Kevin Bauder interviewed by CT: The History of the Fundamentalists Facing a Massive Abuse Scandal

Kudos to CT for bringing in a knowledgeable and reasonable fundamentalist to comment. Really pleased to hear them asking good questions about fundamentalism and of course Bauder’s usual eloquent description of fundamentalism. I pray that fundamentalists will be challenged to be more vigilant about preventing abuse and that some non-fundamentalists will take another look at fundamentalism’s strengths.

Minneapolis not Cincinnati. I had to chuckle when I noticed how much Kevin sounds like Johnny Fever.

Yup, definitely worth your time. I was very pleasantly surprised at how the discussion went, and fully expected them to go heavy on the scandal and lighter on the discussion of Fundamentalism. Instead it was almost the complete opposite and they never really dealt with the scandal.

I have to admit that I was curious to see if Dr. Bauder would mention SI. He did not, and maybe that’s for the better.

[Jim]

Jay wrote:

I have to admit that I was curious to see if Dr. Bauder would mention SI. He did not, and maybe that’s for the better.

SI is but a pebble in the pond

Or just a poodle in the pound. :P

It’s a great overview of our movement vis-a-vis evangelicalism, and I appreciate that, but given the gravity of what’s going on with sexual abuse, a bit more about why many churches and schools in our fold have gotten caught with their pants down would have been really good. This is especially the case when I consider the Star-Telegram proposes a number of cultural factors that, while they don’t necessarily create molesters and rapists, do tend to result in many institutions tolerating them.

Well done and well worth the time it takes to listen.

I thought Kevin was outstanding. It seemed to me that the hostess actually was drawn away from the main topic of the scandal by Kevin’s outstanding command of 20th century church history, which led to diminished amount of time for addressing the greater scandal issues. His constant spirit of humility, impressive knowledge of historical fact, and proper interpretation and application of biblical truth essentially relegated the hosts to mere listeners with occasional side commentary. I suspect the interview is an eye opener for many who listen and are not a part of IFB or CE backgrounds.

It is such a relief to hear an interview without an agenda, where the interviewers and the interviewed are fair, reasonable, and knowledgeable. Excellent. And yes, Bauder did a great job.

Bauder remarked that Baptist fundamentalism has been “decimated” by three different things:

• Big Man leadership
• Landmark theology
• KJVO

[TylerR]

Bauder remarked that Baptist fundamentalism has been “decimated” by three different things:

• Big Man leadership
• Landmark theology
• KJVO

He pretty much nailed that.

Bauder clarified some things for me. I have never been part of the Baptist movement, per se, but Bible churches are sort of incognito Baptists. What made me cringe at the fundamentalist label, I now understand, was its association with Southern-style Independent Baptists, the kind that have “preacher boys” and pastors who stomp and snort and are about making the sale.

I still find myself technically a fundamentalist, but often more at home with conservative evangelicals than some who wear the label. It wasn’t until I became part of SI that I realized there were fundamentalists who valued thinking and appealed to the Biblical texts rather than using (and twisting) the Bible to advance a party line. So glad to be part of this forum.

Ed, your comments are very close to my own experience. Where I minister in Alamance County, North Carolina, nearly all the Independent Baptists have become strong KJVO. I used to attend the local fellowship meetings, but increasingly, they became KJVO forums, and I slowly pulled away.. I found fellowship in a Calvinist pastors group, but most of those pastors are not from my area. I also found fellowship with a few local conservative evangelical pastors. I never ceased being a fundamentalist in the historic sense, but found it increasingly difficult to find others of like mind. Then I discovered SI and was re-united to my fundamentalist roots. I really appreciate SI.

In his interview, Bauder stated the essence of fundamentalism has been separatism. He spent much of his time explaining what this means, and what it doesn’t mean. He made this distinction in the context of how to differentiate between right-wing evangelicals and fundamentalists.

What do ya’ll think about this? My own conception of the distinction between the two camps is that fundamentalists are militant for the core doctrines of the faith; they’ll fight for the Bible against revisionist attempts. They’re aggressive conservatives. On my understanding, separation is a fruit is this, but not the root.

Perhaps this is a better descriptor for this day and age - an aggressive theological conservative. That doesn’t sound catchy, but it gets the point across better than “fundamentalist” does. It also puts the emphasis on fidelity to doctrines, not separation from compromisers. I think this is more than semantics; the distinction is important.