I. F. B. BACKWARDS: An Explanation by Rick Flanders

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have received, and avoid them.  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly: and by good words and fair speeches deceive the simple.”

(Romans 16:17-18)

Dr. Rick Flanders

Have you heard critical references by Christian people to the “I. F. B.”?  In recent years these initials have been used in a negative way to refer to the “Independent Fundamental Baptists.”  Some especially angry folks even call this religious movement “the I. F. B. cult.”  Of course something must be wrong with condemning these people as if they are a single entity when, by definition, each of their churches is “independent.”  Church-goers and would-be church-goers have been misled about the people and the churches classified in this way, and a reasonable explanation of who they are, what they represent,  is in order, and, for some, even overdue.  I am a member of one of these “I. F. B.” churches, and hope I can clear things up so that folks can make more reasonable decisions about us.  The best way to explain the “I. F. B.” churches is for me to look at the letters backwards, and explain them from my own experience.

 

BAPTIST

You might say that my introduction to Christianity began in the church where my parents were members when I was born.  I was christened into the denomination and taken to Sunday school and church year after year.  But that early experience with what I was told was the religion of Christ was a false experience since our denomination had long since departed from the faith of their founders.  I thought I was a Christian because I had been baptized as a baby and joined our church as an adolescent, but nobody becomes a real Christian that way.

Then I finally heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ presented to me in an understandable way, and was drawn by God to receive Jesus Christ personally as my Savior and Lord.  According to the Bible, and my own transformation, I was “born again” and entered into a new life and a real knowledge of the living God.  Then, as I studied my Bible, I began to grow.

A friend soon introduced me to a Baptist church, and I started attending it because I was certainly not going back to the theologically “liberal” church that had kept me in darkness for so long.  I had heard the Gospel through a radio ministry, and now was ready to start attending a Bible-teaching church.  So I thought I might try the Baptists.

I was also reading the Bible every day, and came to see in the book of Matthew that baptism was not the same as I had seen it in church growing up.  They baptized converts in the New Testament after and because they had repented and believed.  Babies haven’t repented and believed in Jesus Christ, and babies were not baptized in the New Testament accounts.  Also it was evident that those baptized in the Bible were not sprinkled with a little water.  They were taken down to the river to be baptized, and went into the water and came up.  It looked to me as if they had been dipped.  So I asked the Baptist preacher to answer some questions for me about baptism, and he came to my house and showed me clearly that those to be baptized are those who had turned to Christ, and that baptism was by immersion in water, representing the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  By being baptized a new believer was identifying himself with Christ, and confessing Him as Lord and Savior.  So I wanted to do it, and arrangements were made for me to be baptized the Bible way at the Baptist church.  I was the first person I ever saw baptized by dipping!  In this way I became a Baptist, and part of a Baptist church.

Historically, Baptists are Christians who seek to follow the Bible in every way.  The Baptist movement is based on this principle.  Really, every true believer in Jesus should be a Baptist, and every church of Jesus should operate according to what is regarded as the Baptist distinctives, because they are the Biblical practices.  I have no problem with being a Baptist.  The label “Baptist” is defined historically as referring to Christians who follow the practices of the churches in the New Testament.

Look at Matthew 3:1-17, Acts 2:41-47, and Acts 8:35-40, and Romans 6:3-4.

FUNDAMENTAL

The church that nurtured me as a new Christian, the people who baptized me and taught me my first lessons about living the new life, was affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.  I knew nothing about this organization, which was and is the largest non-Catholic denomination in the United States, and had no real opinions for or against it.  But after just a few years of serving in my church, I was disturbed about what was going on in our denomination’s affairs.  First of all, our church and my pastor had no problem with the pastor or the church from which I came.  My old church and denomination were “liberals” theologically, and did not insist that a Christian must believe in the deity of Jesus, His virgin birth, the necessity of the new birth, or even His resurrection as a literal bodily event.  They did not believe that the Bible is always accurate, nor in the miracles of the Bible, and yet my Baptist church regarded them as Christians and their church as preaching the Gospel.  Of course, I knew different.

The radio ministry that had led me to Christ identified itself as not only Christian but also as “Fundamentalist.” As a result I had plenty of Fundamentalist influence throughout my Christian experience, even though I did not really understand it at first.  The Fundamentalist movement began in the early twentieth century as a grass-roots reaction against the infiltration and influence of liberal theology and liberal ministers in the great evangelical (Gospel-preaching) denominations of America. Liberals and liberalism preached a “social gospel” and sought to redeem society rather than individuals, and allowed that some of the cherished doctrines of our Faith might not be true.  The name Fundamentalist conveys the fact that Fundamentalists insist that Christianity be defined by certain cardinal (and fundamental or essential) doctrines.  It doesn’t allow that a viewpoint represents true Christianity just because it reflects the “spirit of Jesus” or holds to the ethical teachings of Christ.  Christianity is based on the Gospel of Christ, the Fundamentalists say, and that Gospel does and always has taught certain great truths, which are fundamental to it: that the scripture is the written Word of God, infallible and without error; that Jesus is the Son of God and God the Son; that He died as an atonement for our sins; that He arose bodily from the dead; and that sinners are saved only by faith in Him.  There are many more truths in the Bible, but without believing the fundamentals of the Gospel, one is not truly a Christian.  Fundamentalism is the right way to look at Christianity, and forms the basis of the right way to deal with heretics in the church: expel them or separate from churches that won’t.  A series of experiences showed me that the Southern Baptist churches were not distinguishing the truth of the Gospel from false doctrine and false teachers.  I was not only a Baptist but also a Fundamentalist.  Gospel truth is not only to be believed and preached; it is to be cherished as the foundation of Christianity.  I must insist that only those who stood for the fundamentals are Christians.

Look at Romans 16:17-20, First Corinthians 15:1-4, Second Corinthians 11:1-15, Titus 3:9-11, and Jude 3.

INDEPENDENT

It didn’t take long for me to investigate and find that unbelieving liberals were employed by many of our Southern Baptist Convention agencies, and that my tithes and offerings were being used to support them.  So now the issue of affiliation with my beloved local church came to the fore.  I spoke with my pastor respectfully about these problems, and when he offered no solution, I began to look for a Fundamentalist church in our town that did not affiliate, support, or acknowledge as sound ministries, churches, and preachers who did not acknowledge the Bible as the Word of God.  Soon the Lord led me to such a congregation, and I joined it.  This church in North Carolina was the first of a series over the of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches to which I have happily belonged.

Look at Second Corinthians 6:14-18, Ephesians 4:11-16, and Ephesians 5:8-11.

The letters “I. F. B.,” to anyone who knows what he is talking about, do not refer to a denomination, cult, or association.  They stand for important New Testament principles that should be followed by every child of God, and by every Biblical church.

 

Media coverage of certain scandals at particular fundamentalist churches spread the practice of broad-brushing conservative churches in general with the smell of corruption by the use of the term “I. F. B.”  Critics of fundamentalism picked up this practice and have slandered good people and some of the best churches by using the label with such invalid implications.  The fact of church scandals cannot be denied, in Baptist (both affiliated and independent) churches, as in Catholic institutions and other church organizations.  But it isn’t fair to say that the thousands of Independent Fundament Baptist churches across the nation are all, mostly, or largely corrupt.  Nor can the other charges against the “I. F. B.” that are widely disseminated on the internet or the grapevine be validated.  Some wrongdoing in some of the I. F. B. churches does not say that all of them are guilty.  Saying so is using the old “guilt by association” method of slander.

 

It is also charged by some that the I. F. B. churches have an authoritarian leadership style, for example, but this cannot truthfully be said either, across the board.  When the most authoritarian fundamental churches of the past taught others to adopt their policies, they were strongly rebuked and opposed by many other I. F. B. preachers and publications.  It is said that I. F. B. churches enforce unreasonable and unscriptural standards of life on their members.  Although this charge may be supported against some churches, the truth is that independent churches everywhere teach and support every imaginable level, high or low, of Christian living, both to their credit and to their shame, and it is impossible correctly to generalize about this.  Although some have and do rise up to influence and give leadership to preachers and churches in the absence of ecclesiastical hierarchy (this is natural), it cannot be proven or effectively argued that there is an “I. F. B. cult.”  Some unaffiliated churches and preachers over the years have been influenced by prominent preachers, churches, and institutions to which they have had no binding connection.  We are independent because that we believe Jesus to be Head of each local congregation, and because we refuse to be part of major denominations that have betrayed the Faith.  We are fundamental because we stand for the doctrines that make up the Faith.  We are Baptists because we try to follow Biblical practices as well as Bible doctrines.  We are not I. F. B. because we joined any cult or network.  The Lord and the Bible make us what we are in regard to these important issues.

