Credit Where Credit Is Due, Part 2
Read 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.
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.
- 144 views
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.Growing up in fundamentalism, this is what I remember my pastors, and most other leaders I knew, being like. The other kind showed up now and then just long enough to be a marked contrast. Then, in college, the other kind seemed to dominate—at least it felt that way. But by then I already knew too much of reality to be fooled into an idealistic view of fundamentalism that would later collapse.
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.Though BJU days featured a whole lot of the “Be Loyal to the Sum of Perfection Which Is Fundamentalism” types, it’s also where I met several of the kind Kevin describes here. Enough to really stimulate a part of my thinking I didn’t know existed (and not all of these were men either, and that was enlightening).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I spent 4 years in the Army in Georgia, and had my eyes opened widely as I was exposed to some slivers in the hyper-fundamentals plank, seeing both strengths and weaknesses of the movement. This exposure definitely helped me to study more deeply and sort many things out, which helped in the long run. Many “up north” or in the Midwest haven’t been exposed to the hyper-fundy movement that is/was much more prevalent in the South.
George Houghton definitely helped me to “reintegrate” where needed, and Myron Houghton is almost in a class of his own regarding his ability to teach people to understand the Word. I am indebted to both (and several other teachers that I had).
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Kevin Subra] Myron Houghton is almost in a class of his own regarding his ability to teach people to understand the Word.I say a hearty amen to that! I have actually heard people listing the greatest fundamentalist systematic theologians without including http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faculty.html Dr. Myron in the discussion. That is simply absurd.
He had a profound impact on my thinking — and probably the thinking of most people who have studied under him. His classes are among the best I have ever been a part of.
His academic credentials in theology may be unrivaled — even in the evangelical world. With the cost of higher theological education today, I wonder if they will ever be duplicated. (BTW - His bio only lists his degrees and certificates — not every place where he has studied.)
I had Dr. Turk for a professor and perceived him to be a very competent and likeable man. But it was when he ministered to me during a crisis that I came to respect him and hold him in the very highest esteem. We sorely miss him. What an interesting career he had in ministry!
Dr. Delnay held an independent study course for me and showed me his passion for the academy as well as for preaching the Word. His influence on several institutions has been profound.
I dare say that if fundamentalism had been built on the ideals these men aspired to, its story would have been far different. These men and their colleagues are the reason I would stake a claim to being a fundamentalist today in any sense of the word. Barring their influence, I probably would have exited long ago.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
However, when it comes to public leadership in battle, leading gently must on occasion “bare their teeth and draw their swords” in defence and propogation of truth itself along with doing so for the innocent and defenseless. And in so doing, an inordinate number of the saints (and non-saints) immediatelyd cry out at the lack of love, lack of the spirit of Christ, let’s pray about it some more, etc., etc. These most often come from the young and immature in the faith, the overly pietistic, or who simply willl never understand the dynamics of “the strife of truth with falsehood for the good or evil side.” Leaders in the smoke of battle must contend with them as well the advancing problem. Christ’s gentility would probably be characterized as romp and stomp by some, but I find it impossible to fault the incarnation of love, lowliness, and gentleness. Paul was brutally frank on occasion with both believer and unbeliever, seemingly to counter the meekness rubric.
My associations with R. V. Clearwaters, often identified with the ugly side of fundamentalism, would contradict what is too often thought to be the mean and unholy spirit that brought fundamentalism down as a “movement.” My 14 years with “Doc” tell a different tale, which has caused me to respond and correct rumors, innuendos and other barnacle-like rubbish about the man and his ministry and leadership. He had a very gentle side with sincere people, but admittedly did not suffer fools very gladly, as it were. He was a strong natural leader (among the hated SNLs), and did not see himself as one who “leads from behind” as I myself would be prone to do. But I stood with him, and observed that his experience and wisdom won the day as far as truth and the fortunes of fundamentalism were concerned. Most would argue that his types brought fundamentalism to its present impasse, but it could also be argued that the vacuum in leadership caused by their passing has not seen much of their calibre replaced.
My point is that the kindler-gentler motif in and of itself will not carry the day in the end. It too often seeks ground with the opposition that is not very common when the devilish details and scholastic fine print see the light of day.
Rolland McCune
[Rolland McCune] My point is that the kindler-gentler motif in and of itself will not carry the day in the end. It too often seeks ground with the opposition that is not very common when the devilish details and scholastic fine print see the light of day.thanks very much for that, Dr. McCune.
