Doran: "Pathetic and disingenous ... to score their own points"

On the “Really Odds”

I am pretty sure that the folks who are “rejoicing” that the merger didn’t go through because of feigned concern that one of the institutions might weaken the other one’s separatist stand never gave a rip about that institution prior to this. I write this quite confidently because it is evident that they know nothing about that institution beyond a few quotes they’ve plucked from publications. The occasion of the potential merger simply served as an opportunity to take shots at one man under the banner of defending a fundamentalist institution.

1789 reads

There are 10 Comments

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Kevin Bauder wrote:
A rift between Central Seminary and Faith Baptist Bible College exists only in the minds of gossip-mongers and prevaricators ... Such individuals are the pus, phlegm, and bile in the body of Fundamentalism. May God stop their mouths, along with unfounded speculations and unsupported assertions that they proliferate.

Reminds me of an ancient Arabic 'curse'- "May the fleas of a thousand camels nest in their armpits". Even if there was a rift, it's an indication of low character when the reaction of some is to rub their hands together so zealously they could almost start a fire- but then again, they could put it out with the drool oozing all over their keyboards.

Brian Ernsberger's picture

Look who's calling the kettle black!

Doran states,
"I am pretty sure that the folks who are 'rejoicing' that the merger didn’t go through because of feigned concern that one of the institutions might weaken the other one’s separatist stand never gave a rip about that institution prior to this. I write this quite confidently because it is evident that they know nothing about that institution beyond a few quotes they’ve plucked from publications. The occasion of the potential merger simply served as an opportunity to take shots at one man under the banner of defending a fundamentalist institution. IOW, they were using the merger to score their own points. Pathetic and disingenous."

What does Doran know of the relationship between Faith and these unnamed men? Absolutely NOTHING!!! He has gone off half-cocked with these statements and in my estimation shot himself in the foot. And he has the audacity to say they are pathetic and disingenous! Making these kinds of comments behind the ivory tower of his non-interacting blog. That's pathetic and disingenous!

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Brian, if we don't know who these unnamed men are, how do you know that Doran knows "Absolutely NOTHING!!!" about their relationship to Faith?
Pots, kettles... looks like we're getting a whole kitchen going here. Biggrin

RPittman's picture

sifilings wrote:
On the "Really Odds"

I am pretty sure that the folks who are “rejoicing” that the merger didn’t go through because of feigned concern that one of the institutions might weaken the other one’s separatist stand never gave a rip about that institution prior to this. I write this quite confidently because it is evident that they know nothing about that institution beyond a few quotes they’ve plucked from publications. The occasion of the potential merger simply served as an opportunity to take shots at one man under the banner of defending a fundamentalist institution.


Yes, I certainly agree that one ought not make suppositions and speculations about other people's thoughts, motives, or cogitative processes. We don't know. Those who have assumed various things about Faith and Central calling off their merger talks are manifestly wrong in light of Dr. Bauders clear denial. And perhaps, it is good to point out the error of their ways in order that we do not replicate them. However, it appears to me from your above statements that you have done the same to the " folks who are 'rejoicing' that the merger didn’t go through." What do you say?

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

RPittman wrote:
However, it appears to me from your above statements that you have done the same to the " folks who are 'rejoicing' that the merger didn’t go through." What do you say?

Why would anyone 'rejoice' that the merger didn't go through? Especially when you read some of the ridiculous speculations about the 'real' reasons it didn't happen. I've read some blog posts that sound like someone is channeling Dan Rather. I can't imagine any motivation other than a desire to devour and destroy. Let's call the ravenous beasts what they are- wolves.

RPittman's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Brian, if we don't know who these unnamed men are, how do you know that Doran knows "Absolutely NOTHING!!!" about their relationship to Faith?
Pots, kettles... looks like we're getting a whole kitchen going here. Biggrin
Yes, Aaron, you are probably right in more ways than you think (not that I know your thoughts). What I mean is that the problem is pervasive on all sides. I am frustrated by people who agree with me and people who don't when their arguments are based on supposition and spectulation about the other side's motives, thoughts, or intentions. Admittedly, there is sometimes a thin line between responding to a position and attributing motives as well as imagined innuendoes by another but most of the time it is that we do advance ad hominem arguments. Rather than refute another's points, we find fault with his person. This is dispicable. There is nothing wrong with good hard-headed debate. Blows to the head are okay but jabs below the belt are cowardly and disgusting. This, I suppose, is just a manifestation that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." We--all of us including Dr. Bauder, Dr. Doran, and myself--would do well to be reminded of James 3-4.