 

Let every Christian man or woman, and every Christian family, give attention to sound doctrine, and avoid those who depart from it, and let us gather in churches that stand for the truth.  Let us not be influenced by the Enemy to do or say things that are wrong, based on bitterness over problems we faced in the past in a Bible-preaching church.  Let us follow our Lord into a new era of being witnesses to His Person and His Word as His Light in this dark and needy world.

 

 

Dr. Rick Flanders

Revival Ministries

The Q & A Symposium: Let’s Discuss “Conservative” Evangelicalism

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

This (Thursday) morning at the FBFI Annual Fellowship there is a very important discussion taking place. There will be a Q & A Symposium on the subject: Let’s Discuss “Conservative” Evangelicalism?

In the Sword & Trowel Dr. Peter Masters published The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness. The subtitle is especially compelling, “An alarmed assessment by Dr. Masters of the ‘new Calvinism’ promoted among young people in the USA.

In the article Masters warned of a

“...a seriously distorted Calvinism falling far, far short of an authentic life of obedience to a sovereign God.”

And furthermore he stated,

“The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.”

In stark terms Dr. Masters indentifies the disturbing trend toward worldliness and charismatic leanings we are seeing among the “conservative” evangelicals. Many of our younger Reformed IFB men have been willing to look past these trends as they seek closer fellowship with the “conservative” evangelicals.

This timely expose The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness by Dr. Masters should make for a compelling symposium on Thursday morning.

At some point following the close of the symposium I plan to report on what took place and my impressions of the symposium. It will likely be late in the day or Friday morning. I considered a live blog, but I do not want to miss any important questions or commentary while the symposium is under way.

Yours in His service,


Lou Martuneac

Is It Sharp Nuff’ Yet?

Is what “Sharp Nuff’”?

For well over a month there has been sharp contention among Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB). The current controversy is a public boiling over of a debate that has been bubbling just under the surface for years. The controversy was ignited by a message from Dr. Dan Sweatt at the FBFI South Regional fellowship in April. Adding to the friction was Dr. Kevin Bauder’s three consecutive blog responses. (See links below)

With what just transpired many are left wondering if there can be genuine reconciliation and harmony among men within the broader IFB community. If last month’s discussions are a genuine indication of future events, harmony across all of fundamentalism appears to be unlikely.

At another blog I posted a question on the possibility of reconciliation. Several people responded with comments in regard to apologies and repentance (neither of which has been offered to date from either side) such as:

“I don’t think people want reconciliation right now. I don’t think either party is apologizing . . . are they?”

“ Let me also say that I am not sure there can be reconciliation yet.”

“…calling for reconciliation? That may be an underlying desire, but probably not a realistic expectation.”

What if these sentiments are an accurate reflection of the general mindset across Fundamentalism? If no one is seeking reconciliation, and no one finds reason to apologize when others believe an apology is called for, where does the IFB community and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) go from here?


Does the Bible offer a solution to the current state of affairs in IFB circles? Does the Bible provide an example of what can be done when parties are mired down in sharp contention? I believe the Bible provides that answer.

“And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus,” (Acts 15:39).

Has the time come for Independent Fundamental Baptists, who differ sharply over a number of issues, doctrinal and practical, to prayerfully contemplate the example of Paul and Barnabas as a viable option? Has the contention among men who love the Lord, and one another as brothers in Christ, boiled over to the point where in the best interest of the cause of Christ, “… they depart asunder one from the other?”

In Vine’s Expository Dictionary, contention is defined as, “strife, quarrel, rivalry, wrangling…the effect of irritation.” Without a doubt there has been plenty of “wrangling and irritation” of late in IFB circles.

Take this personal check up: In your mind, or even in discussion among close confidants, do you desire that you and your peers or the men on the other side of the debate(s) would just move on and form their own fellowship? If you have contemplated that then maybe it is time for you to give Acts 15:39 serious consideration for personal application.

Numerous times in recent weeks we have read comments from individuals, who in mantra like fashion, speak of “fleeing Fundamentalism.” Has the contention become so sharp between two factions in the fellowship of Independent Fundamental Baptists that the example of Paul and Barnabas must now be considered the only option for resolution?

Should there be a meeting convened like that of the Council at Jerusalem Acts 15? Maybe, but individual men might want to discuss in small groups among themselves how they want go forward for Christ either alongside or apart from other IFB men and fellowships.

