The Fortress

NickImage

Once upon a time, a kingdom was attacked by brigands while the King was absent. The brigands captured much of the King’s territory, at least temporarily. Some of the King’s subjects even made peace with the brigands. One band of hardy yeomen, however, determined to defend the kingdom at all costs.

Perceiving (as they thought) that they could not repel all brigands everywhere, they gathered in the heart of the kingdom. If they could not defend the entire kingdom, they would at least protect its heart. They staked out their territory in the heart of the kingdom, and there they erected a fortress from which to hurl stones and shoot arrows at the King’s adversaries.

Their fortress, however, was small and rather rude, while the subjects who had capitulated often dwelt in cities that were passing fair. Many who hated the brigands thought that they could live safely in these cities while occasionally protesting against the invasion. Others hesitated in between, not liking the cities and wanting to fight the brigands, but liking the look of the fortress even less. That is when a few within the fortress shouted, “If you will not come within our walls, then you are the enemy!” And they threw stones at them.

For many years the situation remained thus. Some who lived in the fortress would speak with some who dwelt in the land, but this, too, was hazardous. To be seen speaking to one who was not of the fortress was to risk a stone to the noggin. Those who lived in the fortress could not always tell the difference between a defender of the heart of the kingdom, a capitulator from the cities, and a person of the land who dwelt in neither place.

As the defenders began to erect the second story of the fortress, a few of them created private chambers of their own. Such insisted that their chamber was the entire kingdom, and its builder was the King’s anointed. These builders provoked conflicts with the builders of other rooms and chambers. Not infrequently, they would assassinate their rivals within the fortress. Because the bodies were buried carefully in a deep dungeon, no one thought that they would ever be found.

Many defenders, however, never gave their allegiance to a builder, but only to the King. They knew that there was an entire kingdom outside of their walls. But they ventured out less and less frequently. Also, they displayed less and less hospitality to those who were outside. So it went as the defenders began to build the third story.

As the third story was taking shape, a youngster named Christopher was growing up in the fortress. He learned the ways of the place and he loved the fortress, but he would also look longingly at the grounds outside of the windows. He reasoned that the purpose of the fortress was to defend the kingdom, and not merely to defend the fortress. And so he began to venture outside.

At first he stayed within the heart of the kingdom, visiting sites that he had heard about in the fortress. Then he began to wander as a visitor through the rest of the kingdom (for was it not still the King’s territory?) and to meet other subjects. Some he found to have made peace with brigands. Some he found to be loyal subjects of the King. He even found a few lifting up weapons against the King’s enemies.

When he re-entered the fortress, he smelt a stink. He remembered noticing this odor often while he lived in the castle, but now it seemed overpowering. He determined to find the source and began to investigate the castle. His researches took him into virtually every room at virtually every level. He found that the foul air came from two sources.

First, the original builders had used some decaying materials in their construction. Christopher realized that these rotten materials were unhealthy and that they would eventually rot away and topple the entire structure. He reasoned that considerable renovation was in order.

He did not find the main source of the stench, however, until he began to poke around in the dungeon. There he began to discover the bodies of those who had been assassinated. Eventually he was able to learn where most of the bodies were buried and who had assassinated them. Most of them had been sacrificed because they had threatened (sometimes quite unintentionally) the supremacy of some builder within his own chamber.

Christopher also found great halls and entire wings of the fortress that were well-ordered and well-maintained. Some served him fresh bread and living water. Some helped him to sharpen his weapons and to shine his armor. He loved those who maintained these bright halls, for their chambers were better than anything else he had found in the kingdom. For the sake of these halls, and for the sake of the kingdom, he determined to do all that he could to make the fortress strong and beautiful.

Outside the fortress, those who had made peace with the brigands were turning into brigands themselves. They represented a new threat, but those who dwelt in the fortress were simply not interested in them. “They are far away,” they said, “and safely outside our walls. Let us build more chambers!”

Others of the King’s men, however, men who were not of the fortress, took up arms against the new brigands. They fought valiantly, and they began to build a fortress of their own. Some within the first fortress became jealous. It was whispered that the new fortress had capitulated to the enemy, but this was a slander. It was also whispered that the builders of the new fortress (which was near at hand) had stolen the land upon which they built. “Only we have a right to that land,” said some within the first fortress, forgetting that the kingdom belonged to the King and not to them.

Each time the new soldiers drew near to the first fortress, they were pelted with rocks. Some commanders of the fortress began to pronounce imprecations against these new soldiers. “They are not of our fortress,” they intoned. “Therefore, they must be of the cities. They must be capitulators. Those who do not live in our fortress are all capitulators. Let us curse them lest our young warriors see the splendor of their banners.”

But Christopher was heartened by these new soldiers. Many of them he knew personally. He had met them during his travels throughout the kingdom. He understood that they loved the King and would die for Him. “Let us cheer them!” Christopher exclaimed.

Many dwellers in the chambers glowered at Christopher. “How can you speak well of men who are not in the fortress?” they asked. “If those men were fighting for the kingdom, they would join us in our chambers. All those who are not of our chambers have made peace with the brigands! That includes you.” But Christopher knew these nay-sayers from his investigation of the castle. He knew that they were heirs of the assassins, and he fully expected them to become assassins, too.

Even as these dwellers fulminated, however, young warriors began to stream from the fortress. These young men were nauseated by the stench within the fortress and they yearned for fresh air. They felt confined by the narrow chambers, in which they had witnessed too many assassinations. Most of all, they wished to strike a blow for the King. They flocked to the banners of the new soldiers.

“There is still a place for the fortress,” said Christopher. “We must make it a fortress worth saving. Let us open the windows and let in the light and air! Let us remove the victims from the dungeon and give them a decent burial! Let us tear out the rotting materials and build anew—and well! And let us remember that we are defending the kingdom—all of it! and not just a few rooms in a fortress.”

Many agreed with Christopher. Indeed, some of the more spacious halls and wings of the castle had been built by those who were trying to do just what Christopher suggested. They had begun to replace the decaying materials. They had opened their windows, and in the clear light of day they perceived many wonderful views. They treated the new soldiers with fairness and honesty. The odor was less in these rooms, though it could not be avoided entirely.

To many, however, a single chamber was more important than the kingdom. They had spent many years decorating the decayed building materials. Furthermore, they beheld with dismay the men who were leaving. “There is no stench,” said some, “And besides, we like this smell.” “There were no assassins, only great builders, and they are our heroes,” intoned others. Still others objected, “You just want to run the castle.” And still others claimed, “What we really need to do is to build more chambers.”

They began to cast stones at Christopher and at the maintainers of the bright halls. And the stench grew, until it filled parts of the fortress like a noxious Cloud. And it was a Cloud of Untruthing, and its name was INNUENDO, and its method was slander, and in its heart was murder (for whoever assassinates a man’s character assassinates the man), and it multiplied suspicion wherever it drifted. And from the pits of the dungeon, where lay the bodies of the slaughtered, arose great laughter, as the laughter of a dragon.

And the more men ignored the stench, and the more they hurled stones within the fortress, and the more the Cloud cast its shadow, the more the young warriors abandoned the fortress.

Confession of Sin
The Book of Common Prayer

Almighty God,
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
maker of all things, judge of all men:
We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins
and wickedness,
which we from time to time most grievously have committed,
by thought, word, and deed, against thy divine Majesty,
provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.
We do earnestly repent,
and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings;
the remembrance of them is grievous unto us,
the burden of them is intolerable.
Have mercy upon us,
have mercy upon us, most merciful Father;
for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake,
forgive us all that is past;
and grant that we may ever hereafter
serve and please thee in newness of life,
to the honor and glory of thy Name;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Discussion

[DavidO] We’re supposed to make of it what we can with what’s given.
In other words, are you saying the only meaning that is important is that which we take out of it?

~~~

To your earlier question directly to me, it was kind of like that.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

An allegory is an allegory. It is not supposed to be interpretaed in every detail. John Bunyan was not expected to interpret “The Pilgrim’s Progress,” beyond what was already given. People are still debating portions of it today, and offering competing interpretations of some parts. A parable is a parable. Jesus did not interpret most of His parables, and when He did, He did not interpret every detail. Commentators are still offering competing interpretations today, and it is our job to weigh Christ’s words, read various commentators, and interpret the best we can. One of the sound rules of parabolic interpretation is to stick to the main theme, and not try to press every detail.

It seems to me there is much to ponder in Dr. Bauder’s parable, or allegory, whatever you prefer to call it. It should provoke some serious thought in all of us. Perhaps the “need” to press all the details, figure out who he had in mind for every statement, and attach names is part of the problem he is addressing. Let’s look in the mirror, and see where Fundamentalism is weak in reproducing Biblical Christianity. The unhealthy quest to pigeonhole every person, church, and school is one of our weaknesses. Perhaps we can learn to be a bit less concerned about the other guy, and more concerned about how God views me.

In the bonds of Christ,

Greg Barkman

G. N. Barkman

[Don Johnson] In other words, are you saying the only meaning that is important is that which we take out of it?
Not quite, but sort of. For instance, we know that when he says parts of the foundation were crumbling (or however he put it) that fundamentalism has lost some of its doctrinal basis or not retained pure doctrine in some area or elevated human thoughts to a doctrinal level. The point is not trying to figure out what/who the list of problems he refers to are. The point is to look to the estate of our portion of the castle and fix what’s crumbling, tear down the false, polish the true, etc.

I’m saying the specific cases he has in mind that he generalizes in allegorical form are irrelevant. He means to deal categorically, and we ought to to take them categorically.

Or to put it another way, what G N Barkmann said.

~~~
To your earlier question directly to me, it was kind of like that.
Interesting. Do you imagine Dr. Bauder pausing a meeting to read through/discuss the latest resolution passed by the FBF?

I don’t. Unless maybe it were a wholesale condemnation of Calvinism. ;)

[DavidO] I’m saying the specific cases he has in mind that he generalizes in allegorical form are irrelevant. He means to deal categorically, and we ought to to take them categorically.
If you take a macro view of the parable, obviously we all have to constantly take stock of ourselves and the ‘state of our herds’. That is hardly news.

The reason we are discussing this for so long, however, is that it appears to mean much more than that. I think Kevin is a pretty smart guy. I don’t think he put anything into his parable without a reason. And I think he means to say certain specific things without declaring those things out in the open with complete clarity. You’ll have to ask him why that is so, I don’t know. But I’d like to get a bit more direction so that I can decide whether to agree or disagree with his specific intent in writing the article.
[DavidO] Do you imagine Dr. Bauder pausing a meeting to read through/discuss the latest resolution passed by the FBF?
Certainly, but it would depend on the resolution.

What would have been nice would be to have him available to explain himself.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

A little help based on my understanding only …

The kingdom=the Church

The King=Jesus

Brigands=unbelievers, probably more specifically apostates

King’s subjects who made peace with the brigands=New Evangelicals

Hardy Yoemen=early fundamentalists

Territory and Fortress=ecclesiastical isolation to which the fundamentalists separated

Heart of the Kingdom=the center of truth/the fundamentals

Rudeness of the fortress= may refer to the lack of institutional belongings lost in separation, but probably includes some of the polish in the form of some of the intellectual scholars that didn’t separate but stayed in evangelicalism to fight and reclaim it

Fair city dwellers= non-apostates who, nonetheless, did not separate to fundamentalism

Those hesitating between the cities and fortress= Bauder’s silent majority

Stone in the noggin- attack by fundamentalists on an allegedly pseudo fundamentalist

Private chambers within the fortress— Separation within fundamentalism (e.g. KJVO types, among others)

Assasinations- unfair character attacks

Those in the castle who reserved their alliegance for the king— Fundamentalists who never lost sight of the first priority- serving God rather than preserving a movement or promoting institutional loyalty.

The storys of the fortress—probably represent periods of fundamentalism history as Bauder sees them. Not sure.

Christopher— a young fundamentalist

The stink— a figuration probably representative about all that is repugnant in pockets of the fundamentalist community that have “gone wrong” could include partisanship, cult of personality, abberant doctrine, manipulative leaders, etc.

Decaying materials— bad doctrine and perhaps unqualified leaders

The Bodies of the assasinated— those who have had their character unfairly impugned

Well Maintained Halls— Don Johnson’s church. And any other church and institution commited to the King first, His subjects second, and maintaining all doctrine and practice at a certain level of excellence.

Bread and Water— faithful preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and/or discipleship therein

New brigands— Neos who drifted apostate. Some emergents maybe?

Non fortressers who took up arms— Mohler, MacArthur, Dever, and their ilk.

Fortress of these latter— Conservative Evangelicalism

conflict between men of the old fortress and Chrisopher— Fundamentalists viciously attacking fundamentalists who would have anything to do with the CEs

Cloud of Untruthing— blog/email attacks/church website notices to church members in the form of innuendo.

Young warriors leaving the fortress— young fundamentalists leaving due to failure of the leaders of Fundamentalism to own their failures and the failures of the movement and/or correct them all while loudly proclaiming the failures of the CEs. More on this in the next post.

What would have been nice would be to have him available to explain himself.
Why? Isn’t there plenty of meaning in the parable/allegory/whatever? What is the confusion with it? Isn’t your approach back to the way to “tell me what to think and who is on what list” rather than “teach me how to think”?

[Don Johnson] What would have been nice would be to have him available to explain himself.
Why? So everyone can rest assured that what Bauder wrote was what he meant? Because that way the leadership of the FBF can throw him out of the fellowship immediately if they don’t like his answers? So that they can give their blessing and encouragement to something that he obviously felt strongly about?

Or is it because they think Bauder’s ‘wandering off the plantation’ and want to do damage control before this got circulated?

Considering the utter fecklessness the FBFI http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9869] demonstrated in how they handled the Sweatt issue , I’d say that’s asking a lot of a guy who may not even be a member of their organization.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[DavidO] Christopher— a young fundamentalist
…Chris Anderson, but what do I know???
[DavidO] Well Maintained Halls— Don Johnson’s church
Hey, how did I get in there?

Actually, this is probably the point that I think needs defining. I think we all get the general sense as you annotate it. But the fact is my philosophy is different from Bauder’s and often sharply distinct. I suspect that he might be aiming the ‘rot and the stink’ at me and my ‘ilk’. Without clear definition, I think I should be offended… but I’m not entirely sure.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

David,

Thanks for your explanation. I think you are very close to the authorial intent as I can ascertain it.

I am fairly certain the first fortress is the original fundamentalist movement. The second stage of the first fortress is the implementation of second degree separation. The third stage of the fortress is the addition of other ancillary issues that eventually became issues of separation.

The one group that seems to come through this allegorical parable unscathed are the “new soldiers” and their new fortress (CE group). Even those in the bright halls of the old fortress, according to Bauder, still have some residue of stink. In other words, even the good guys in the old fortress can’t protect themselves from the negative influence.

My opinion of this parable is that it is too cynical regarding the old fortress and naive regarding the new fortress. Though I have enormous appreciation for the good books of Carson, Mac, Piper, Mahaney, Dever, Mohler, et. al., I also have my differences with some of their positions on continuationism, covenant theology, amoral view of music, acceptance of new theories on creationism, acceptance of the modern use of alcohol as a beverage, general disdain for standards which are normally interpreted pejoratively as legalism, lack of caution at times where they speak and under what sponsorship, etc. I fully realize that all these things are not true of all these individuals. However, if one is going to group them in a new fortress as does the author, then these issues also create a nasty odor at times as well.

It may not always demand separation in the formal sense as recently articulated by Aaron Blumer, but at the very least it necessitates various levels of non-cooperation as far as I am concerned. And I think Don Johnson would agree with me in part on this.

I choose to remain a part of the Fortress and work to serve the King while admonishing my brethren to obey God fully in doctrine and practice. I am not deceived by the myth of the greener grass. Often it is simply astro turf or perhaps fertilizer (and we all know what that’s made of). Yes, I identify with what I think to be the best of fundamentalism and endeavor to protect myself and my church from the erroneous parts of it. I speak out against it, and when it’s serious enough I separate from it. My hope is that the best men in fundamentalism will band together to reform (not re-form) the movement for the glory of the King and the perpetuation of the biblical ideals of the movement. It is interesting to me that some who are speaking out loudly today against fundamentalism as a movement have the word “fundamental” plastered all across their literature.

Pastor Mike Harding

Don, I was just being playful. Most of us probably think we occupy one of the better halls.

I don’t think the best response, though, is “is he talking about me?” so much as “are there ways in which I am truer to something other than the King?” and “are there ways I could better keep this kingdom for the King?”

And frankly, I don’t see how it would be prudent for Dr. Bauder to go through all the pastors here and give them a thumbs up or thumbs down. Much less be obligated to do so.

This is what I mean when I say the best reception of an allegory is up to us.

Pastor Harding, consider the young Christophers, some of whom grew up in the stinkier halls of the castle, even some of the exclusive rooms that claimed to be the whole castle. Consider their thoughts and feelings when they discover that the John Pipers and the Tim Kellers are preaching a purer gospel, one that better exalts of the Christ to the Glory of God as opposed to a man-centered, pray-the-prayer-get-out-of-hell, little-to-no-biblical-discipleship afterward, just follow the preacher man gospel that seems to me to have been rampant in fundamentalism of the 70s and 80s.

Consider how silly it sounds to them to be asked to separate from the former to the latter.

I think one of Bauder’s points here is that if fundamentalism coasts on “we’ve historically done the right thing; we’re the best iteration of Christianity there is” without addressing the glaring problems within, the erosion of the Castle and the defection of the Christophers will continue apace.

I’d have to agree with Mike’s post. That’s really what I have been trying to say all along, but it is much more adroitly said by Mike.

Another thing I have said is that I realize that there has been a man-centered element in the ranks of fundamentalism as David describes. However, I am astonished at how man-centered the fans of the T4G crowd often are. Their heroes can do no wrong, don’t speak against those ‘preacher men’. It is as if one faulty mindset is replaced by another faulty mind-set.

And I reject the notion that fundamentalism was entirely man-centered. It hasn’t been my experience or approach. But, beyond that, I have lived in both evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and I have seen fundamentalism as being much more faithful to Scripture in theory and practice.

I would encourage young people not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3



Dave,

Thanks for your input. I have a great interest and concern for our young fundamentalists or young orthodox separatists if you prefer. It is very easy to over react in these situations. The attacks on Doran, Bauder, et. al. have not always been fair in my opinion. I have defended these men and used these men publicly at my church many times and will continue to do so. They are my friends and comrades in the ministry. They are fundamentalists. Believe it or not there are many godly, theologically astute, and careful men in the fundamentalist ranks. Even with our blind spots and short comings, they are men who are committed to God, the Bible, and a separated, godly life. There are going to be legitimate differences of application regarding our interaction with the CE men. I read their books and benefit from them. As individuals I try to represent them fairly and honestly. As I have pointed out previously, there are differences, and in my opinion some of those differences are significant. Yet, I appreciate the fight for the gospel and for a greater level of purity in the broader evangelical community—a community that I personally am not at all comfortable being a part of. Doran believes that some of the CE men have made some significant moves to the right in recent years. He knows these men personally. I don’t. If that is true, I am very glad. However, I am not yet certain that it is true. Time will usually tell. Until then I will pray and hope for the best (“love hopes all things”), encourage my fundamental brethren to be strong in the faith, consistent in their separation, passionate for the unadulterated Gospel, and humble about our own lives and ministries.

The reason I chose to involve myself on this particular article is that I thought that the article could do some unnecessary damage, and I was hoping to mitigate that. Personally, I think Kevin Bauder wants a stronger fundamentalism. Why else would he write lengthy articles like a Fundamentalism Worth Saving, Preaching Worth Hearing, and articles on the necessity of conservative worship and music. This, among other things, is what I appreciate about Kevin.

Pastor Mike Harding

Personally, I think Kevin Bauder wants a stronger fundamentalism.
I think many of us do.

And I’m not trying to pin anyone down here as to Doran or Bauder. Or the CEs even.

The real issue is how to make a stronger fundamentalism?

I think Kevin Bauder wants a stronger fundamentalism
I agree with this and with David when he says the question is “how to get a stronger fundamentalism.”

My answer, as I said above, is have a bigger vision.