RPittman's picture

Susan R wrote:
RPittman wrote:
However, it appears to me from your above statements that you have done the same to the " folks who are 'rejoicing' that the merger didn’t go through." What do you say?

Why would anyone 'rejoice' that the merger didn't go through? Especially when you read some of the ridiculous speculations about the 'real' reasons it didn't happen. I've read some blog posts that sound like someone is channeling Dan Rather. I can't imagine any motivation other than a desire to devour and destroy. Let's call the ravenous beasts what they are- wolves.

The whole question is one's perspective on ecclesiastical separation. Due to an article published in the Faith newsletter awhile back, many in the strict separatist camp perceived Faith as reaffirming their own strict separtists position. Furthermore, their perception is that Central and Dr. Bauder have been moving away from the formerly strict separatist position of Dr. Clearwaters and Central. These folks further supposed that a merge would loosen Faith's stand on separation. Therefore, they were happy that the merger did not occur because it appeared to preserve the perceived strict separatist position of Faith.

Although my views are comparible to the strict separatist position, I respectfully disagree with my friends. They misunderstood the Faith article. Interpreting it from in their own paradigm, it seemed to say the same thing as their own beliefs but they did not comprehend the view and mindset from which it was written and intended. Dr. Bauder, IMHO, is right. He is an insider and understands that perspective. Faith and Central are close in their views on ecclesiastical separation. Faith is not and was never in the miltant separatist camp. If memory serves me (someone please correct me if I am wrong because I do have his book at hand), George W. Dollar placed Faith in the moderate camp. Dollar, as you recall, was one time at Central with Dr. Clearwaters. Persumably, his miltant separatist Fundamentalism was compatible and acceptable, if not arguably representative, of Central's position at that time. If so, it would appear that Central has moved to the Faith position. This is very understandable because Dr. Bauder is professedly a product of that Fundamentalist tradition and he has led Central to an understanding of separation similar to Faith. Now, that doesn't mean that the words or public statements have changed. One can reall Jerry Falwell reaffirming his separatist beliefs meanwhile dismantling walls and forging alliances. It's the understanding of what the statement means that has changed. Please note with emphasis that I am not accusing anyone of prevaricating. Our understanding of a concept may change with time. Dr. Bauder believes that he is standing precisely where his predecessors stood on the same statement of separation but he neglects to consider that his predecessors may have had a slightly differrent understanding.

Please allow me to illustrate. When I was a student at BJU in the 1960-70's, Dr. Bob, Jr. and Dr. George W. Dollar were articulating the university's stand on miltant separatism. Central and Dr. R. V. Clearwaters were perceived as being in accord with miltant separatism. Later, Dr. Dollar went to Central. (One may argue that Dr. Dollar did not represent the Central viewpoint but let him explain how Dollar was hired by the school if both he and Dr. Clearwaters did not think they were in agreement?) It is unimaginable that Dr. Dollar would have gone to Central if Dr. Clearwaters and the school were not in agreement with his miltant views. If so, I doubt you could get Dr. Bauder to say that he agreed heartily with Drs. Jones and Dollar on their miltant separatism. If so, we may conclude that the climate of separation has changed somewhat. Even BJU seems to have backed away from some of those miltant expressions of Dr. Bob, Jr. and Dr. Dollar. If I am wrong, then I am wide open to easy refutation--let Dr. Bauder or someone entitled to speak for BJU step forward and say I wholeheartedly agree and endorse the miltant separatism expressed by Dr. Bob, Jr. and Dr. George W. Dollar. Let me further explain that changing a position is NOT NECESSARILY wrong of itself. However, one ought NOT deny change if it has occurred in word or interpretation.

For different reasons, I was happy that they decided not to merge. Both schools, although in substantial agreement on issues, have their own personalities and clientele. A merge necessarily means blending into one identity. If both are strong and viable, and they say they are, it is better, IMHO, to have two schools offering two choices rather than one larger choice. Bigger is not necessarily better. It does make sense to me to have two cooperating and compatible schools instead of one. If they can cross-matriculate for low demand, specialized courses, I say more power to them. This is more than I can convince some of my friends to do. So, I suppose this is another answer to your question. There are probably many more possibilities. For example, alumni may oppose a merge purely for sentimental reasons.

So, Susan, I don't like speculating on other people's motivation. I would rather judge what people say than why they said it. We don't know why other than they tell us. When I read posts that are revulsive to me, I try to take the high road. I usually get myself in trouble and regret crawling in the mucky gutter to put someone in his place. It takes wisdom to know whether to apply Proverbs 26:4 or Proverbs 26:5. Smile

RPittman's picture

Dr. Doran wrote: wrote:
I can’t won’t avoid noting that some of the responses to the announcement about the Central-Faith merger not happening are amusing. I’m not going to link to any of the ones I have in mind because doing so would actually serve their self-serving purpose. I am pretty sure that the folks who are “rejoicing” that the merger didn’t go through because of feigned concern that one of the institutions might weaken the other one’s separatist stand never gave a rip about that institution prior to this. I write this quite confidently because it is evident that they know nothing about that institution beyond a few quotes they’ve plucked from publications. The occasion of the potential merger simply served as an opportunity to take shots at one man under the banner of defending a fundamentalist institution. IOW, they were using the merger to score their own points. Pathetic and disingenous.

Questions:

  1. Does Dr. Doran make judgments of others' thoughts and motivations?
  2. Does Dr. Doran offer any observable evidence for his judgments?
  3. Does Dr. Doran use abrasive and inflammatory language?
  4. Is it acceptable to make judgments of others' thoughts or motivations in posting on an open forum?
  5. Would you rebuke me if I had written a similar post about Dr. Bauder and Central or Dr. Dorn and Detroit?

Read my parody below and reconsider your answer to the preceding question:

Parody on Dr. Doran, rpittman wrote:
I can’t or won’t avoid noting that some of the defenses of the announcement about the Central-Faith merger not happening are amusing. I’m not going to link to any of the ones I have in mind because doing so would actually serve their self-serving purpose. I am pretty sure that the folks who are “crying” that the merger didn’t go through because of feigned concern that no merger might weaken the historic Fundamentalist separatist stand against KJVOism never gave a rip about separatism prior to this. I write this quite confidently because it is evident that they know nothing about historic Fundamentalism and KJVOism beyond a few quotes they’ve plucked from publications. The occasion of the potential merger simply served as an opportunity to take shots at KJVO believers who are defending miltant separatist Fundamentalism and the KJB. IOW, they were using the merger to score their own points. Pathetic and disingenous.

DISCLAIMERThis is simply a parody of Dr. Doran's post on his blog to illustrate the nature of his language and charges. It does not need to be refuted because it was written as parody, not argument.

---

Reference to other members removed by Forum Director

Brian Ernsberger's picture

Aaron, you make my point.
"Ummm
Brian, if we don't know who these unnamed men are, how do you know that Doran knows "Absolutely NOTHING!!!" about their relationship to Faith?
Pots, kettles... looks like we're getting a whole kitchen going here."

You are right Aaron, I don't. That is my whole point in this posting. By bringing in Doran's musings you have allowed someone to vent unfettered on unnamed people who cannot possibly defend themselves (since we don't know who Doran is referring to). And when someone then vents back on Doran (referring to myself), my post is initially removed (the moderator's reason at the time to me was "Not now ... too tired .... bed time ..." the time: approx. 10:21 pm eastern time) but then put back in after review (thank you BTW). Since there is an abundance of ambiguity with all the incendiary words, I must wonder why SI would have posted Doran's article in the first place?

Greg Linscott's picture

* Inter-City Baptist Church was at one time in the GARBC.
* Faith and DBTS have had some interaction, including Doran recently (last 5-6 years) speaking on the Faith campus and Rolland McCune doing a lecture series. http://www.faith.edu/generalinfo/personnel/college.html Alan Cole , who teaches Bible and Theology at Faith, is a DBTS grad and taught at the high school at Inter-City.
* The faculties of DBTS and Faith (as well as Central) regularly interact at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summits.

And, FWIW, ICBC once supported as a missionary one of "folks" Doran criticizes in the linked post.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN