Credit Where Credit Is Due, Part 2

NickImageRead Part 1.

After graduating from college, I had the providential fortune to arrive at seminary just as William Fusco took up the presidency. In addition to the burden of leadership, Fusco was caring for an invalid and dying wife. Through the deep trial of his (and her) faith, the character of Christ shone with uncommon clarity. Without ever abandoning the key principles of his fundamentalism, Fusco consistently displayed a gentle spirit of kindness and personal sacrifice that I have rarely seen matched and have never seen surpassed. He was a man who overflowed with love of the Lord and love for people.

During my first year at seminary, I also met two professors whose teaching has marked me for life. The first, Charles Hauser, taught me more about dispensationalism and Christian living than anyone else. His most important contribution lay in his example. He modeled stability in the middle of trials, and his steadiness was as instructive to me as his classroom content.

The second, Myron Houghton, was George’s twin brother. Myron’s grasp of systematic theology exceeded anything that I had ever seen or thought possible. It seemed that he conversed with nearly every theological perspective, from multiple varieties of evangelicals to Roman Catholics to Adventists. He was constantly learning and constantly thinking. He significantly influenced my soteriology, but his real impact was on my ecclesiology. He made the case for ecclesiastical separation, including what is sometimes called “secondary separation.” Incidentally, it was substantially the same case that appears in Ernest R. Pickering’s book, Biblical Separation, of which Myron was later to become the editor. The key points of my understanding today do not depart from his ideas in any significant way.

My second year at seminary brought two more professors whose influence was both instant and profound. To this day, I consider Robert Delnay to be the best-rounded model for the life of the mind I have ever known. As a historian, he told a coherent story that provided a framework for understanding the current state of Christianity. As an exegete, he made the text of the Greek New Testament come alive for his students. As a homiletician, he taught a theory of rhetoric that could reach the affections without stooping to manipulate the appetites. From the beginning it was clear that he held the convictions of a fundamentalist, but he had a wonderfully sardonic and irreverent way of deflating the pompous self-appointed gatekeepers of the faith. Beyond all of this, he introduced a kind of spiritual urgency and intimacy with God that one can only label (as A. W. Tozer did) mysticism.

My second year also brought Ralph Turk to teach on our campus. Turk had spent most of his ministry as a pastor, but his intellectual curiosity took him into some unusual places. Ours may have been the only fundamentalist seminary ever to offer a seminar course on the thought of Kierkegaard—much of it taught in Turk’s living room. I’m grateful to this day.

Other professors on that campus were also influential. Robert Myrant taught me to love historical theology in addition to church history. R. Bruce Compton not only taught me Greek and Hebrew, but also modeled valuable lessons in the meaning of friendship. Gary Gordon was the friend who first drew me to the lectern and who guided me through the faltering early stages of teaching.

As I reflect back upon those formative years, I can see where my experience of fundamentalism differed from the experience that I hear so many describe. In fact, it differed in several ways. Among the most important are the following.

First, the men who most influenced me were utterly honest. They hid nothing, either about fundamentalism or about themselves. They were willing to admit their own faults and weaknesses, just as they were willing to admit the faults and weaknesses of the fundamentalist movement. Since they created no illusions for me, they left me little room for disillusionment.

Second, these were people who valued the life of the mind and the broad pursuit of learning. They loved and pursued an increasingly deep grasp of the Scriptures, of the system of theology, and of the life of faith. They also displayed and fostered an inveterate curiosity about ideas with which they did not agree. They were willing to travel outside of their own intellectual neighborhoods in order to make sense of other points of view. They showed me that dispassionate understanding was fundamental to a strong and clear defense of the faith—the only dividing line between polemics and mere propaganda.

Third, these people were genuinely humble. They might be gripped by big ideas, but they never aspired to be big names. They were not climbers, politicians, gatekeepers, or power mongers. Somebody once pressured me to name my heroes. In a sense, that’s what I’m doing now. The problem is that my heroes are all people who are unknown to the people who want to know who my heroes are. My heroes were content to be who they were and to minister in the calling that God had given them.

Fourth, my mentors gave genuine evidence of the fruit of the Spirit and of a personal walk with God. Since the institutions that they served were smaller, I had the opportunity to observe them in a very personal way. Where I went to seminary, the faculty and staff were constantly subject to real hardships and afflictions. They proved themselves in the midst of adversity and displayed the character of Christ with all sincerity.

Two of their virtues stand out. One is that they were temperate men, not given to bombast or overstatement. The other is that they were gentle men. Even when standing firmly for the truth, they evidenced a commitment to the care of souls. The consequences of their words and deeds mattered to them, and they were deeply concerned to use power judiciously and rightly. They refused ever knowingly to manipulate people, let alone to coerce them.

Through the years I have met more of their kind: Donald Brong in Iowa, for example, or Douglas McLachlan in Minnesota. Because God graciously brought such men to me at the crucial decision points in my life, my experience of fundamentalism has been dramatically different than the stories that I hear other men tell.

To be sure, I’ve seen my share of power-hungry, manipulative, idiosyncratic, truth-twisting, unethical, and even pathological fundamentalists. Ever since that conversation with George Houghton, however, I’ve believed that they do not genuinely represent what fundamentalism is. Rather, they are like an infection within the body of fundamentalism.

Such men stand under the judgment of the idea of fundamentalism. If fundamentalism is a biblical idea (and I believe it is), then they also stand under the judgment of the Word of God. They are best dismissed with incredulity, held at a distance, and otherwise ignored. You might call that “separation.”

The genuine leaders of fundamentalists do not go to extremes. Instead, they go back to basics. They do not huff and puff. They do not romp and stomp. They are not given to full-auto verbal assaults. If they bare their teeth and draw their swords, it is only when the innocent and powerless need to be defended. Rather, they faithfully and quietly minister in the callings that God has given them.

Hold such in esteem.

Psalm II
John Milton (1608-1674)

Why do the Gentiles tumult, and the Nations
Muse a vain thing, the Kings of th’ earth upstand
With power, and Princes in their Congregations

Lay deep their plots together through each Land,
Against the Lord and his Messiah dear?
Let us break off, say they, by strength of hand

Their bonds, and cast from us, no more to wear,
Their twisted cords: he who in Heaven doth dwell
Shall laugh, the Lord shall scoff them, then severe

Speak to them in his wrath, and in his fell
And fierce ire trouble them; but I, saith hee,
Anointed have my King (though ye rebel)

On Sion my holi’ hill. A firm decree
I will declare; the Lord to me hath say’d,
Thou art my Son I have begotten thee

This day; ask of me, and the grant is made;
As thy possession I on thee bestow
Th’ Heathen, and as thy conquest to be sway’d

Earths utmost bounds: them shalt thou bring full low
With Iron Scepter bruis’d, and them disperse
Like to a potters vessel shiver’d so.

And now be wise at length, ye Kings averse,
Be taught ye Judges of the earth; with fear
Jehovah serve, and let your joy converse

With trembling; kiss the Son least he appear
In anger and ye perish in the way,
If once his wrath take fire like fuel sere.

Happy all those who have in him their stay.

Discussion

[Paul J. Scharf]
[Don Johnson] Paul, I am not for ‘vapid blustering’ but I think that what you say here is largely a caricature.


I just want to respond to the line above and say that — oh, no — this is most certainly not a caricature. Do you know how many chapel sermons I heard in college by fundamentalist evangelists — usually with a B.A. and a D.D. — who fit this caricature?

Sadly, many of them were not only uncouth, but also unbiblical — with the ability to lead vulnerable young people into any number of doctrinal deviations.
Well, I could be snide and ask you to remind us where you went to college…

Please note my term “largely”. Of course there were and are some who fit the description. But really, the leaders of fundamentalism have been much different than that, by and large, including a man like Dr. Clearwaters, mentioned in the article. I don’t think he was ‘vapid’. He was strong and determined (from what I have read, no personal experience), but ‘blustering’??? ‘Blustering’ implies a certain emptiness. I’m not sure I would characterize him that way.

We live in an age where fundamentalists in particular seem to have very sensitive ids. One wonders how they would have handled a Luther, say.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[DavidO] I wasn’t genuinely offended. But my first exposure to kinder/gentler in an ironic and/or derogatory connotation came in Neil Young’s “Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World” (1989), and I have rarely heard in used in an unmitigatedly denotative sense since.

And now everybody knows in which direction my musical interests formerly wended! :O
David:

My use of kinder/gentler alludes to those words attributed to George H W Bush at the time of the 1988 election. The Bushies tried to draw a contrast between GHWB and the RR style of confrontation. Unfortunately for them, the Democrats gave GHWB’s words, “Read my lips: no new taxes” a very kind and gentle hermeneutic, got him to sign a tax bill raising taxes, and hijacked his one-term presidency neither kindly nor gently. Now, I’m not saying there are Reaganites and Bushies in current fundamentalism, as it were. On second thought, there may be a very dim resemblance …

Rolland McCune

I do remember the origin of the term. My only point was it is now difficult to use that phrase and have it be heard with simplicity.

Anyway, my “inflammatory” post, again, was 3/8ths tongue-in-cheek. I should have used an emoticon.

Since this article and comment stream has drawn attention from another blog I should clarify and expand my comments above.

It seemed to me that a distinction was drawn in the comments between what Bauder was expressing admiration for (and calling for) vs. what is and was required in order to “carry the day”.

In part this is hypothesis contrary to fact in that we have no way of knowing what would have carried the day in the past, we only know what was done. Of course, asserting that a kinder gentler fundamentalism would have carried the day faces a similar problem. All this begs the question as to whether the day was sufficiently “carried” in the first place (something I’m not qualified to say, although I have my inklings).

Additionally, I used the word earnestly (vigorously) advisedly, drawing from Jude. I did leave out contending/fighitng figuring the implication would be there. It seems to me though, that heart of what Bauder gets at above is not the fact that swords were drawn, but how often and against whom.

In short, I stand by my suggestion that there need be no dichotomy between humility, honesty about the flaws of our movement past and present, gentleness, etc., over against earnest contention when appropriate.

EDIT: Forgot this one. Regarding my use of milquetoast. My reading of the use of kinder/gentler in this conversation was that those uses connoted a sort of squishiness when something firmer was required. Hope that clarifies my objection.

In defense of Dr. McCune, I should point out that I was the one who first used the words “kind” and “gentle.” These are virtues, not signs of weakness. Both are listed among the fruit of the Spirit (chrestotes and prautes). I am absolutely certain that Dr. McCune does not mean in any way to position himself against kindness and gentleness. We would indeed have reached a nadir if the fruit of the Spirit were to be dismissed as Pollyannaish.

While I do not presume to speak for him, it seems to me that Dr. McCune is suggesting that these virtues are not the only ones that a Christian leader needs to possess. If so, then I heartily agree with him. Virtues like loyalty, courage, justice, and prudence are also necessary. Would any of us really wish to position himself against those?

As Dr. McCune states, we are called upon to defend the truth itself. This is exactly the point that the apostle Paul makes in 2 Corinthians 10:1-6. Paul stresses that he is speaking meekly and gently in the hopes that he will not have to speak sternly at a later point. He makes it clear that he possesses mighty weapons with which he pulls down strongholds. These strongholds he defines as false reasonings (false systems of belief) that rear themselves up against the knowledge of God. These he casts down so that he may capture every manner of thinking and make it obedient to Christ.

Paul was very clear, however, that he did not conduct his warfare in a fleshly way or with fleshly weapons, and that is the crux of my contention (for we ought to contend for the faith, both on our left hand and on our right) with a certain kind of Fundamentalism. There was little of the politician about Paul. He, too, was a temperate man, not given to bombast or overstatement. Even when standing firmly for the truth, he evidenced a commitment to the care of souls. The consequences of his words and deeds mattered to him, and he was deeply concerned to use power judiciously and rightly. He refused ever knowingly to manipulate people, let alone coerce them. I doubt that Paul would have recognized any distinction in practice between defending the truth and defending the innocent and powerless.

I do not see a significant difference between Dr. McCune and myself over principles. To be sure, there may be wrinkles in application, as often occurs between two brothers. We may perhaps differ in our reading of some parts of the present situation. Supposing that these differences exist, I do not know whether they would bother him. They do not bother me.

Concerning Dr. McCune himself, let me say this. I came to know him too late for him to qualify as one of my models, but he has certainly earned the right to be heard and respected. He has both mastered and taught the system of faith. His perseverance has encompassed not only his commitment to Christ but also his endurance in ministry, of which he has made full proof. Throughout the years he has displayed remarkable consistency, focus, and determination. He is the sort of individual whose disagreement is a more valuable treasure than the praise of many friends. Let none of us simply dismiss his words, but rather ponder and weigh them.

Just a word about so-called “Strong Natural Leaders.” Scripture nowhere seems to indicate that God is looking for such natural leaders. There are a few references to the natural man. There are other references to a kind of wisdom that is natural. I do not suppose, however, that these are exactly what Dr. McCune has in mind, since his own ministry runs so clearly in the opposite direction.

One of my aforementioned teachers once gave a memorable warning to a class of pastoral students. I can’t quote it exactly, but it went something like this.

“Some men have such power of character, such clarity of vision, such strength of will, such personality and presence, that they speak and people obey. They assert and people agree. They denounce and people recoil. They confront and people quaver. Gentlemen, some of you in this room may very well have that gift. If ever you discover that you are one of those few, then I entreat you, fall on your face before God and ask Him for grace never to use it.”

Hold such in esteem.

I appreciated the article. I like the way it ends - these men who influenced Kevin were gentlemen and the prefered to influence and minister - and the teeth and swords only came out when they absolutly had too. I also agree that one is militant with the result of being strident only when one has too. Frankly I worry about men who seem to enjoy the fight. They remind me of David who when he wanted to build the Temple could not because he had too much blood on his hands. Personally I hate fighting. I’d rather just have earnest fellowship, sincere prayer, a warn embrace, a liitle decaf coupled with some enthusiastic Bible teaching! (Amen and amen!). Most of the time when I’ve gone to battle it is because I see that the body is being sinfully wounded and it has to stop. Someone has to stand up and say, “enough.” I’d rather someone else who is stronger, smarter, and for sure someone with better writting skills do the wrok. From time to time, there is a cause…and as much as I don’t want to…I have too. The ballance I think is key. Dr. Bauder is right, our leadership must come from a genuine character of what we are. Dr. McCune is right, at times we have to stand up, fight, be unpopular - but say what must be said……even though we’ll pay a price.

Straight Ahead friends!

jt

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;

Somewhere in this discussion, we came to a fork in the road and, to quote Yogi Berra, decided to take it.

I am not sure what kind, gentle or milquetoast have to do with the good doctors that Dr. Bauder praised in his article.

One of them in particular, Dr. Turk, was certainly not a milquetoast!

In light of the excellent starting point Dr. Bauder presented us with — and especially thinking about those reading who may not know these men and may get a false impression about them — I am concerned that some of these comments have little to do with the subject matter at hand.

As for me, my initial comments were intended to praise these men for standing Biblically on proper and academically-developed theology — as opposed to some of the false doctrine that was passed off as being politically correct within some sectors of fundamentalism.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Paul,

I believe that these terms have come to be a focal point because the OP—if certain fundamentalists are to be praised and contrasted with other professing fundamentalists precisely because they were kind and gentle, that means, doesn’t it, that the others are being faulted for lacking these traits. To raise concern about the difficulties of assessing these traits from a distance and in the midst of conflict is legit, I think. To point out that one man’s kindness is another man’s compromise and one man’s tenacity is another man’s unkindess is also valid, I think.

For my part, I wonder if these two traits are very helpful in assessing leaders on a large stage precisely because the nature of that stage and the kinds of discourse and decisions that need to be made. Congregations certainly can and must look to this matter, and it should be easily observable over the long haul of pastoral ministry. To the contrary, a sermon on a conference platform, a positon paper written in the midst of debate, etc., don’t supply enough context for judgment. My observation is that the story gets re-told and re-shaped according to the prejudices of the teller. Just look at the differing interpretations of Dr. Bauder’s weekly articles—some have accused him of harshness for his plain speech, while others think he soft-pedals some issues. Frankly, I don’t find the kind and gentle issue to be that significant in evaluating fundamentalism. Too much smoke to see it all clearly.

I certainly am thankful for kind, gentle men with firm convictions who helped shape my life and ministry. They firmly drew lines while communicating their views plainly. I am also thankful for the men who were not hesitant to say what needed to be said when it needed to be said, even though those men were often judged as unkind and lacking gentleness.

DMD

Kevin, great history and thanks for sharing it.

Does anyone actually doubt that if these men were alive today that they would also agree with the way Kevin has handled the extreme pseudo fundamentalists always screaming for attention? Ignoring these factions has apparently only served to put hot coals upon their heads. Even this thread has caused some to make fools of themselves.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Yes Paul, those who aren’t.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

One last thought/clarification (I trust). From my 14 years of associaion with R. V. Clearwaters he and I never had a cross word between us, and I left for DBTS with his disappointment but none the less his “blessing.” We were especially close during my last six or seven years. I participated in his funeral in 1996 and unashamedly wept as I hugged his daughter Jane farewell as we left Crystal Lake Cemetery.

Doc, as a good leader, prudently chose his hills to die on based on several non-negotiable biblical truths and convictions. But in a showdown when these were being challenged, trampled, disobeyed, avoided or neglected, he was militantly aggressive. This earned him a lot of unwanted and unearned approbium over the decades, actually to this very day. Some of the opponents mused out loud that they hoped for the day they would see RVC in his casket. Fortunately he outlived most of them.

Included in his non-negotliable truths was the primacy of the NT local church. Thus he opposed the movement that tried to hijack the New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches from an association of churches to a pastor’s fellowship (at Eagledale Baptist Church, Indianapolis, 1966) contrary to the minutes of the call to form an association (passed at Beth Eden Baptist, Denver) one year earlier. The NTAIBC became an association of churches. He also opposed self-perpetuating boards of Baptist institutions who generally wanted him and Fourth Baptist to “pray and pay, but not to play.” This was the case in the formation of the Baptist World Mission in the 1960s. On the grounds of local church ideology/doctrine he expected first loyalty to Fourth Baptist by paid servants of a Baptist institution whose membership was at Fourth, rather than their first loyalty elsewhere. The same went for paid servants of Central Baptist Seminary, church staff, the Christian school, custodians, et al, as well as all the membership in general. He was loyal to people and he expected the same from them. It was not “my way or the hi-way.” These incidents all became controversial to the point of public resolution with him being blamed in one way or another for the disturbance, usually on ecclesiastically political or pietistic notions.

The local church rubric caused Doc to vigoriously oppose interdenominationalism, especially after its failure to sustain Northwestern Schools in the late 1950s when its Bible College and Seminary closed down, leading to the founding of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College and Central Baptist Seminary as Baptist, not interdenominational, schools. He was on the board of Northwestern and a confidant of W. B. Riley, and went through the rough waters after Riley’s death.

Ecclesiastical separation was a non-negotliable, both “primary” and “secondary.” Thus Doc participated heavily in the fight within the old Northern Baptist Convention against liberalism, and within the Minnesota Baptist Convention/Association and the Conservative Baptist Association of America against New Evangelicalism. In these controversies, Fourth Baptist Church and the MBA “kept the faith and the furniture.” But of course, RVC took heat for not being loving, kind, gentle and Christ-like when push came to shove and straight talk finally took precedence over quiet, emotional, pietistic diplomatic discussions.

RVC’s style of church administration was summed up in two words, as he constantly told the Seminary students—“through channels.” Anything major that affected Fourth church was first taken to the deacons, after that to the “official family” (composed of all people elected by the church), and finally to the floor of the church. This happened on many occasions while I was there.

Other of RVC’s leadership principles included “take the historical approach,” giving him an uncanny insight to people and proposals that came along. His ability to size up a situation and know of the right, or a good, solution was amazing. He relied heavily on “documents” when in battle, pulling out minutes, resolutions, etc, because “documents don’t lie.” This happened when he was contradicted, whether in court fighting to retain the MBA’s control of Pillsbury Academy, or as an espert witness on Baptist polity in suits to prevent the Northern Baptist Convention from stealing the property of churches who voted to withdraw from it, or simply during the formation of a new association.

This has droned on far more than intended, typical of the “few minutes” that Baptist preachers promise to audiences. I did not take space for anecdotes of his life as a pastor, friend, counselor,family man, and others. There his kind and gentle side always showed, whether for a student finding a job, those needing food and raiment, a pastor looking for a church, or churches looking pastors. For funerals he would ask for the Bible and “life verse” of the deceased and conduct a very meanigful service. He was willing to be called back from his annual vacation in Florida (in February/March usually, naturally) for emergencies.

I hope that these vignettes put the man in a better light than is too often forgotten or ignored.

Rolland McCune

Dr. McCune-

Do you know of any biographies or other places where I could get more information on Dr. Clearwaters? Sounds like he lived his life well and is someone worth reading about / emulating.

Even if there isn’t anything readily available, I appreciate your vignettes since I ‘came to the scene’ a couple years after his passing and consequently know the name and little else.

"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

Jay:

Dr. Michael Windsor, now teaching at Central Baptist Seminary in Virginia, wrote his doctoral dissertation at Central Seminary, Mpls. on the life and ministry of RVC. An autobiography of RVC, On the Upward Road I’m sure is available, as well as Windsor’s dissertation, at Central Seminary or Fourth Bookstore. There are other, shorter accounts of his life, but I’ve lost track of names and titles.

Rolland McCune

One always has to be careful when a younger critiques an elder and a basic nobody in fundamentalism (me) critiques a notable one!

That being said, every man has his flaws. One who seems to know something about RVC commented here: http://www.thewoodchucksden.com/?p=18
Doug tried to do the almost impossible – to follow an iconic pastor who had been in one church for more than forty years. The difficulty of doing such was exacerbated by the fact that the former pastor stayed in the church, became critical of the new pastor and even appears to have influenced a number of other long-time members with his criticisms of Doug, largely based – if my memory serves me correctly – on Doug’s lack of sufficient militancy and related issues. After several years of internal personal and church strife, Doug left
From: Not afraid to acknowlege that dead fundamentalists were not perfect!