"Dr. Bauder has thrown Dr. Dollar, Dr. Beale, Dr. Moritz, Dr. Sidwell, and Dr. Pickering under the bus"

[Ron Bean]
Sometimes I get the impression that some fundamentalists only want their pictures taken at Glamour Shots instead of admitting they may have warts.

Why do I get the impression that it is illegitimate to criticize Bauder at all? Is he above criticism?

You can disagree with Brian’s article if you like, but you all seem to be guilty of the same thing you criticize fundamentalists for.

IMO, what folks are looking for is legitimate, substantive, proportional criticism. Not the ‘making mountains out of molehills’ kind, or conspiracy theories from the Tin Foil Helmet Brigade. If someone disagrees with another person, regardless of their position or influence, all they have to do is identify the issues and provide adequate support for their own POV. Adequate support, by the way, is NOT linking back to one’s own blog or recommending books one has authored.

Far too often, criticism is really more about words and names, and not substance. What’s more, if the subject is something like the history, foundations, influence, and meaning of Fundamentalism, there are as many versions of that as there are diet plans. As much as I consider myself a Fundamentalist, Fundamentalism in and of itself is not divinely inspired, and minor deviances about Fundamentalism do not need to be viewed as scuba diving into the depths of heresy. Our foundation and authority should remain the Word of God.

[Don Johnson] Why do I get the impression that it is illegitimate to criticize Bauder at all?

Don,

What exactly does Brian’s criticism come down to?

I suggest that these men need to speak for themselves

On: “Dr. Bauder has thrown Dr. Dollar, Dr. Beale, Dr. Moritz, Dr. Sidwell, and Dr. Pickering under the bus”

Obviously two are dead …. http://allaboutbaptists.com/history_Truman_Dollar.html Dollar committed suicide in ‘96 ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1996/may20/6t675c.html more on ) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Pickering] Pickering died in ‘00 .

Brian should speak for himself and let the others for themselves if they care to critique Bauder’s work

I too am not always on Bauder’s side. Sometimes I have pretty major disagreement with him, but I think this criticism is narrow and unfair. I think Beale’s work is more than a popular history, but the fact is Dr. Bauder is right to say what he says. It is the best way forward to criticize one’s own persuasion in order to improve the position. Bauder is a friend of Fundamentalism, and is one of its brightest and most articulate protagonists. He was a good choice to participate in this book.

Just a note. It was George Dollar who wrote the History of fundamentalism, not Truman. ;-)

This is not a locker room, ya’ know. ;)

[Paul Henebury] Just a note. It was George Dollar who wrote the History of fundamentalism, not Truman. ;-)

Thanks … should’ve know that!

Let’s see what Dr. Bauder said:

“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…

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.

Does anyone here actually object to what Bauder’s writing? I don’t, because after roughly ten years in the movement, I still can’t really find someone to articulate what the actual fundamentals are, which is the point of what he wrote. When that conversation does come up - for example, over http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=285] literal six day creationism on this forum a couple years ago - the conversation quickly dissolves into a chaotic mess. Bauder has attempted to try to formulate a coherent position in some of his Nick articles, and as a result, he’s going new evangelical or heretical because he might actually have to work or talk with people outside of our little fiefdom. Nevermind the fact that we all agree that there’s not one real Fundamentalism - just a stream of fundamentalisms, which spend most of their time fighting with each other over who is “in” and “out”, like 9 year old boys fighting over who gets to play with the GI Joes next.

Fundies can’t have their cake (refuse to do the work of defining the Fundamentals) and eat it too (whine about the guy who is doing the work for them because they don’t like his definitions).

FWIW, Yes, I have read and own copies of Beale, Moritz, and Sidwell’s works.

[Jay C.] Let’s see what Dr. Bauder said:

“…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…

… after roughly ten years in the movement, I still can’t really find someone to articulate what the actual fundamentals are, which is the point of what he wrote.

I actually think that his statement there is referring more to ideas of fundamentalism than the defining the fundamentals, i.e. we have produced few sustained expositions of why one ought to define/defend/contend/separate the way we do it. Just my reading of him.

David-

I see what you’re saying now. I haven’t gotten my copy yet, but that totally makes sense. Thanks for the note!

Those who prefer facts to speculations may be interested to know that more than one of the people I am supposed to have thrown under the bus saw preliminary drafts of the chapter. Some were present for a public reading of the chapter and actually offered counsel that made it better than it would otherwise have been.

The presidents of all key colleges and seminaries (as well as some mission agencies) within mainstream Fundamentalism also saw drafts of the chapter. Several shared it with members of their faculty and staff. All were asked to point out any part of the essay that they thought was unfair or could create an embarrassment. Few concerns were expressed. The few that were voiced led to revisions in the chapter.

It is simply a fact that Fundamentalists have not produced a defense of separatism that thoroughly explored the ecclesiological puzzles that must be solved. Nor have they produced a critical history of the movement (anyone who has trouble understanding what “critical history” entails is invited to spend an afternoon reading through, e.g., Collingwood’s The Idea of History as a starting place).

None of the authors I listed aimed to produce critical history or technical ecclesiology. I don’t for a moment fault them for not doing what they never meant to do. They wanted to author popular discussions, and such discussions have their place. These men did a good job at what they intended. The only work that is seriously flawed is Dollar’s.

Far from being critical of these works, I want people to read them. Even Dollar’s is worthwhile for several good reasons. By listing them in my essay, I was giving credit where credit is due. To eis, er, exegete my words in any other way is the merest speculation. The word “fantasy” comes to mind.

Incidentally, among the expressions of appreciation that I have received about the chapter, more have come from faculty at Bob Jones University than from any other single source. There are men in Greenville who could have written this chapter every bit as well as I did, and some of their names were discussed as possibilities.

In short, there’s no news here. Move along, folks. Find time to read a book. There’s one I’d like to recommend.

[Kevin T. Bauder] Those who prefer facts to speculations may be interested to know that more than one of the people I am supposed to have thrown under the bus saw preliminary drafts of the chapter. Some were present for a public reading of the chapter and actually offered counsel that made it better than it would otherwise have been.

The presidents of all key colleges and seminaries (as well as some mission agencies) within mainstream Fundamentalism also saw drafts of the chapter. Several shared it with members of their faculty and staff. All were asked to point out any part of the essay that they thought was unfair or could create an embarrassment. Few concerns were expressed. The few that were voiced led to revisions in the chapter.

It is simply a fact that Fundamentalists have not produced a defense of separatism that thoroughly explored the ecclesiological puzzles that must be solved. Nor have they produced a critical history of the movement (anyone who has trouble understanding what “critical history” entails is invited to spend an afternoon reading through, e.g., Collingwood’s The Idea of History as a starting place).

None of the authors I listed aimed to produce critical history or technical ecclesiology. I don’t for a moment fault them for not doing what they never meant to do. They wanted to author popular discussions, and such discussions have their place. These men did a good job at what they intended. The only work that is seriously flawed is Dollar’s.

Far from being critical of these works, I want people to read them. Even Dollar’s is worthwhile for several good reasons. By listing them in my essay, I was giving credit where credit is due. To eis, er, exegete my words in any other way is the merest speculation. The word “fantasy” comes to mind.

Incidentally, among the expressions of appreciation that I have received about the chapter, more have come from faculty at Bob Jones University than from any other single source. There are men in Greenville who could have written this chapter every bit as well as I did, and some of their names were discussed as possibilities.

In short, there’s no news here. Move along, folks. Find time to read a book. There’s one I’d like to recommend.

Thank you for this breath of fresh air! Now, on to some book reading…..

If I had posted the “under the bus” comment, I would feel very foolish by now. (And I know this because I have posted things without careful research, and felt very foolish afterward…)

We will keep on reading.

And Kevin, you keep on writing.