and “I’m
right, you’re wrong.” No, there is no room in any organization, or fellowship,
or church for that matter, for five point Calvinism and the Biblical
alternative (which isn’t Arminianism, by the way, though Calvinist only see
things as either/or, Calvinism/Arminianism).
Dr. Bauder continues and voices his displeasure with a
message delivered which he calls a “moralistic allegory of Scripture” and
wonders how the fellowship could have tolerated such preaching.
This writer is struck by Dr. Bauder’s dislike for
the allegory from the pulpit. Dr. Bauder dislikes this? How can this be? I am
dumbstruck! I am really quite astonished and sit in utter disbelief that he
would say such things about allegory. The reason that I am in this state of shock
is because I clearly remember this same Dr. Kevin Bauder writing an allegory.
He titled it, The Fortress. He posted
this article on February 11, 2011 at his, In
the Nick of Time blogsite. Now, there is a hugh difference though between
Dr. Bauder’s allegorical article and that preacher’s “moralistic allegory of
Scripture.” When that preacher was finished with his message, all who heard him
knew exactly what he said and what he meant. No one with any gray matter
between his ears who heard the message could walk away wondering, just what did
he mean by all that “moralistic allegory of Scripture”? However, we are still
wondering just what exactly is Dr. Bauder talking about in his article? The
reason for this difference? The preacher explained his way through his “moralistic
allegory of Scripture” like any good allegoristic author would do, so that his
listeners/readers can fully understand him. Dr. Bauder has not followed suit.
He has left the full meaning of his allegory to the whims of the readers’
imagination, so we are left with multiple “truths” being touted by the various
readers, with no possible way of determining which “truth” is “the truth” that
the author wished to convey. I would have to conclude then, that the preacher
at the conference knows how to use allegory for the benefit of his audience,
and Dr. Bauder has yet to master allegory. Hey, maybe that’s why Dr. Bauder
voiced his displeasure.
In closing, let me say quite clearly, I am not
opposed to expositional preaching. As Dr. Bauder pointed out, “Dr. Steve
Hankins also delivered a good expository sermon” and I heartily concur and
state that it wasn’t just “good” it was excellent. Dr. John MacArthur should
listen to the sermon, he could actually learn what expository preaching really
is. I preach expository messages. I also preach topical, textual, and textual-topical
sermons (to use John A. Broadus’ homiletical classifications of sermons).
Variety from the pulpit is a necessary piece to the evangelizing and edifying
efforts of the preacher as he stands behind that sacred desk and proclaims God’s
Word.
14 comments:
Hey Brian,
Wowza! I just read Bauder's 'The Fortress' for myself. I'm not sure how one could not know what Bauder was addressing in his article. Especially in light of the heat he takes from hyper-fundamentalism. I think his picture hit a little too close to home and made much (not all) of fundamentalism uncomfortable. Don't you think he was laying out his own perspective of the state of fundamentalism as he sees it today? The issue is whether one agrees with his assessment or not....
God Bless,
Jay Edwards
Jay, I post your comment only for the humor you provide. I will not move off the topic of my article and discuss Bauder's old article any further than this exchange. Really, you think that Bauder is assessing Fundamentalism? Someone else may believe he is addressing Evangelicalism, or some other -ism, or convention, or fellowship, and the list can go on. Since he did not put definition to his allegory, every reader is open to decide what he thinks Bauder is saying. At that time, this gave Bauder plausible deniability should someone accuse him of being too harsh, or improper in his "assessment" as you call it of whatever. In the long run, the article lacks any merit, or credibility because of its lack of definition.
This ends any further discussing of Bauder's Fortress article.
Nice effort at sidetracking the issue though.
Sorry Brian, I had no intention of changing the subject. I was just answering the question you had asked about Bauder's previous article. You asked, "However, we are still wondering just what exactly is Dr. Bauder talking about in his article? (The Fortress)" That's why I went and found it and read it. Again, I apologize, it wasn't my intention to hijack the conversation.
God Bless,
Jay
Jay, no apology needed, it is accepted though. You can't answer that question, unless you're Dr. Kevin Bauder commenting under the pseudonym Jay Edwards. Only Dr. Kevin Bauder can explain what his allegory is depicting, for he is the author. Everyone else only "thinks" he knows what Dr. Bauder really means. So, really, it's not a "wowza" or "getting too close to home" unless what you think he is depicting is what he really is depicting.
Chapter closed on the Fortress.
I don't think the problem is "5 Point Calvinism". Baptists of our ilk have had 5 pointers in our midst from the beginning. How about 4 points do we excuse them for being to close to the edge.
Oddly enough it is cultural. Associations of Baptist from the old Northern Convention: Regular, Conservative, Swedish have all had an open position on Calvinism. They were the ones who started churches in the Northwest.
That is just history.
The problem is a matter of attitude: Is 'calvinism' (of The Reformed kind) the be all and end all of your belief? If so move along.
The true issue I believe is Reformed Theology: To illustrate--The biggest error is infant baptism. My point is their failure to acknowledge the discontinuity between the OT and NT dispensations leads them into error. The problem in a 'independent' Baptist affiliation is always going to be common ground on, for us, the issued of Dispensationalism. And Separation from apostasy.
PS As long as I am rambling I have never met an 'independent and unaffiliated' Baptist (all pastors affiliate with someone or some school or some brethren). There is a false independence that is mere arrogance ("I am the only holder of the truth.")
Oh, well, been fun:
Peter
PS I never describe myself as a "Calvinist" except to defend eternal security. Much to much 'Calvinism' descends into philosophical speculation.
Thanks for stopping by and adding to the conversation, Bro. Waud. You bring some valid and vital points to us with which I concur. It's not so much a "new calvinism" or resurgence of calvinism as it is a resurgence/acceptance of Reformed Theology.
After long last I finally read your article on the FBFI, Bauder's reaction. It is excellent work. Got to hand it to you for stating Bauder's mustache is "comical." He'd be better portrayed in a barber shop quarter than among serious, sober-minded men of God.
This article reminded me of his rant(s) in 2009 opened fresh reminders of his playing favorites and haughty elitism. I was just reading some of my articles on/about him.
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2009/05/call-for-removal-of-dr-kevin-bauder.html
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2013/02/archival-series-when-facts-give-way-for.html
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2013/02/kevin-bauder-to-choose-between-ernest.html
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2013/02/kevin-bauder-hauling-out-trash-in-your.html
Btw, was Bauder there as a participant? He wasn't given a speaking platform, was he? In 2009 he used the final day symposium to, without provocation besmirch BJU, while dodging a direct, legitimate question put to him, by the moderator, about the so-called "conservative" evangelicals. I was there in the audience. Bauder's arrogance and heavy-handed chest-thumping was disgusting.
Lou
Lou, Thanks for stopping by and adding to the conversation. Dr. Bauder was only there representing the seminary, he was not a speaker of any sort.
Brian, just to be clear here, you are saying Bauder is inconsistent in criticizing pulpit allegory (which I take to mean as a sermon that treas a biblical text in an allegorical way) because he wrote an allegory that was not presented from the pulpit or as being the explication of a Biblical text?
Do I understand you correctly?
d4v34x, thanks for stopping by. Answering your question, no, you do not understand correctly.
I stated, "Dr. Bauder continues and voices his displeasure with a message delivered which he calls a 'moralistic allegory of Scripture' and wonders how the fellowship could have tolerated such preaching." This same Bauder wrote an allegory (The Fortress) at his blog back in 2011. I find it rather disingenuous for Bauder to write an allegory (which has no definitions given by the author so that the reader is not left to stumble to a wrong understanding of the allegory) and then be critical of a "moralistic allegory of Scripture" which was clearly defined by the speaker. As I wrote in the article, no one who heard that message left that service wondering what the speaker said or meant; this cannot be said of Bauder's article.
Ah, I see what you are getting at. But still, the two are clearly not the same category. One is meant as a means of communicating the contents of a Biblical passage. The other is general allegory (probably meant to represent some slice of professing Christianity) intended to communicate to perceptive readers. One could advocate for the propriety of one and not the other and not be inconsistent, could they not?
Also, this lampooning of Bauder's facial hair seems to me to be outside the bounds of gentlemanliness, not to mention brotherly love. I hope I do not mistake the underlying character of the participants in this discussion.
d4v34x, I agree in one sense they are different (one a sermon the other an article) yet they are the same (allegories, though I do disagree that the message was a "moralistic allegory of Scripture") and that "sameness" is what I am addressing.
As to your second comment, I am not "lampooning" (a piece of satirical writing, usually attacking or ridiculing someone) Bauder. I wrote two sentences, that hardly constitutes "a piece of satirical writing." Having been at the conference myself and seeing Bauder in person, I simply noted my impression of his facial hair. Had I been in a venue where Bauder was a speaker, I would have had a hard time taking him seriously with that style of facial hair; to me, it seems out of place and comical in appearance. If I were around him all the time maybe this observation would change, again, I just simply stated my observation at that time.
Chad, too bad you're so narrow minded.
Post a Comment