I think we need to be careful not to be just flame-throwers (I tend in that direction!), but we must be ready to stand up and be counted when needed.
I have been writing lately about the danger of moderates, which you highlight here: “It too often seeks ground with the opposition that is not very common when the devilish details and scholastic fine print see the light of day.”
Very good word!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] I think we need to be careful not to be just flame-throwers (I tend in that direction!), but we must be ready to stand up and be counted when needed.How do we stand up as fundamentalists? With bluster, over-hyped rhetoric, group-think mentality and strong natural leadership? Or with the doctrines of the Word of God?
I have been writing lately about the danger of moderates, which you highlight here: “It too often seeks ground with the opposition that is not very common when the devilish details and scholastic fine print see the light of day.”
How often, in a theological context — even when debating with liberalism — is flame-throwing really required or even helpful?
Granted, there is lots of latitude for different types of personalities, and there are (a few) preachers who have the rare gifts that allow them to be both fiery and edifying. However, that is actually pretty rare, and probably not something most of us should aspire to.
But fundamentalists went way overboard on the “vapid bluster” approach for decades. Perhaps, because they were fighting liberalism, they assumed the ends justified the means. Thankfully, those days are mostly over. The market has made that determination, if you have not noticed.
I thank God that men like Drs. McCune, Houghton, Turk, Delnay and Domokos have modeled an entirely different approach — even when it was perhaps a minority position within fundamentalism. They all went to leading, mainstream academic institutions and showed us that there was a theological understanding of fundamentalism that was worth following.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
The more stuff you fight over the less each fight matters and the less power each victory carries (do it often enough and the “victories” start to actually be self defeating).
I think the ‘kinder-gentler’ KB is talking about here is feisty enough when it’s time to contend for the faith.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
“It’s time to take off our funny nose and glasses and go SOOOUULL WINNINGGGG…!!”
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] But fundamentalists went way overboard on the “vapid bluster” approach for decades. Perhaps, because they were fighting liberalism, they assumed the ends justified the means. Thankfully, those days are mostly over. The market has made that determination, if you have not noticed.Paul, I am not for ‘vapid blustering’ but I think that what you say here is largely a caricature. As I read McCune’s comment, he seems to be saying that if leadership had been left to the kindler/gentler souls amongst fundamentalists there wouldn’t have been any fundamentalism at all.
The way to stand, however, is to stand for Bible truth regardless of the slings and arrows that come your way, realizing that most of the slings and arrows will come from your ‘friends’. Try criticizing Driscoll/MacDonald and see how many ‘friends’ will leap to their defense and call you unloving and narrow-minded. Note how many of John MacArthur’s ‘friends’ have done just that.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] Paul, I am not for ‘vapid blustering’ but I think that what you say here is largely a caricature.Don,
You have a lot here in a short space that would take lots of time to unravel, and I do not have time to respond line-by-line.
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.
Praise God, we have seen great progress on these fronts, but we have to remain vigilant.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I think some are engaging in a bit of false dichotomy above. Can one not be both kind, honest, humble, meek, and still earnest in contention for the faith?
Are those described above necessarily milquetoast types? I’d guess not.
I totally fail to see what is inflammatory about the term K/G, and regret that it injured your sensitivities. Even more baffling is the etiology of your “milquetoast” query (talk about inflammatory!). True, one can certainly be gentle, meek, humble, kind, honest and earnest. To describe the past and present fundamentalist contenders for truth, the Scriptures, separation, et al, as simply “earnest” is probably a little too flaccid, given the enormity of the stakes then and now. The personalities and controversies have changed, as life and events always do, but I wonder if the bottom line issues and polarities differ absolutely from what they were with the New Evangelicalism. Lowell’s dictum that “new occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth” seems to be unfolding before us in some corners of the fundamentalist idea/movement. Calls went out several years ago now for new, fresh, in-depth and scholarly analytical penetrations of the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation and an overhaul of sorts of the history of fundamentalism for our changing times. These appear to have yielded a somewhat confusing and conflicting set of ideas, at least to some of us a little longer in the tooth. Fundamentalist leaders of old were always informed that their proposals, parlimentary procedures, preaching, writing, voting and the like in preserving the faith of our fathers could be done much more nicely, positively and Christ-like. But Jesus on many an occasion was more than “earnest” and seemingly even much more than the “holy Jesus meek and mild.” As RVC was wont to say, somewhat parabolically,”Don’t try to be more Christian than Christ.”
Rolland McCune
And now everybody knows in which direction my musical interests formerly wended! :O
Discussion