Archival Series: Kevin Bauder, “Hauling Out the Trash” in Your Own Home, First!

In recent days [Feb. 2013] we have been working our way through a critical review of Dr. Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter to Lance Ketchum.  Just before we tie off the Kevin Bauder, Al Mohler and Manhattan Declaration issue we are going to take another look at a comment made by Kevin Bauder in the discussion thread under his Open Letter at Sharper Iron.

In our previous article we noted that Dr. Kevin Bauder stated there is a,

“Duty to clean up the FBFI,”
 and that he (Kevin Bauder) is “the last and best hope for old Fundamentalist institutions like the FBFI?”1

Returning to Kevin Bauder’s comment he continued with,

“…because it [FBFI] is my home, I have a duty to take responsibility for cleaning it up… But you can’t clean up without occasionally hauling out the trash.”2

Kevin wants to clean up and haul the trash out for the FBFI. Kevin presumes to have a mandate, decreed by none, to clean up the FBFI. Instead, he should begin with a serious assessment of what has become of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (CBTS) while and since he was its president.  Whoever and whatever policies that authorized, supported and participated in Central Seminary’s official participation at John Piper’s Desiring God conference would be a good place to begin.3  

John Piper believes and teaches that the 1^st century miraculous sign gifts (the modern Charismatic movement) are active and should be sought after today.  John Piper eagerly promotes and ministers alongside Rick Warren and Mark Driscoll.  His cooperative ministry gives credibility to their aberrant theologies, ecumenism and contemporary ministry practices. With CBTS active in Piper’s conference they are now lend tacit endorsement to Piper’s theology, associations with Warren and Driscoll and the worldly methods of ministry of all three.

Now, consider this: Kevin recently applauded his alma mater, Faith Baptist Bible College (FBBC), for removing Saylorville Church (formerly Baptist) from their approved list. Students can no longer attend there. He titled the article “A Tale of 2 Colleges.” Here’s the irony – he applauds FBBC while his own seminary is displaying as an official vendor at Piper’s Desiring God.

Kevin Bauder establishes himself as a critic who will not accept proper partnership in order to responsibly deal with issues. His public criticism of the “place he belongs,” is like the husband or wife who likes to criticize their family while with strangers – public criticism of one’s family is typically considered unkind and unethical – especially if one is not invested in the family.

Open Commentary to Kevin Bauder:

Kevin: You were CBTS president for seven years.  You are a remaining member of Central Seminary’s dwindling faculty. Do your duty where you are!  Take some responsibility for hauling out the trash where you find it in your own home (CBTS).  In light of CBTS’s partnership with John Piper’s ministry you have a big job ahead of you. Begin with cleaning up the home that bears the marks of your presidency. Do the work in your own home before you presume to clean up another’s (FBFI) house where you are merely a dues paying guest.

LM

Originally published Feb. 11, 2013.

Footnotes:

1) Dr. Kevin Bauder at Sharper Iron, February 2, 2013.

SI is a pseudo-fundamentalist site.  In its years of existence SI has never posted any main page article that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and uplifting for fundamentalists.  See, “SI May Fit the Description of Being 'PSEUDO-FUNDAMENTALIST’.”

2) Ibid.

3) What Does Central Seminary & John Piper’s Desiring God Conference Have in Common? Each Other!

Dr. Sam Horn is the current president of CBTS. In the current President’s Corner newsletter he wrote, “For us [CBTS], the road ahead involves a renewed dedication to the original vision and mission of our seminary.” The original vision and mission of Central Seminary never included participating in conferences to hobnob with New Evangelical non-separatists; Charismatics and ecumenical compromisers, such as you have with John Piper.

Church Tramps by Dr. Clay Nuttall

Our readers probably thought I had run out of subjects to fire people up. Actually, there is still a long list of these waiting to be tackled. This subject is not new, and I found a statement by J.C. Ryle that makes the point for this article. “There is an amazing ignorance of scripture among many and a consequent want of established, solid religion (theology). In no other way can I account for the ease with which people are, like children, ‘tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine.’ (Ephesians 4:14). Because of this plague of biblical ignorance, people are drawn quickly into all kinds of error.” Bishop Ryle goes on to speak to the impact of this ignorance:

“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.” (Holiness: Its Nature and Hindrances)

Ryle never intended his words to be prophetic, but they do aptly describe that situation in which we find ourselves mired. In years gone by, there were large groups of people who traveled from church to church in search of something different. They usually did not last long at any one place; their heads were soon turned to something new. They were often referred to as “church tramps.” Not everyone had a need for that kind of novelty, and many families remained a part of their local church as their generations passed on. These people were strengthened by strong pulpits and regular meaningful Bible studies. They put down their roots and “rolled with the punches.”

THE WAY IT IS TODAY

The “tramp syndrome” has a new face today. The people moving from church to church are more like a parade. The word spreads like wildfire that there is a new show in town, a better form of entertainment. The problem is fed by the mega-church mentality. After all, it is so easy to move on; who knows, and who even cares when you are gone? This syndrome demonstrates a terrible lack of integrity, because so many churches today have camouflaged their names so as to hide doctrinal error. That is patently dishonest. Folks who are ignorant of a theology that is biblical slide in and out of those churches, carrying more and more error with them.

The strange thing is that anyone who knows the scriptures and wants to participate in God’s holiness are in big trouble if they attempt to point these things out. They are tagged as “unloving troublemakers,” while the real villains are those who profit from their ignorance. Many young, unlearned men have been caught in this flood. They are sure that if they follow the religious gurus, the churches they lead will grow and become well-known. Most of the time, however, these men end up being tools of their own destruction. They have an ungodly disdain for the history of a church, its heritage, and its doctrinal standard and instead become immersed in their own trickery and smitten with the god of change. Many of these wayward ministries end up closing, and others wither on a long road to a certain death.

GET TO THE POINT

Over the past year, I have observed this tragedy from a personal point of view. Looking back over fifty-four years of ministry and thirty-seven as a senior pastor, we tried to maximize learning that would help people to know the scripture. Everyone knows something about the Bible, but that is not the same thing as actually knowing the Bible. Knowing Bible stories or narrative is good, but one needs to know the God of the Bible and the meaning of the revelation that God has given us. To accomplish this we used, in the main, an expository pulpit to study books of the Bible verse by verse. In addition to the Sunday school with some excellent teachers, there were all kinds of Bible studies for every level. We opened a Bible institute and created a strong Christian school with six years of intensive Bible study. Then there were Bible-reading projects, several radio programs, and Bible conferences - all to study the scriptures. But it seems that I failed.

How could it be that so many people who had the opportunity to feed on the Word through all those years could have missed the point or walked away from the basic truths they had received? Many of them have moved on to churches where doctrinal error is at the heart of what they believe. Some have even gone where cultic teaching is dispensed (on the sly), but those people don’t appear to have a clue.

I know all the pat answers. Of course they are responsible for their own choices, but if they had the information and if they chose to believe it, how could they tolerate blatant abuse of the scriptures? Perhaps it is no longer important, or the entertainment atmosphere has dulled their senses. It could be that many individuals were not saved to begin with, since that is a widespread problem in all churches.

While I grieve at the embracing of doctrinal error by those who have fallen, I must admit that my heart has been encouraged by those who did recognize a theology that is biblical. These folks practiced holiness and walked away from nonsense and the open teaching of error. They were wise enough to catch the undertone of heretical teaching, but then found it extremely difficult to find a place where the Bible is not taught as a sort of “fill-in-the-blanks” book.

THE ANSWER

While the questions may be many, the one answer is still the same: there is no substitute for immersing oneself in the Holy Book. Pastors must find more ways to get people into the Book. True believers cannot be satisfied with a few minutes of real Bible content in their Sunday activities. There must be a constant hunger for truth, because this alone will sound the alarm when error is taught.

SHEPHERD’S STAFF – November, 2014

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible. Shepherd's Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com

Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

Must All Christians be Calvinist or Arminian?

Just over a week ago, at his Pedestrian Christian blog, Brother Alexander Guggenheim posted an article on a subject matter that I believe merits a wide reading among Fundamental Baptists.  I refer you to his article, Must All Christians be a Calvinist or Arminian? The Infectious Assertion by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary’s Bill Combs or When Devotion to a School of Theology Leads to Impoverished Reasoning. The following three paragraphs are from the article’s introduction.

“If you are uncertain of my aim, allow me to be precise. Over at Theologically Driven, a blog of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (who are self-identified Baptist Fundamentalists), one of the seminary professors, Bill Combs, posted an article, Why You Must Be a Calvinist or an Arminian (and this did not stand alone, it actually augmented an earlier post by another professor, Mark Snoeberger who made a related assertion). This may seem but a blip on a radar, but then a plane crashing into a building is, too. Thus, I want you to stop and consider the degree of concern which this warrants, if you consider yourself a Baptist Fundamentalist, a Christian who identifies with Calvinism via DBTS style, someone who intends on attending DBTS or simply a Christian interested in the issue, itself.”

“I posted a response to Bill Comb’s post at Theologically Driven which was up for a while but then taken down. Nothing rude or personal was contained in the rebuttal. I do think, however, that it shed a rather embarrassing light on Comb’s assertion(s) and consequently Mr. Combs and DBTS who would endorse such an idea, thus, its removal.”

“I certainly expect binary or black/white thinking to abound in Calvinistic acolytes such as this group, [Team Pyro]. However, for a seminary professor who has demonstrated capacity for more considerate paradigms and whose profession ought to reflect it, there is a reason for real concern, especially for his students and those in his sphere of influence. Therefore, I have made this rebuttal post at my blog for all my readers and beyond because this issue is critical in how it is framed and how it affects theological discourse in the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian community.”

I encourage all guests to read, in its entirety, Must All Christians be a Calvinist or Arminian? The Infectious Assertion by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary’s Bill Combs or When Devotion to a School of Theology Leads to Impoverished Reasoning.

Yours faithfully,


LM

*See comment #1 in the thread for Brother Guggenheim’s personal biography

Where Are SBC Leaders Headed: Homosexuality?

This article addresses an issue arising from the Southern Baptist Convention's ERLC1 conference "The Gospel, Homosexuality and the Future of Marriage," held in Nashville, October 2014.

Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler addressed more than 1,000 evangelical pastors and others attending the three-day conference hosted by the SBC's Ethics & religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, stated that he was wrong years ago when he said same-sex attraction could be changed.2

With Al Mohler's track record of movement toward New Evangelicalism* (see below) there is the possibility of another compromise of Scripture in the making.  Does anybody sincerely believe that Mohler's statement that he was wrong about same-sex attraction could be changed will be as far as the SBC goes on the homosexuality issue?**  In my opinion, this is simply the first of what will be a series of incremental steps, over a long period of time, toward increasing tolerance for homosexuality in the church. 

In a previous article, from the Nashville convention, it was reported that,

"[Matthew] Vines met privately with Mohler, who had written an e-book response to Vines, titled "God and the Gay Christian?" Both men said the meeting was a cordial discussion of Scripture and they planned to stay in touch. Separately, about two dozen Christian advocates for gay acceptance and evangelical leaders who participated in the conference also met privately Monday night. Participants agreed they would not comment afterward."3

Met privately, no comment afterward, more dialogue to come. The Bible is very explicit (1 Cor. 5:1-5; Rom. 1:26-28; Rom. 16:17-18; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thess. 4:3; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15). Yet, Al Mohler, as has been his pattern, will dismiss, ignore these God-given mandates. Instead Mohler will keep up a dialogue where there should be none other than to plead with the LGBT participants to recognize the authority of God, see their lifestyle as He does, and call on them to repent of it.

Why does this matter to Independent Fundamental Baptists? 
Because there are men in IFB circles who for years have been "heaping lavish praise" on the so-called "conservative" evangelicals, especially Al Mohler.  With essentially no warnings whatsoever of the serious doctrinal and practical pitfalls of the evangelicals Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran (among others) have encouraged learning from, attending the conferences of and cooperative ministry with "conservative" evangelicals, including, but not limited to Al Mohler, John Piper and Mark Dever. Instead of at least offering serious cautions along with their lavish praise for evangelicals Bauder, Doran and the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron site have ignored, tolerated, allowed for or excused virtually every doctrinal aberration, ecumenical compromise and cultural relativism. 

Bauder and Doran hold up the star personalities of evangelicalism as examples to emulated.  Under the guise of a so-called "separation in academic contexts" we have seen scores of younger men encouraged to neuter, water down or dismiss the doctrine of biblical separation for the sake of cooperation with compromising evangelicals. Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, et., al. have by their own example encouraged the next generation to cooperate with evangelicals, and thereby tragically put them on the road toward New Evangelicalism.

Pastors, Christians in leadership in the church, school, homes: The apostle Paul's admonition to the Ephesians elders is as practical and timely today as it was to the first century church, and I close with his admonition.

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears," (Acts 20:28-31).

Yours faithfully,


LM

Related Reading:
Just days before the SBC's conference on homosexuality Al Mohler, on behalf of the SBC, received as a gift the former Northland Baptist Bible College (NIU). Very sad. See, Northland Joins Southern: Culmination of a Modern Day Tragedy.

*Al Mohler sat as Chairman for the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville, KY.
Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration, and never repented of it

Al Mohler Endorsed RAP music for the Church
Al Mohler in Cooperative Ministry with Rick Warren
Al Mohler Joins Hands with the Mormon Church

**I have no dogmatic position on whether same-sex attraction can be changed, I don't know.

Footnotes:
1) ERLC: Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
2) News Now: Where are Southern Baptist Leaders Headed re: Homosexuality?
3) News Now: Southern Baptists tell pastors: Hold Line on Gays

Singing Lies by Dr. Clay Nuttall

The underlying purpose of Shepherd’s Staff is to create discussion. By choosing controversial subjects, we often manage to “tick off” some segment of our readers. That is done on purpose, since it is at the heart of what we do and also because it gets people’s attention. This issue is bound to get just about everyone thinking, because it has to do with the lyrics of music used in churches today.

Our concern for truth in music is not confined to what is often called “contemporary” music. One only has to pick up a well-worn old hymnal to find endless illustrations of non-truth in some of the lyrics. An error, no matter how old, is still an error. While some statements might be borderline, there are those that are downright offensive to scripture. Some of this has to do with ignorance on the part of the writer, while others are a deliberate repetition of doctrinal error held by religious groups or movements.

Old standard hymns have often reflected a brand of universalism. Many current items of music sound like a gathering of proof texts thrown into a blender, in that they do not represent the clear statements of scripture. Some of the old, as well as the new, are so egregious in theological error that they approach heresy. Music is often chosen just because we like it, when it’s “foot stompin’ fun” or rises from a current rock style. In pleasing ourselves, however, we may fail to please God. Frankly, God is not pleased when we are singing lies and then daring to call it worship.

SPLITTING HAIRS

The serious Bible student will pick up on doctrinal error, even in music. People who are bent on having their own way and accommodating the flesh argue “What's the big deal, anyway? The big deal is that God has condemned false witness, lies, and the doctrines of man and devils.

The big deal is that God has condemned false witness, lies, and the doctrines of man and devils.

Does it really matter why people write and sing lies? Many song writers don’t have the slightest idea about what God has clearly said on certain subjects. If it sounds good and feels good, it has got to be good. Ignorance is a terrible thing, but ignorance of God’s Word could be eternally fatal. The majority of worship leaders - past and present - do not have enough theological understanding to know the difference. They often plead that they carefully go over lyrics to make sure they agree with the Bible. The question is, how can you candle music by the Bible when you know so little of the Bible?

The underlying problem here is that church members in this day and age seem to know less and less about what God has said. The translation issue is one of the reasons. Another is dependence on elite scholars for theological answers. Those who tout excellence in grammatical interpretation can’t agree, and they leave us wondering if anyone could possibly know what God has said. Thankfully, every believer can know what the clear teaching of God’s Word is, but many are too lazy to expend the energy necessary to do so.

EXAMPLES OF SINGING LIES

You are keenly aware that I avoid using names in this publication, because the minute I do, those who worship that person will stop reading. In this situation, however, a few theological subjects may be able to put us to shame in our lust for entertainment when we offend God’s Word. The sloppy use of the word “kingdom” is high on the list. It is sung with boring repetition and constantly thrown into conversations. What kingdom are you talking or singing about? Even an elementary student would know that there is more than one. A Bible student might know that there is the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of Darkness, the Old Testament Theocratic Kingdom, and even The Millennial, Messianic, Davidic Kingdom, just to begin with. So, which kingdom are you talking about? You say it doesn’t matter? It may not to you, but it does matter to God when we sing lies. You say that many good people disagree. The Bible isn’t about good people; it is about a good God. The liberal crowd used to talk about “growing" or "building” the kingdom or “enhancing” the kingdom. What kind of arrogance is that? God is building His own Kingdom, and He neither needs nor wants your help. I'm sure you get the point.

The things that are missing from “misunderstood” worship are just as dangerous. When was the last time you heard a song, hymn, or chorus that clearly taught the any-moment return of Christ for His church, the Blessed Hope? Erroneous prophecy provides a boatload of lyrics, and so much of it is error. If it isn’t what the text clearly states, then it is error and a lie.

WHY WOULD YOU ARGUE FOR LIES?

You don’t have to listen to me; I know that lies are popular and are well hidden in the skin of a truth. The Bible is not a dart board, and you don’t get to create your own truth. The Bible has nothing but truth in it; we don’t have the luxury of private interpretation. Yes, I read the article last week, even if you didn’t. If we are not careful about the plain, clear statements of the Bible, how could anyone believe what we have to say about any part of it?

It seems to me that each of us needs to back up and ask, “Am I actually singing a lie?” “Does it matter to me?” “Does it matter to God?” My wife and I just returned from several months on the road. I could not count the times when, in various churches, I simply stopped singing and thought, “Am I the only one in this room who realizes that we are singing lies?” All I ask is that you think, and don’t run from the obvious.

SHEPHERD’S STAFF – October, 2014

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible. Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com or http://shepherdstaff.wordpress.com.

Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

Northland Joins Southern Seminary: Culmination of a Modern Day Tragedy

Not that today’s joint NIU, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) announcement should come as any surprise, but NIU made it official, and has come under the umbrella of the SBTS.  Is it, however, simply a “strategic partnership,” or has something deeper transpired here?

Daniel Patz, president of Northland since 2013, attended the meeting and told trustees “This is a gift from Northland to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. But really, I feel almost, even more so, it is gift to us in order for this legacy and this mission to continue....”

The NIU website carries the same announcement and quote from Daniel Patz. The Southern News headline, “Southern Seminary Trustees Accept Gift of Wisconsin University Campus.”

From those joint statements one might reasonably conclude that NIU has been sold to or otherwise turned over to the Southern Baptist Convention.

NIU has become the property of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary!

In the same Southern News release the irony of this note should not be lost, “Trustees also celebrated the 20^th anniversary of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Ministry.” Billy Graham, the high priest of New Evangelicalism, honored by SBTS.  Today, the former Northland Baptist Bible College (NBBC) is now in formal partnership with Graham’s legacy of betraying the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

For the many fine former NBBC faculty, staff and graduates this is indeed a tragic and closing chapter for their alma mater.  Northland once was unique and unwavering in its fidelity to the whole counsel of God.  Under Matt Olson’s tenure as president the school was steadily lead into compromise and ultimately ruined for the cause of Christ.

The slide that Matt Olson initiated finally landed Northland in the mire.  One need look no further than Daniel Patz warmly shaking hands with Al Mohler to understand that NIU has aligned itself with a modern day leader of New Evangelical like compromise.

Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration

What Does John Piper and Al Mohler Have in Common? Rick Warren!

Al Mohler Joins Hands with the Mormon Church

So ends the once fine ministry of Northland Baptist Bible College.  We have been witness to a modern day tragedy for the New Testament church.

LM

Links to the Announcements:
Northland Joins SouthernSeminary

Southern Seminary Trustees Accept Gift of Wisconsin University Campus

Related Reading from NIU:

A Woman Preaches in Northland’s Chapel

Is NIU “Unchanged?”

NIU Plunges Headlong Into Liberal Entertainment Ministry

Is NIU Opposed to the Modern Day Charismatic Movement?

Kevin Bauder: Revisiting The "Rant & Tirade" of 2009

A few weeks ago Pastor Brian Ernsberger posted an article titled, So, Who Exactly is Critical of Allegory? Really!

On July 18, 2014, Dr. Kevin Bauder posted an article critiquing the national FBFI conference held a little more than a month before in June. Now, right up front I want to note that I too was at the conference…. Towards the closing of his article, Dr. Bauder gets to the real reason for his writing, the criticism of Calvinism. Now, I give him credit for coming to this in a much better tone than he did back in the early summer of 2009 when he ranted and ran off on his tirade against about five minutes of Pastor Danny Sweatt’s message at the southeast regional FBFI conference in the spring of that year. Back then, Dr. Bauder didn’t just tirade and rant in one article but did so in two articles and finished with snippets from his inbox about his self-made brouhaha.

From the archives is a three part series, a record of and reaction to Kevin Bauder's "tirade, rant, self-made brouhaha." From June 2009 please read, Even More than "Nuff Said" to Warrant Kevn Bauder's Removal from the FBFI Annual Fellowship Platform.

“Some Would Like Me to be Removed From the Platform of the FBFI this Summer,” (Dr. Kevin Bauder).

In recent days there has been a great deal of controversy and sharp contention among Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB) within and around the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI).

In my previous article I issued, A Call for Dr. Kevin Bauder’s Removal From the National Platform of the FBFI Annual Fellowship. That followed The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!, which at the time I thought would be a single treatment of that particular issue.

Among other reasons given in my two previous articles for recommending Dr. Kevin Bauder’s removal from the national platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship included:

1) His rhetoric about Dr. Bob Jones Jr. has never been retracted. Dr. Bob Jr. was a big part of the FBF in yesteryear. Should an FBFI speaker be allowed to publicly (as one man noted to me) “throw Dr. Jones under the bus and nothing be done about it?” What message is sent when an open attack against Dr. Bob Jones is tolerated with no response or consequences whatsoever?

2) Missionary John Himes (grandson of John R. Rice) wrote,

“Again, I am very disappointed at the language Bauder uses against his fellow fundamentalists, evidently chiefly against Rice: ‘pugilistic and bellicose,’ ‘alpha males,’ ‘the big boys,’ ‘bullies,’ ‘chieftains,’ etc. Is this the kind of language a fundamentalist leader should use?”

3) And as I noted,

“With an opportunity before him (Bauder) to promote unity, healing and reconciliation in the IFB community Dr. Bauder chose to pursue a different tact. Instead he further polarized factions, alienated many and fueled further division among men in and around the FBFI. I can’t imagine a more unnecessary, unwise and ill-timed moment as this juncture in the chain of events for Bauder to publish sharp criticism of widely respected men from our own IFB heritage.”

4) And contra to the FBFI’s call for men to Speak the Truth in Love,

“Dr. Bauder’s criticisms of Dr. Jones and Dr. Rice was not speech that edifies. It was not a display of Christ-like love. Bauder’s tone was not the sound of humble integrity. The caricatures of Jones and Rice, while barely skirting personal attacks, certainly did not honor the Lord or those men. It is irrefutable that the speech with which Dr. Bauder described Drs. Jones and Rice is antithetical to what the FBFI leadership called for.”

If Dr. Bauder had limited his commentary to the first article, Time to Speak Up,  there would be some degree of just cause for his removal from the national platform. His second Nuff Said, a continuation and expansion of the same themes as the first, raised grave concern over his appearing on the national platform and legitimized calls for serious consideration that he be removed.

Following Bauder’s second article, Nuff Said, one might have assumed enough had been said by Bauder, but he had not yet, Said Nuff.

On Friday (5/29) Kevin Bauder, at Nick of Time published another and third installment of what has become a series. The title is, From the In Box.

In Bauder’s From the In Box, after some opening commentary, he published a long series of private correspondence he received in regard to his two previous articles, Time to Speak Out & Nuff Said. Bauder stated that he,

“…believes in giving one’s opponents a hearing…that I (Bauder) would give my opponents the final word in any discussion. For this series, I am doing the same thing. I have made a point of including words of opposition from both sides—and I will offer no rejoinder.”

I did an informal content count of the e-mails Bauder presented. You will find 35 responses that support Bauder’s two previous articles. There are 4 that object and 5 others I felt were neutral. How does that kind of lopsided numerical make up constitute a sincere effort to give his opponents a hearing and/or the final word?

Making matters worse some letters continue Bauder’s critical themes of historic fundamentalists. Some are a continuation of angry reactions to the message by Dr. Sweatt. Calls for greater censure of Dr. Sweatt by the FBFI were included. Following are examples of the more egregious letters Bauder posted,

“As a young fundamentalist and a Calvinist, I cannot thank you enough for going to bat against the big talkers who are spoiling fundamentalism. It is refreshing to see a man in leadership such as yourself speaking out against what I perceive to be atrocities committed in the name of Christ.” (bold mine)

“The Calvinism issue is definitely one of our questions, and I thank you for addressing it. But, I believe that the greater issue at stake is how long will this ‘duplicitous and abusive leadership...pulpit tirades, doctrinal tomfoolery, and political gamesmanship’ be allowed and tolerated in mainstream fundamentalism?” (bold mine)

How does Bauder’s inclusion of incendiary and vitriolic commentary such as that contribute to a constructive, healing discussion of the issues? Why would Bauder include statements as extreme as these?

Occasionally, I receive articles for my blog that include statements I feel are excessive and needlessly inflammatory. In good conscience before God, to protect the character of men I disagree with and to avoid needlessly stirring emotions I revise or remove inflammatory commentary. If Bauder had any thought that the e-mails cited above might be over-the-top he would not have included them. Is it possible he let those anonymous men say for him, what he could never get away with saying himself?

Dr. Bauder publishing anonymous correspondence from other men perpetuates controversy. Why does Bauder bolster his views and flank himself with others men’s private e-mail? Does he think piling on more rhetoric legitimizes his own? Is he lobbying to keep his seat on the FBFI Annual Fellowship platform?

It has become clear through various on-going blog discussions that most of the men who were offended by Dr. Sweatt’s message are not satisfied with the FBFI’s Speak the Truth in Love response. In Nuff Said Bauder did acknowledge, “We need to give credit where credit is due.... The leadership did what they needed to do for this moment. They took a step that was intermediate but adequate.” There are, however, others who are agitating for stronger more immediate punitive measures to be taken against Dr. Sweatt, to IMO make an example of him. For example from the e-mails,

“The FBFI statement is either arrogance or timidity. And I think they’re bed partners, frankly.”

“When I read the FBFI statement, I thought that it was a non-statement that was laughably vague, yet here you describe it as courageous!”

No other recognized “leader” I am aware of in the IFB community or featured speaker for the upcoming FBFI Annual Fellowship is at the present publicly airing grievances (his own and those of others that were meant to be private). No other IFB leader is stirring the pot of controversy, taking on a political tone and essentially ignoring the FBFI’s recent attempt to calm the waters. Kevin Bauder is the only recognizable leader perpetuating controversy in the public forum. Other men who are slated to speak at the annual fellowship surely have a position on current events. They are, however, keeping out of the public fray most likely preferring private prayerful discussion. However, we have in Bauder, a high profile seminary president, engaging in public blog commentary (blog warfare as some call it).

Calls for Kevin Bauder’s removal from the national platform are not doctrinally motivated. Instead we have a pattern of behavior from Bauder that is working against unity, harmony and reconciliation in the IFB community.

Kevin Bauder’s on-going commentary has fostered hard feelings and is contributing to a polarization of factions within the broad base of IFB believers and the FBFI membership in particular.

Dr. Bauder has fashioned himself into a lightning rod for controversy! He has done nothing less than *increase the voltage being introduced into the atmosphere of the IFB community. On his own initiative he has made himself a flashpoint of controversy. Bauder’s perpetuating and expanding controversy is a major contributor to what is becoming a “toxic climate” for fundamentalism. In my opinion Bauder’s From the In Box, his third foray into controversy, erases any lingering doubt as to the necessity of his being relieved of any speaking responsibilities at the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship.

I do not envy the difficult position that Bauder has put the FBFI leadership in. The FBFI is at a crossroads. Whatever the FBFI decides on Bauder’s appearance at the annual fellowship there will certainly be some level of fallout. Concerns over potential political fallout must be set aside. Name and reputation must be set aside. The only question is: What is the right thing to do?

With his third article Dr. Kevin Bauder has Said (way more than) Nuff to warrant his removal from the national platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship. There is sufficient reason...to call for and/or agree that Kevin Bauder must be removed from the platform of the [2009] FBFI Annual Fellowship.

 

LM

*I chose the photo of lightning bolts over the Chicago skyline for a purpose. In Bauder’s Time to Speak Out article speaking of, “a more historic species of fundamentalism” he wrote,

“Fortunately, I do not have to look very far to find a better, more biblically faithful, and more historic species of fundamentalism…. It shows up here and there in the toxic climate of Illinois….”

Kevin Bauder is creating a highly charged “toxic climate” in Chicago, Illinois for the FBFI Annual Fellowship.

Important Related Reading:
In February 2013 Kevin Bauder incredibly annouced that he believed it is his "duty" and "responsibility" to clean up the FBFI. His self-declard duty to clean up the FBFI included "hauling out the trash." This is typical elitist, arrogance laced rhetoric from the pen of Kevin Bauder. See, Kevin Bauder: Haul Out the Trash in Your Own Home, First!

Updated (2/11/10):

I attended the FBFI Annual Fellowship in 2009. During the Q&A Symposium fears that Kevin Bauder might once again launch another unprovoked attack against historic Fundamentalism were realized.

Toward the end of the Q&A Bauder dodged a direct question put to him by symposium moderator Dr. John Dr. Vaughn about the conservative evangelicals, which was the subject of the Q&A. His dodge extended to an open attempt to besmirch Bob Jones University for its having hosted various candidates for political office.

Bauder just could not let his three previous attacks on the legacy of Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice be “Nuff said.”

The irony is that current BJU president Stephen Jones was ill and, therefore, could not appear in the Symposium as scheduled. So, Bauder lowered the crosshairs on the most recognized personality from BJU that was available to him on the panel: Dr Mark Minnick.

Dr. Minnick was obviously uncomfortable with Bauder ambushing him with criticism of BJU administration decisions and calling on him to explain it. Dr. Minnick graciously tried to leave the discussion for the BJU administration to answer since he (Minnick) it not a BJU administrator and cannot speak for the administration, but Bauder kept up the pressure.

IMO Bauder, with that final performance, gave all the reason necessary to ensure he should never again be given a platform presence at an FBFI sponsored event.