Maybe it is time for men within fundamentalism to privately and/or corporately to discuss whether or not the time may be near for an Acts 15:39 event. Many more of these open flash-points will do no good for the cause of Christ or the world’s view of biblical fundamentalism.

In the footnotes for Acts 15:39 John R. Rice wrote,

“God used this contention to send out two missionary partners instead of one.” (Rice Reference Bible, p. 1,190.)

Maybe, one day in the future, there can be healing, such as Paul had with Mark, (2 Tim. 4:11). At this juncture, however, it may be best to “depart asunder” so that parties can depart from contention and set out to serve the Lord from within a fellowship of like-minded men they are more at ease with.

I did not write this article to agitate for or insist a departure must take place at this juncture. I do, however, believe we need to be honest with ourselves and prayerfully consider if the time may be near for men to determine whether or not following the example of Paul and Barnabas might be in our future and in the best interest of the cause of Christ.

Is it Sharp Nuff’ yet, for you?

“And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus,” (Acts 15:39).

For Your Consideration,


LM

The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!

A Call for Removal of Dr. Kevin Bauder From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship

Even More Than “Nuff Said” to Warrant Kevin Bauder’s Removal From the National Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship

Kevin Bauder: Even More Than “Nuff Said” For His Removal From the National Platform of the FBFI Annual Fellowship

“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 this years 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. I believe there is sufficient reason for any objective man to call for and/or agree that Bauder must be removed from the platform of the 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.

For an appendix entry to the article see the first thread comment. It is one of the e-mails that Bauder included in From the In Box.

Please read, Theological Pedigree to Gain a Hearing for another view of Dr. Kevin Bauder that has a degree of relevance here.

Update:

I was at 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.

With Bauder’s dodge from the symposium topic to instead publicly broadside BJU, and ambush Mark Minnick, he should never again be given a platform presence at an FBFI sponsored event.


LM

Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship

“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 contention among Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB) within and around the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI).

The uproar began over a message delivered by Dr. Dan Sweatt at the FBFI South Regional Fellowship in April. You can read details in my previous article, The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!

First at the height of, and then later as the uproar over Sweatt’s message began to subside, two articles were published by Dr. Kevin Bauder (President, Central Baptist Theological Seminary). Both were posted at the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron blog. In order they were: Time to Speak Up & Nuff Said
Both articles contain remarks that many believe to be ill-timed, inflammatory criticisms of several historic Independent Fundamental Baptist preachers. In Time to Speak Up, Dr. Bob Jones. Jr. (among others) was targeted by Bauder.

Dr. John R. Rice was singled out for expanded criticism in Bauder’s second article.

In his Nuff Said article Bauder raised the issue of calls for his removal from the platform of the FBFI this summer. Dr. Bauder wrote,

“Fundamentalism is still home to quite a few people who were willing to burn incense to the emperors. Those people are very unhappy with the way things are going at the moment. They would like to see the FBFI leadership denounce me and a few others in no uncertain terms. Some would like me to be removed from the platform of the FBFI this summer. They have communicated their wishes to the leaders of the FBFI.”

I included the early portion of the paragraph above to exemplify why I believe other men have been moved to call for Bauder’s removal from the FBFI platform. If Bauder wanted to make incendiary comments (more examples of which to follow) to motivate men to call for his removal he did a fine job of it. “Burn incense to the emperors,” is not innocent “Bauderian hyperbole” as some might suggest.

I do not know which men Bauder had in mind above, but I am adding my name to the men who he states have been encouraging the FBFI leadership to excuse him from speaking at the upcoming FBFI 89th Annual Fellowship.

Through the two articles Bauder, of his own volition, made himself a lighting rod for controversy in the IFB community. He has become no less controversial than Dr. Sweatt from the other end of the controversy.

What are some reasons why Dr. Bauder should not be a featured speaker at the FBFI annual fellowship? Depending on whom you ask, those reasons might include, but not be limited to:

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) His comments about Dr. Rice were highly inflammatory as Missionary **John Himes expressed in the closed thread at the conservative evangelicalism Sharper Iron site. For example Himes 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?”

Can anyone explain how Bauder’s remarks contribute to healing the rift in the IFB community and promotes reconciliation and growth? How are men edified when in Bauder’s last two articles we are treated to harsh criticisms of men who were Fundamentalist leaders in their generation? In the brochure for FBFI annual fellowship there are no message titles noted for each of the keynote speakers. What guarantees do we have that Bauder will refrain from a continuation these critical themes during his Wednesday morning address to the annual fellowship attendees?

The difference before us is that Sweatt’s message in April apparently took the FBFI membership by complete surprise. The reaction, however, was swift from the offended parties and the FBFI responded in an appropriate official manner. With Dr. Bauder, however, he has prior to the annual fellowship given a public offense and refuses to publicly discuss or retract his statements. Instead of being a calming influence Bauder reignited passions with stinging criticism and incendiary remarks in regard to men from our Fundamentalist heritage. In light of those remarks why should men not be just as troubled with Bauder retaining a platform presence at the annual fellowship as men who were offended by Dr. Sweatt’s remarks would be if he (Sweatt) were seated there as well?

With an opportunity before him 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.

The FBFI’s official response Speak the Truth in Love to the tumultuous discussion and disagreement that followed the message by Dr. Sweatt included the following statement,

“We must honor our biblical responsibility to use speech that edifies and displays Christ-like love. We must demonstrate an unwavering commitment to humble integrity. Caricatures and personal attacks do not honor the Lord or advance His work. Neither pulpit nor keyboard exempt us from these biblical obligations.”

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.

How does Kevin Bauder’s rhetoric about Fundamentalists of yesteryear serve in the best interest of the FBFI and a potential healing of the widening fracture in the broader IFB community?

In my opinion the most honorable thing Dr. Bauder can do would be to excuse himself from speaking at the 2009 FBFI annual fellowship. He would do well to acknowledge his sharp criticisms of Dr. Jones, Jr. and Dr. Rice were ill-timed and harmful to the efforts of the FBFI to restore calm and charity among IFB men just ahead of the annual fellowship. In the best interest of the overall body of IFB believers Dr. Bauder should acknowledge his remarks were not helpful, apologize for and repent of them. Realizing the high improbability of that decision coming from Bauder I will close with the following.

Kevin Bauder’s recent actions justify calls for his being relieved from any speaking assignments at this year’s FBFI annual fellowship. That action will be a strong signal to any man, regardless of stature and/or theological pedigree, that there will be no tolerance for any man who intends to follow Bauder’s example and tone, which at present is contributing to the polarization of the IFB community.

Unless Dr. Bauder retracts his inflammatory rhetoric in regard to Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and Dr. John R. Rice, men are justified in calling on the FBFI leadership to remove him from the platform for the upcoming annual fellowship. To reiterate from above: In light of Dr. Bauder’s Time to Speak Up and Nuff Said men are completely justified to be just as disturbed by his being given a platform presence at the FBFI annual fellowship as men who object to Dr. Sweatt’s remarks at the FBFI South Regional Fellowship would be if Dr. Sweatt were to be featured.

In the best interest of balance and encouraging all FBFI members toward, “speech that edifies” and “an unwavering commitment to humble integrity” I am joining other men in calling on the FBFI leadership to prayerfully consider removing Dr. Kevin Bauder from the platform for the upcoming annual fellowship.


LM

UPDATE: Kevin Bauder has (incredibly) fanned the flames and accelerated the controversy by publishing yet another article at his own site, which SI has also republished and enthusiastically supports. Over the weekend I may be posting details in the thread of this article.

Please continue to- Kevin Bauder: Even More Than “Nuff Said” For His Removal From the National Platform of the FBFI Annual Fellowship

**Brother Himes is the grandson of Dr. John R. Rice.

NOTE: For more commentary on this subject, see the Appendix entry that appears at the beginning of this thread.

Update:

I was in attendance at the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship. During the Q&A Symposium fears that Kevin Bauder might launch another unprovoked attack against historic Fundamentalism were realized. He just could not let his three previous attacks on the legacy of Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice be “Nuff said.”

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 besmirching Bob Jones University for having hosted various candidates for political office.

The irony was BJU president Stephen Jones was ill and, therefore, could not appear in the Symposium as scheduled. So, Bauder lowered his crosshairs on the most recognized personality from BJU 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) is not a BJU administrator and cannot speak for the administration, but Bauder kept up the pressure.

With Bauder’s dodge from the symposium topic to instead publicly broadside BJU, and ambush Mark Minnick, he should never again be given a platform presence at an FBFI sponsored event.
 

LM