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

Kevin’s response is a reasonable answer to the objections raised. I am not as concerned about the need for critical history as Kevin seems to be. Nor am I convinced that the ecclesiological problems remain unsolved to any appreciable degree. But I appreciate that he does not simply attack the man critiquing him.

Can’t say so much for the general tenor of most responses on the thread, however.

[Don Johnson] Kevin’s response is a reasonable answer to the objections raised. I am not as concerned about the need for critical history as Kevin seems to be. Nor am I convinced that the ecclesiological problems remain unsolved to any appreciable degree. But I appreciate that he does not simply attack the man critiquing him.

Can’t say so much for the general tenor of most responses on the thread, however.

Your comment is, personally, an encouraging gesture but it offers no evidence of any examination of your own posting “tenor” and falls short of remedying your post on Brian’s blog:

Don Johnson said…
Bauder is often insufferable to read. He comes across as elitist and arrogant, talking down to the dummies who can’t see things as clearly as he can in the rarified air of scholarly thinking.

I think he means by “critical” more of the “scholarly” and “peer reviewed” bilge he favors. Perhaps Beale and Dollar didn’t write for that audience. Quite frankly, who cares? The ministry is to the populace. Let the scholars go on in their rarified darkness. If they can’t be bothered to consider the populace and the popular worthy of their time and attention, then let it be so.

You could say I have no strong feelings on the matter! You should go to Naselli’s blog and click on the video where Andy and Colin Hanson explain their ideas in creating the book. Too bad. Naselli is an intelligent guy, but in some ways his intelligence is his own worst enemy.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[ADThompson]

[Don Johnson] Kevin’s response is a reasonable answer to the objections raised. I am not as concerned about the need for critical history as Kevin seems to be. Nor am I convinced that the ecclesiological problems remain unsolved to any appreciable degree. But I appreciate that he does not simply attack the man critiquing him.

Can’t say so much for the general tenor of most responses on the thread, however.

Your comment is, personally, an encouraging gesture but it offers no evidence of any examination of your own posting “tenor” and falls short of remedying your post on Brian’s blog:

Don Johnson said…
Bauder is often insufferable to read. He comes across as elitist and arrogant, talking down to the dummies who can’t see things as clearly as he can in the rarified air of scholarly thinking.

I think he means by “critical” more of the “scholarly” and “peer reviewed” bilge he favors. Perhaps Beale and Dollar didn’t write for that audience. Quite frankly, who cares? The ministry is to the populace. Let the scholars go on in their rarified darkness. If they can’t be bothered to consider the populace and the popular worthy of their time and attention, then let it be so.

You could say I have no strong feelings on the matter! You should go to Naselli’s blog and click on the video where Andy and Colin Hanson explain their ideas in creating the book. Too bad. Naselli is an intelligent guy, but in some ways his intelligence is his own worst enemy.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

You beat me to the punch, AD. Well said. “Insufferable, Elitist, Arrogant, Bilge, rarified darkness,….” — yeah, that’s the tenor of reasonable dialogue alright.

On both blogs, the attacks on Kevin’s speaking/writing style remind me of my own reactions frequently when I find myself reading someone who is thinking and communicating at a level that makes my brain smoke whiloe trying to take it in. It’s generally not an issue with their communication as much as it is my ignorance. Pushing through and growing intellectually to the point where it makes sense and begins to sink in cognatively sometimes takes an intellectual discipline that is worthy of the topic. One of the reasons we are not really taken seriously in academic circles broader than our own cheering squad might quite well be because of our insistence that we be spoon-fed rhetorically sugar-coated pablum that is the equivalent of affirming our own hardened views rather than taking the prolonged critical examination upon which all significant streams of thought are built. Or, I guess, we could all just insist on having great thoughts and challenges reduced to Cliff Notes and Reader’s Digest articles. One of the reasons I try to always read what Bauder has to say is because he IS thinking critically and at levels rarely found in fundamentalism. To question his style, the value of his new position, and his credentials is just petty and unworthy of inclusion in a serious discussion. If I wanted to read someone with whom I never disagreed, who never poked me where it hurts, who never challenged my own blind biases or who always was perfectly infallible and unworthy of challenge, I’d just read my own stuff. Oh wait……., I don’t even always agree with me.

Dan

[Dan Burrell] — yeah, that’s the tenor of reasonable dialogue alright … attacks on Kevin’s speaking/writing style

In fairness, I don’t think writing style or tone is out of bounds when discussing an author. I have read people (not Dr. B) I feel are insufferable. It’s not unreasonable to include that in one’s criticism of a specific work, one just ought to be able to point to substantive examples to back it up.

EDIT: I should add that the things we feel makes an author insufferable probably says something about us as well, as Dan intimated.

[Kevin T. Bauder]
In short, there’s no news here. Move along, folks. Find time to read a book. There’s one I’d like to recommend.

Was someone saying something about “insufferable”? I certainly can determine for myself whether I need to stay or move along. Interestingly the one telling others to “move along” somehow, himself, found time to contribute a post.

Alex, Don Johnson made the comment about Kevin being insufferable. Bauder’s post served to actually inform others exactly how the process went down. It was helpful in that it squashed the gossip and ignorance of the blogger.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Kevin T. Bauder]
In short, there’s no news here. Move along, folks. Find time to read a book. There’s one I’d like to recommend.

Was someone saying something about “insufferable”? I certainly can determine for myself whether I need to stay or move along. Interestingly the one telling others to “move along” somehow, himself, found time to contribute a post.

Dr. Bauder is the subject of the thread, and if he has adequately addressed the issues, I think he is within bounds to contribute a post, and advise people to move along. I also agree that reading a book or two would be a better use of time, since the blogger linked to in the OP admits that they hadn’t read the whole book in question yet. This is not wise. Blogs are not private, and are the equivalent of public speaking, and bloggers should be more responsible and thorough before they take it upon themselves to publish a critique.

So unless folks have something substantive to offer, I think ‘move along’ is excellent advice.

[ADThompson]

[Don Johnson] Kevin’s response is a reasonable answer to the objections raised. I am not as concerned about the need for critical history as Kevin seems to be. Nor am I convinced that the ecclesiological problems remain unsolved to any appreciable degree. But I appreciate that he does not simply attack the man critiquing him.

Can’t say so much for the general tenor of most responses on the thread, however.

Your comment is, personally, an encouraging gesture but it offers no evidence of any examination of your own posting “tenor” and falls short of remedying your post on Brian’s blog:

Don Johnson said…
Bauder is often insufferable to read.

You’re right. That was very reactionary, emotional and over the top. I apologize.

The only true Fundamentalist is a fighting Fundamentalist. Tossing away his scabbard, the Fundamentalist must cling to the sword of the Spirit… . He must place that sword into the enemies’ bosoms, and he must fight on and on until Christ returns. Even as he thus contends for the faith … another potential, subtle danger could be lurking - this time in his own heart… . It is far easier to cast the sword into the enemy’s bosom than to thrust it into one’s own breast. Biblical Fundamentalists must do both and do them constantly, never hesitating to allow the inerrant and authoritative Word to judge their thoughts, motives, and actions… . Little things are also important; little things may only take a minute, but people do not soon forget. One word spoken in irritation can nullify in a person’s heart all the truth one proclaims… .

In Pursuit of Purity, p. 357

[Don Johnson]

[ADThompson]

[Don Johnson] Kevin’s response is a reasonable answer to the objections raised. I am not as concerned about the need for critical history as Kevin seems to be. Nor am I convinced that the ecclesiological problems remain unsolved to any appreciable degree. But I appreciate that he does not simply attack the man critiquing him.

Can’t say so much for the general tenor of most responses on the thread, however.

Your comment is, personally, an encouraging gesture but it offers no evidence of any examination of your own posting “tenor” and falls short of remedying your post on Brian’s blog:

Don Johnson said…
Bauder is often insufferable to read.

You’re right. That was very reactionary, emotional and over the top. I apologize.

Lord bless! Enjoyed your article interacting with Dr. Doran’s recent post on missionary pastors.

…but I believe that SI is planning on running a review of the 4 Views of Evangelicalism book at some point. I’m sure we can get into your questions at that point, Roland.

[RPittman] For a broader view of Fundamentalism, would not several authors from the different branches have served better than a single author?

It would be a multi-volume work entitled 73 Essays In Which Each Author Explains Why Theirs Is The ONLY True Version of Fundamentalism.

It looks like this to me, Bro. Pittman- using a term like ‘darling’ is dismissive of the subject at hand. After all, using your paradigm, the people you like and believe deserve defending are your ‘darlings’. There is always plenty of ripping and slashing on both sides. I don’t think “tit-for-tat” really adds to the discussion. Instead of joining the fray with gross locker room analogies, elevate it by dealing directly with the things you find inaccurate or bothersome.

[DavidO]

[RPittman] For a broader view of Fundamentalism, would not several authors from the different branches have served better than a single author?

It would be a multi-volume work entitled 73 Essays In Which Each Author Explains Why Theirs Is The ONLY True Version of Fundamentalism.

Let’s start a campaign right now to save the trees!
http://rlv.zcache.com/poster_save_our_trees-p228233486494359839tdcz_400…

I doubt a book like that would sell 73 copies, so I think the trees are safe for now… :D