Saints and Demons
People find reasons to like what they like and to hate what they hate—or, more frequently, who they like or hate. In the one case, flaws are easily forgotten and dismissed while virtues are magnified. In the other, the virtues are forgotten or dismissed while the flaws are magnified. In the one case, we canonize our heroes. In the other case, we demonize our enemies.
Human nature, however, is complex. We rarely do justice to people by canonizing or demonizing them. In fact, to do either is to dehumanize them and to blind ourselves to the real effects of both depravity and grace in their lives.
Scripture certainly depicts people in all their complexity. It shows us the flaws even of heroes like Abraham, David, and Peter. It also allows us to see grace at work in the life of a Manasseh or a Nebuchadnezzar. A Christian attitude toward people will surely adopt a similar perspective.
These observations have been occupying my thoughts lately. The process began with reflection upon one of my predecessors at Central Seminary, Richard V. Clearwaters. “Doc” (as he is still known here) is one of those figures who has been both canonized and demonized. He has been a hero to some and a villain to others.
My early acquaintance with Doc came mainly through historical study. The more interesting aspects of Doc’s life tend to be those in which people got hurt—and people who have been hurt often demonize whomever they think has hurt them. The historical record contains plenty of confirmation that Doc was a skillful ecclesiastical politician. He not only knew how to get things done, but also how to get people to do what he wanted them to do, whether they liked it or not.
Beyond the historical record, I had some opportunity to observe how Doc treated his opponents. Breaches with Doc featured plenty of pyrotechnics. This is not the place to rehearse those displays. It is sufficient to note that when Doc erred, it was not always on the side of the angels.
Nevertheless, during my thirteen years at Fourth Baptist Church and Central Seminary, I have become acquainted with another side of Richard V. Clearwaters. I have spent those years with people whose lives he touched and changed and helped. Many of them are people who had no claim upon him. If their testimony tells me anything, it tells me that Pastor Clearwaters could be gentle, loving, and forbearing. He could and did sacrifice for people who had no right to demand it of him. He could do these things expecting nothing in return.
The people who were hurt under Doc’s ministry sometimes demonize him. Those who experienced only the more redemptive side of his ministry sometimes canonize him. My guess is that neither does justice to the real, flesh-and-blood man.
I doubt that R. V. Clearwaters ever set out to do evil. Charity compels us to assume that he held the best of intentions. The problem is that good intentions do not by themselves deliver us from evil. As we attempt to implement our intentions, we find ourselves in complicated and confusing circumstances. We are sometimes threatened and even thwarted. As we react and respond to the circumstances, we not infrequently make the situation worse. This is a common circumstance, and it means that we are neither unfair nor uncharitable to Doc if we suggest that at times he responded wrongly.
Were those responses, however, the characteristic and unvarying pattern of his life? I cannot believe that they were. Too many people whom I respect have testified to a different pattern that characterized Doc’s ministry. I can only conclude that R. V. Clearwaters was a complex person who was capable of making sinful choices, but who experienced the sanctifying and transforming grace of God.
By understanding our own frailty, we also come to understand how our forebears and even our heroes could sometimes fail. We also discover how profoundly God’s grace must have been at work in their lives. We dare not canonize sinners, but we dare not demonize those in whom God’s grace is at work.
This is a perspective that applies to every Christian leader of every stripe. However greatly our leaders may be used of God, they are people subject to like passions as we are. However deeply they may fail (and their failure may even remove them from leadership), God is still working in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
Over the years, I have observed other fundamentalist leaders whom I did not wish to emulate. When they became involved in controversy, they could do brutal things. They could sometimes act like bullies and speak hateful things. In their public personas, they sometimes hurt fundamentalism. For these reasons, some have been inclined to demonize them.
In speaking to those who knew them best, however, I have learned that their ministries must have had another side. These same leaders were capable of compassion and self-sacrifice, not merely for their friends, but also for strangers. They displayed devotion to family, uncontrived delight in children, appreciation for good art and poetry, and devotion to the gospel. I am touched by the testimonies of those who came to Christ through their ministries. These leaders spent hours in prayer, knelt beside hospital beds, wept over souls, comforted the bereaved, gave to the poor, and exhausted themselves in the work of the Lord. For these reasons, some are inclined to canonize them.
I knew (briefly), studied (extensively), and admire (thoroughly) Robert T. Ketcham. Through most of his life, people called him “Fighting Bob.” His opponents saw him only as an ecclesiastical warrior, and they sometimes demonized him. But the tenderness and sacrifice of his life was exemplary. His capacity to absorb personal abuse without returning it in kind was enormous (see Portrait of Obedience by Murray Murdoch). Ketcham’s public persona—how people thought of him—did not always match his genuine ministry.
The same must be true of other leaders whose ministries were draped in controversy. People like John R. Rice, Lester Roloff, and Bob Jones Jr. had larger-than-life public personas. They faced daunting challenges and lived in perplexing times. It does them no disservice to recognize that they made mistakes and committed sins—which of us does not? We need not agree with their every decision, and we need not necessarily take them as models.
To demonize these leaders, however, would not be just. They were sinners saved by grace, and God’s grace was surely sustaining and transforming them throughout their lives. Although we are aware of their flawed humanity, we should also remind ourselves that they loved God, they loved the gospel, they loved souls, and they loved ministry. There is room to respect them even if we disagree with some of what they did. And if we are willing to criticize their flaws, then we should also remind ourselves of their virtues.
Somebody once said that a boy enters adolescence when he realizes that his father is just another guy, and he emerges into manhood when he realizes that he himself is just another guy. Perhaps some of this attitude should be extended toward the fundamentalist leaders of the last generation. Granted, they were just men. They displayed in their lives both the effects of depravity and the transforming power of God’s grace. That, however, is a perfect description for us, too.
The Blessed Birth
George Wither (1588-1667)
That so thy Blessed Birth, O Christ,
might through the world be spread about,
the star appeared in the East,
whereby the Gentiles found thee out;
and offered thee Myrrh, Incense, Gold,
thy three-fold office to unfold.
Tears that from true repentance drop,
instead of Myrrh present will we:
for Incense we will offer up
our prayers and praises unto thee;
and bring for Gold each pious deed,
which doth from saving faith proceed.
And as those wise men never went
to visit Herod any more,
so, finding thee, we will repent
our courses followed heretofore;
and that we homeward may retire
the way by thee we will enquire.
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 1 view
[Kevin T. Bauder] The same must be true of other leaders whose ministries were draped in controversy. People like John R. Rice, Lester Roloff, and Bob Jones Jr. had larger-than-life public personas. They faced daunting challenges and lived in perplexing times. It does them no disservice to recognize that they made mistakes and committed sins—which of us does not? We need not agree with their every decision, and we need not necessarily take them as models.But in the May 15 Nick of Time, Kevin said this of a similar list that included Dr. Bob Jones Jr.
To demonize these leaders, however, would not be just. They were sinners saved by grace, and God’s grace was surely sustaining and transforming them throughout their lives. Although we are aware of their flawed humanity, we should also remind ourselves that they loved God, they loved the gospel, they loved souls, and they loved ministry.
[Kevin T. Bauder, May 15, 2009] I am old enough to remember every one of the “giants” on Pastor Sweatt’s list. I watched them during their public ministries. Their leadership and spiritual insight never impressed me. These were not the men I wanted to be like then, and I do not want to be like them today. Indeed, when I was a twenty-something, they and their kind were the greatest hindrance to my becoming a fundamentalist. Along the way, however, I discovered that such men did not and do not represent mainstream, historic fundamentalism. They may have been “giants” in terms of their public image, but they contributed little to biblical fundamentalism. Indeed, they are among the very heavy liabilities that fundamentalism has had to bear.In light of brother Bauder’s improved insight as per today’s article, could we get an apology for his earlier savaging of Dr. Bob Jr?
I am grateful to have been reared in a version of fundamentalism that was led by men who refused to become “giants.” You have probably never heard their names, because they were not trying to create or control empires. They were willing to stand up to bullies, however, and in some cases they were savaged by the very “giants” whom Pastor Sweatt identifies.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
This picture does not always fit with the succeeding generation’s view of how things should be. We often fail to point out and weed out “spiritual opportunists” within fellowships.
Doc was certainly “over the top” for what is considered OK today, but was definitely a man of his time.
I don’t see any reason for an apology. The present article does not say we must accept lock stock and barrel every aspect of a man’s ministry. It calls for balance and as much charity as possible. That does not preclude dealing with the shortcomings as they appear. I see no contradiction between the posts.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Kevin T. Bauder] such men did not and do not represent mainstream, historic fundamentalism.and
[Kevin T. Bauder] they contributed little to biblical fundamentalismand
[Kevin T. Bauder] they are among the very heavy liabilities that fundamentalism has had to bearand
[Kevin T. Bauder] (the leaders of his brand of fundamentalism) were savaged by the very “giants” whom Pastor Sweatt identifiesNow, I acknowledge that his statements of some on Sweatt’s list fit his description. But he clearly and publicly smeared Dr. Bob Jones Jr by his response to Sweatt. He has never, to my knowledge, retracted or clarified but has instead let the smear stand.
Today’s article is what should have been said of Dr. Bob Jr a long time ago, but it falls short of an apology for his earlier smear. He is guilty of the same thing he is criticizing in today’s article.
Now, I realize that he, too, has feet of clay. I realize I do also. But it seems to me that a clear apology is in order.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I still don’t see the contradiction. I praise Jr. for that which is praiseworthy. But I agree with each of the highlighted statements in post 4. No doubt, many people were positively affected by his ministry. Thank God He chooses to use all of us despite our failings. However, Jr. and his ilk:
- did not and do not represent mainstream, historic fundamentalism.
- contributed little to biblical fundamentalism.
- are among the very heavy liabilities that fundamentalism has had to bear.
And I agree with KB that, despite all the good that may have come from their ministries, I have not, do not, and will not place them as patterns to be followed.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Over the years, I have observed other fundamentalist leaders whom I did not wish to emulate. When they became involved in controversy, they could do brutal things. They could sometimes act like bullies and speak hateful things. In their public personas, they sometimes hurt fundamentalism. For these reasons, some have been inclined to demonize them.The criticism is warranted, but even so- that doesn’t make them the Spawn of Satan.
My questions run more toward what IMO are somewhere near the roots, which I believe are 1) how do these men become Big Names and 2) how do they end up embroiled in controversy? Aren’t even the Big Names accountable to others? How do you enact Biblical church discipline when someone is a Big Name? Why do folks invest in these men and their ministries to the point where they are afraid to acknowledge their flaws? Wouldn’t Big Names have more credibility if they opened themselves up to constructive criticism from their peers and elders?
Inquiring minds want to know.
why should someone apologize for having an opinion about the life and ministry of another person? Or voicing it, for that matter? We can dispute if he is right or not, but if he has not said anything demonstrably false, what’s the issue.
When I’m dead, I hope my kids can discern and discuss in a constructive way areas in which their father failed to measure up to Christ . Perhaps with their children or other folks who knew me. Depending on how discerning they are, they may find the have a lot to talk about.
In the previous paper, Kevin demonizes a list of leaders as having made no contribution to biblical fundamentalism, etc, saying this of a list including Dr. Bob Jr. You can’t have it both ways.
P.S. I hope that my children are well aware of my faults and don’t imitate them. But if they spend their time talking about them, I would wonder at what kind of human beings they are. My own dad died in February. He had many faults. But he was a saint who led me to Christ and is in heaven now. The faults are history and I’ll not be bringing them up.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Wow - really an amazing article! This is refreshing on multiple levels and frankly helps me hit “re-set” on my relationship-compass with a few leaders I’m thinking of. It really is a “true-ism” here - If “they” as leaders are indeed God’s child, and if they are actively loving the Gospel and Christ’s church, at some level we must assume the best even when (maybe especially when) we’ve been hurt by the flat side of a leader’s ministry. This is a great call for all or any of us us who both lead and follow! Oustanding!
Straight Ahead!
Joel
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Am I “demonizing” someone by saying something unflattering about him? Did Dr. Bauder “demonize” BJ2 by saying that he “made no contribution to biblical fundamentalism”? To me, that’s kinda unflattering, but I’d hardly say that’s demonizing the guy. To me, you cross the line between “critical” and “demonizing” when you start inferring that someone’s life patterns make him an agent of evil, a true demon on earth. With that said, there are very few “Big Names” that have been truly “demonized” in the history of the movement, who have been accused of ushering in evil through their actions. I can think of a few that you could make the argument about, including one on his list, but rather than derail this into a public airing of everyone’s past accusations, suffice to say that even I, who can be more than a little critical of Fundamentalism’s “Big Names” of the past, don’t think there are many truly demonized folks on the theological right. Now, to the left, sure - I’ve seen some pretty heated things about Piper and especially Graham that I would consider are close to “demonizing,” and in those cases I would say let’s pay attention to what Dr. Bauder is trying to say. But overall, with a few exceptions, this article strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.
[Don Johnson] In light of brother Bauder’s improved insight as per today’s article, could we get an apology for his earlier savaging of Dr. Bob Jr?Actually, http://centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick217.html what Bauder said was:
Pastor Sweatt suggests that we must live through a generation in order to judge it, but this notion cannot be applied with any consistency. If we cannot judge Hyles, Rice, Jones, Roloff, or Gray, then we cannot judge Ockenga, Carnell, Henry, Lindsell, or Graham. For that matter, Pastor Sweatt is not even permitted to judge people like Calvin, Beza, Knox, Edwards, or Spurgeon.A ‘savaging’ of Jones, Jr would imply that Bauder attacked Jones individually. However, Jones, Jr.’s name only appears once in the entire article, which is why I linked to it and then quoted. Bauder had strong words for the “leaders” of the movement (which is why the words above are bolded), not for Jones Jr. individually. I do agree with you that throwing out Jones, Jr’s name wasn’t wise, but I don’t know anything about Jones Jr personally so I can’t really comment either way on the person.
Pastor Sweatt hopes to excuse the excesses (a better word is “brutality”) of these earlier fundamentalist leaders by appealing to the results of their ministries. The numerical success of fundamentalism, however, was never as impressive as that of the New Evangelicalism. The Graham crusades, Youth for Christ, Campus Crusade, and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship certainly reached tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. When faced with those successes, though, fundamentalists have always been quick to point out that faithfulness matters more than results.
I am old enough to remember every one of the “giants” on Pastor Sweatt’s list. I watched them during their public ministries. Their leadership and spiritual insight never impressed me. These were not the men I wanted to be like then, and I do not want to be like them today. Indeed, when I was a twenty-something, they and their kind were the greatest hindrance to my becoming a fundamentalist. Along the way, however, I discovered that such men did not and do not represent mainstream, historic fundamentalism. They may have been “giants” in terms of their public image, but they contributed little to biblical fundamentalism. Indeed, they are among the very heavy liabilities that fundamentalism has had to bear.
Furthermore, Bauder also added http://centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick219.html in his correspondance article :
Concerning your present article, did you intend to lump Bob Jones Jr., JR Rice, and Lester Roloff with Jack Hyles and Bob Gray. To me, I see a wide, wide difference between the first three and the last two, who were virtual cult leaders and clearly involved in immorality. It seems unfair to lump them together. I am sure you have your reasons, just curious.
‑FBF board member
After reading your essay and seeing that you attended Denver Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary, and Dallas Theological Seminary, I understand that you are espousing the new evangelicalism you were taught. Hopefully, you will see the error of your way and repent. Of course, most men who graduate from new evangelical institutions look upon faithful fundamentalists (Bob Jones, Jr.) with an air of contempt and superiority. By the way, when I attended college in Tennessee 44 years ago, a professor wisely told us that if a person attends an institution of compromise he should denounce the institution.
‑Unknown
I have suggested to Drs. Vaughn and Smith that they need to cancel you as a speaker. at the National Meeting. I do so because of your statement concerning Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. that he was one of the very heavy burdens that fundamentalism has had to bear. I do not believe that Dr. Sweatt should have included Dr. Bob Jones along with the others that he called “giants”. Therefore it would follow that I do believe that, in your reply to Sweatt’s message, you should have differentiated between Dr. Jones, and Drs. Hyles, Gray, and Roloff. I doubt that those three, Hyles, Gray, and Roloff, were ever members of FBF or the fellowships out of which it grew, CBF and The Fundamental Fellowship of the ABC. (Not sure of the name when it was associated with ABC).If he had intended to ‘savage’ Jones, Jr., then why would he publish this correspondence? It certainly doesn’t help support his ‘savaging’ argument. Savaging would be if he had only cited the comments that proved Jones, Jr. was a bad dude or was corrupt or whatever, which he didn’t.
Dr. Jones was vitally connected with the FBF and was a strong fundamentalist. Dr. Rice was not particularly involved with the FBF, but should be differentiated from the other three—the only reason for not differentiating them is that Dr. Rice did promote the ministry of the other men in The Sword of the Lord—though I do believe Dr. Rice was different. But you grouped them all together as men you did not count as authentic fundamentalists. Therefore I am not sure you should be in a speaker’s position at the National Meeting, particularly in the light of your blog.
I recognize that I know you only by name. I am not sure that I have ever heard you speak. I recognize you as a leader by virtue of your position with Central Seminary. Further I recognize that Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., being a man, probably made some mistakes. But to say that he was a liability to fundamentalism that caused you to consider not being identified with fundamentalism cause me to wonder just what type of fundamentalism it is that you espouse. Therefore I have suggested to Drs. Vaughn and Smith that they not use you to speak at this National Meeting at this time will be the best for the FBFI. I am not saying you are not a fundamentalist, but I do have questions as to whether you are the militant type fundamentalist as those were with whom I had fellowship in the founding days of the FBF. You may be the very fundamentalist of whom I speak as a militant fundamentalist. But I would think that before you be allowed to speak there should be an apology given to the leadership at BJU. You see, you, as an Administrator at Central Seminary, speaking of a former President and Chancellor of a companion institution, are making a statement about that institution and those of us who stand with it.
It may be that our paths may cross some day and that we can sit down and talk about these things.
‑Retired pastor and FBFI emeritus board member
"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
Pastor Sweatt hopes to excuse the excesses (a better word is “brutality”) of these earlier fundamentalist leaders by appealing to the results of their ministries.Would you say ‘brutality’ is a demonizing word?
Why try to split hairs? A lot of insulting words were used. It is quite clear from the context that Bauder intended to mean all those things of Dr Bob and Dr Rice. Now he says we shouldn’t demonize them. Fine, I agree. But a retraction of these insulting implications would be in order.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Are you trying to say I took the quotation out of context? Your quotes only make my point stronger.
The fact that Kevin published some mildly critical correctives only proves my point - others saw the problem with his statements also. Kevin never responded to those criticisms.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion