Archival Series “Kevin Bauder, It Won’t Fly With Those of us Who Know…”

History falls prey not only to revisionism; it also suffers at the hands of those who seek to slant its record to their own benefit. In Kevin Bauder’s current article1 at his In the Nick of Time blog, he relates Dr. Clearwaters’s supposed delay in finally breaking with the Northern Baptist Convention (NBC). Though left largely without explanation, Kevin doubtless relayed the story in order to illustrate the idea that even the great separatists differed as to the timing of separation. While different men arrived at different conclusions at different times, the point that must be emphasized is that all of the separatists ultimately separated.

Was Clearwaters’s separatist impetus flawed because he fought for the “furniture” of the NBC? No! He obviously understood that the legal wrangling was a precursor to his ultimate departure, with the furniture in tow. “Doc,” as he was called, was a separatist through and through. He was also, to his great credit a contender, a fighter. Perhaps his relish for a worthwhile fight delayed his separatism in relation to the NBC, but no one would argue that he held out any hope for the restoration of the convention. Doc fought the good fight, got the furniture, and departed a convinced separatist.

Dr. Bauder would do well to remember Dr. Clearwaters’s “round two” in the separatist battles. I had only been saved a year when I came across a copy of Dr. Clearwaters’s book, The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise.2 I remember reading that classic separatist work as a mere youngster and, though I didn’t understand all of the implications, I set the book down with the understanding that there are some things worth fighting for and that my pastor (Dr. Clearwaters) was a premier warrior of the faith. I’m sure Dr. Bauder will recall that, along with his crack about the furniture, Dr. Clearwaters delighted in saying of the Conservative Baptist Association, “I was the first to join it, and I was the first to leave it.” That being Doc’s personal separatist testimony, I hardly think anyone could fault his separatist impulses.

If Kevin desires to take Dr. Clearwaters’s venerable institution3 a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be guardian of the legacy. I knew Doc well enough to know that he would not be at all happy with the direction of Central Seminary under Bauder’s leading. It’s bad enough that his school is headed in a decidedly leftward direction.

Please, Dr. Bauder, don’t make it any worse by pretending some affinity with one of the greatest separatist Christians of the last century.

It has become crystal clear to discerning men that Central, Detroit, Lansdale, and Northland4 are making a decisive break from fundamentalism. Are these moves born out love for and loyalty to the Bible? Calvinism is the magnetic attraction, but I also see their new found emphasis on Calvinism as pragmatic. They are riding a theological wave in order to attract a new constituency and thus students. Is it possible these new moves stem, in part, from desperation for students and the operating funds they infuse into an educational institution? These schools have largely lost their constituency. The student numbers simply are not present within their shrinking circle of fundamentalism to continue to perpetuate their institutions. Could this be a reason why they have decided to appeal to a different crowd? When survival becomes the name of the game pragmatism reigns supreme. How do I know? Ask yourself: Would these institutions be making such dramatic changes if they were thriving? No! Their impending failure drives them into compromise as a means of survival. It’s just that simple.

Reacting to Bauder’s previous installment Don Johnson in Show Me the Silent Majority (see link below) wrote,

“And I am astonished that credulous readers of Kevin Bauder seem to swallow this revisionism as if it were entirely accurate.”

Dr. Bauder, please don’t cast a shadow over the separatist stance of Dr. Clearwaters. You and I both know he was a man among men. He was a giant of the faith. And he was a premier loyalist to biblical separatism. Do as you like; but don’t use the Clearwaters name to justify it. It won’t fly with those of us who know, and I know.


Pastor Marc Monte
Faith Baptist Church, Avon

Originally Published October 24,2010

1) Now, About Those Differences, Part 19,
 Applying Separatist Principles

2) The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, Dr. R. V. Clearwaters

3) Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, MN.

4) Northland International University Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body

For related reading see the following articles:
Show Me the Silent Majority by Don Johnson. For example,

“Kevin Bauder’s latest installment [Differences, Part 18] tells the history of separation from a point of view totally foreign to me…. And I am astonished that credulous readers of Kevin Bauder seem to swallow this revisionism as if it were entirely accurate…. Kevin seems to be leading us to a conclusion that the conservative evangelicals are good fellows, really, and people whom we should cooperate with. Their heritage isn’t the heritage of compromisers and betrayers of the gospel, it is the noble heritage of the moderate middle. The moderate middle cost the fundamentalists their denominations, schools, mission boards, etc., in the 1920s and 1930s. The moderate middle cost the Christian church most of its impact on the culture of our day through the new-evangelical compromise. What is the moderate middle going to cost us today?”

Muddying the Clearwaters, by Pastor Marc Monte.

“Kevin’s charge that ‘the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp’ constitutes nothing short of slander. Perhaps Dr. Bauder does not know the fundamentalists I know. I can name scores of pastors who regularly and rigorously defend the gospel…. Dr. Clearwaters understood that the local church was charged with the propagation of the truth. He founded a seminary, not to undermine local church authority, but to bolster the prestige of pastors in their efforts of defending the faith.”

A Letter From Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder, by Evangelist Dwight Smith.

“It is astounding to me that in many of your recent writings on a professedly fundamental, Baptist site, you seem to constantly extol the ‘virtues’ of evangelical Protestants while, at the same time, deriding the ‘vices’ of Fundamental Baptists…. I have observed an inordinate affection towards pseudo-intellectual teaching and a disdain for old-fashioned, confrontational, Bible preaching…. I am grieved when I see you lauding extreme Calvinists who are not even Baptists. Brother Bauder, they and their ilk are not responsible for founding the school called Central…. Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings, the students of Central, and even Central itself away from the Testimony upon which it was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism.”

Genuine Integrity Demands a Simple Admission

Dr. Jeff Straub’s recent article1 lauding the commendable actions of two SBC pastors demands a closer look. On the surface, the article praises two apparently conservative SBC pastors, one for his public stand against state-sponsored gambling, and the other for his refusal to cooperate on a speaking platform with T.D. Jakes. No right-thinking fundamentalist would argue against the positions taken by these men. Their actions were Biblically astute and on that basis are commendable.

What troubles this reader, however, is the nagging feeling that Jeff Straub was attempting to convey more than mere admiration for stands well taken. His not-so-subtle mention that both of these pastors are entrenched in the SBC appears to lend tacit approval to the denominational organization. While one can debate the merits and demerits of the SBC, even tacit approval of a denominational machine is a definite departure from the position of Central Seminary’s founder, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters.

This writer’s purpose is neither to condemn the SBC nor to question the sincerity of the good pastors whom Straub applauds for taking courageous, Biblical stands. Rather, this author’s purpose is to point out the continuing drift of an institution whose founder came to militantly oppose the associational compromise entrenched in the major Baptist denominations, southern and northern alike. Dr. Clearwaters was not one to speak well of the “denominational machine,” and if he had any positive comments to make about its ministerial members, he would certainly have qualified his statements with a warning concerning ecumenism, compromise, and new evangelicalism. Dr. Clearwaters, as I recall, was fond of promoting fundamentalist heroes. He was not being needlessly divisive or exclusive in this; rather, he was being consistent with his convictions. And he was being honest with his constituency.

Which leads us to another, shall we say, “elephant in the room.” Even more troubling than the leftward drift of some bell-weather fundamentalist institutions is their continual denial that change is taking place. The attempt to hold onto the “old guard” (and their money) while making significant changes, and then denying them, is completely disingenuous. In addition, the ongoing blather about “authentic fundamentalism” rings particularly hollow from those who have turned sharply to the left, but pretend they are staying the course.

Genuine integrity demands a simple admission from institutional leadership that they are moving away from the separatist principles of their founders.

Of course, I could be wrong about Dr. Straub. Maybe he really could not, in his own thinking, name one laudable separatist action taken by his independent Baptist brethren, past or present. While his default choices for approbation were not inherently wrong, they certainly indicate a shift in direction away from the separatism of Central Seminary’s honorable founder, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, a man both honest with his constituency and authentic in his convictions.


Pastor Marc Monte
Faith Baptist Church, Avon

1) Two Men Worth Commending, In the Nick of Time blog, February 10, 2012.

Additional Articles by Pastor Monte:

Kevin Bauder: It Won’t Fly With Us Who Know

Muddying the Clearwaters
Preserving the Separatist Impulse, 2 Thess. 3:6-15

Central Seminary Ten Years (1966) by Warren Vanhetloo

In my reading and research for the recent series of articles citing Dr. Rolland McCune and especially his extended references and commentary about Dr. Richard V. “Doc” Clearwaters I came across a web site that I think will be a personal blessing to many of you.  What I discovered was an electronic copy of the Central Baptist Theological Seminary’s Central Bible Quarterly, volume CENQ 09:3 (Fall 1966).  The article of particular interest is titled Ten Years by Warren Vanhetloo.

What I discovered was an electronic copy of the Central Baptist Theological Seminary’s Central Bible Quarterly volume CENQ 09:3 (Fall 1966). The article of particular interest is titled Ten Years by Warren Vanhetloo.

This ten-year report seeks to set forth areas which have remained constant during the ten year period and also areas where change has taken place. Facts and figures and photographs give evidence to the constant change. That area which has remained constant can be best expressed by noting the purpose for the existence of the school and the convictions which have characterized the testimony of the school through this decade. The Founder and President of Central Seminary, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, carefully charted its course and personally directed its progress.

Nor did the amazing growth in the ministries of Central Seminary come as any surprise to its Founder. During the first year, he predicted to the Dean, Warren Vanhetloo, that he anticipated the student body to double in size the first five years and to double again the second five years. Looking back at the end of the decade, the fulfillment of such a prediction is amazing. Few other seminaries have enjoyed such growth. Central Seminary had an unusual beginning, with an initial enrollment of 31.

I believe many who were once students, faculty or staff at Central Seminary will receive a blessing from reading the 1966 Quarterly and viewing the photographs. You can read portions on line, but for the full journal the site requires a paid subscription. If you know any Central Seminary alumni who might appreciate seeing this site, pass it along.

Please visit, Ten Years by Warren Vanhetloo


LM

Dr. Rolland McCune, “Militancy Has Always Characterized Fundamentalism”

We have been considering the timely comments by Dr. Rolland McCune in an expanding series of articles.  Previously we presented and discussed Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif...Won’t Carry the Day” and A Kind and Gentle Yet Aggressively Militant Richard V. Clearwaters

“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.”

“Doc, as a good leader, prudently chose his hills to die on based on several non-negotiable biblical truths and convictions. But in a showdown when these were being challenged, trampled, disobeyed, avoided or neglected, he was militantly aggressive. This earned him a lot of unwanted and unearned opprobrium over the decades, actually to this very day.”

Here now is Dr. Rolland McCune in “A Review Article by Rolland D. McCune, Th.D. of RECLAIMING AUTHENTIC FUNDAMENTALISM” by Douglas R. McLachlan (American Association of Christian Schools, 1992). He wrote:

Militancy has always characterized Fundamentalism. It is not so much a matter of personality as adherence to principle. Militancy has been so fogged over by its detractors that it has become a wholly negative concept, even for many Fundamentalists. Dr. George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an excellent definition of militancy.

What exactly is militancy, anyway? One dictionary says it is to be “engaged in warfare or combat . . . aggressively active (as in a cause).” It springs from one’s values, is expressed as an attitude, and results in certain behavior. One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true. From this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these fundamentally important truths and seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any activity which would minimize their importance. The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one believes to be true. [1]

I must confess that I do not hear a clear note of militancy in the book under discussion. Forcefulness in leadership and in defending the faith is simply not there. (The concept of “Militant Meekness” or “a militancy for the meekness of Christ” [p. 140] is a little confusing in terms of historic Fundamentalist militancy.) The idea of “servant leaders” (p.40ff.), while certainly a biblical thought, [2] seems expunged of all notions of aggressiveness. Some of this may be explained by the author’s non-confrontational type of personality. Many of us could identify with this. But again militancy is not a matter of personality. There are many Fundamentalists who are reticent and retiring but who are militant in the fight for truth.

[1] George Houghton. “The Matter of Militancy,” Faith Pulpit (May 1994)

[2] The idea of “servant leadership” as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was severely criticized by by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical. He says that the term “has the ring of piety about it. But it is false piety, or it plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical understanding. Contemporary servant leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune themselves, people who bow to the wishes of “the body” from which their direction and standing derive” (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]’ pp. 214-15). His attack was directed at the lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the prescriptions of the modern self movement. This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming . . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order. Without forceful leadership and the aggressive prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own proposal. Well’s point is well taken: Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance.

Site Publisher Commentary:
I believe that it is fair to say that Kevin Bauder has very little militant principle in him. After all, he has yet to put it on the mat over people like and the doings of Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever. His pattern, that of Dave Doran, and men like them is to tolerate, allow for, excuse and/or ignore the doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises and worldliness of their new friends in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. That is not militancy!

It’s also interesting that Kevin Bauder has openly castigated men like John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr.1 (when he reacted to Danny Sweatt2), but now points out the virtues of his mentors. Sadly, he’s allowed the hype surrounding the leadership of those that he’s criticized to color his comments while allowing his personal relationships with others to hold them in esteem. When the history of fundamentalism is written, there will be those who will look at the acerbic, acrimonious tones3 of the writings of Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran in particular and decide that they simply would never want to associate with or emulate their brand of compromising Christianity.


LM

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

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.

2) The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!

3) And the acerbic, acrimonious arrogant tone of SI administrator Jim Peet who seems incapable of being gracious when criticized even when by a kinder, gentler, well-meaning and esteemed man as Dr. Rolland McCune. See Jim Peet: In the Jaws of a Lion

“A Kind and Gentle Yet Aggressively Militant Richard V. Clearwaters”

Dr. Rolland McCune has continued commenting at Sharper Iron (SI). I want to make excerpts of what he is sharing available to readers here, many of whom do not and would not visit or participate at SI.  We began with his initial comment, which you can read at Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif…Will Not Carry the Day.”* Please now consider the following by Dr. McCune as he remembers “Doc” Clearwaters.

One last thought/clarification (I trust). From my 14 years of association with R. V. Clearwaters he and I never had a cross word between us, and I left for DBTS with his disappointment, but none the less his “blessing.” We were especially close during my last six or seven years. I participated in his funeral in 1996 and unashamedly wept as I hugged his daughter Jane farewell as we left Crystal Lake Cemetery.

Doc, as a good leader, prudently chose his hills to die on based on several non-negotiable biblical truths and convictions. But in a showdown when these were being challenged, trampled, disobeyed, avoided or neglected, he was militantly aggressive. This earned him a lot of unwanted and unearned opprobrium over the decades, actually to this very day. Some of the opponents mused out loud that they hoped for the day they would see RVC in his casket. Fortunately he outlived most of them.

Included in his non-negotiable truths was the primacy of the New Testament local church. Thus he opposed the movement that tried to hijack the New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches (NTAIBC) from an association of churches to a pastor's fellowship (at Eagledale Baptist Church, Indianapolis, 1966) contrary to the minutes of the call to form an association (passed at Beth Eden Baptist, Denver) one year earlier. The NTAIBC became an association of churches. He also opposed self-perpetuating boards of Baptist institutions who generally wanted him and Fourth Baptist to “pray and pay, but not to play.” This was the case in the formation of the Baptist World Mission** in the 1960s. On the grounds of local church ideology/doctrine he expected first loyalty to Fourth Baptist by paid servants of a Baptist institution whose membership was at Fourth, rather than their first loyalty elsewhere. The same went for paid servants of Central Baptist Seminary, church staff, the Christian school, custodians, et al, as well as all the membership in general. He was loyal to people and he expected the same from them. It was not “my way or the hi-way.” These incidents all became controversial to the point of public resolution with him being blamed in one way or another for the disturbance, usually on ecclesiastically political or pietistic notions.

The local church rubric caused Doc to vigorously oppose interdenominationalism, especially after its failure to sustain Northwestern Schools in the late 1950s when it’s Bible College and Seminary closed down, leading to the founding of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College and Central Baptist Seminary as Baptist, not interdenominational, schools. He was on the board of Northwestern and a confidant of W. B. Riley, and went through the rough waters after Riley’s death.

Ecclesiastical separation was a non-negotiable, both “primary” and “secondary.” Thus Doc participated heavily in the fight within the old Northern Baptist Convention against liberalism, and within the Minnesota Baptist Convention/Association and the Conservative Baptist Association of America against New Evangelicalism. In these controversies, Fourth Baptist Church and the MBA “kept the faith and the furniture.” But of course, RVC took heat for not being loving, kind, gentle and Christ-like when push came to shove and straight talk finally took precedence over quiet, emotional, pietistic diplomatic discussions.

RVC’s style of church administration was summed up in two words, as he constantly told the Seminary students—“through channels.” Anything major that affected Fourth church was first taken to the deacons, after that to the “official family” (composed of all people elected by the church), and finally to the floor of the church. This happened on many occasions while I was there.

Other of RVC’s leadership principles included “take the historical approach,” giving him an uncanny insight to people and proposals that came along. His ability to size up a situation and know of the right, or a good, solution was amazing. He relied heavily on “documents” when in battle, pulling out minutes, resolutions, etc, because “documents don’t lie.” This happened when he was contradicted, whether in court fighting to retain the MBA’s control of Pillsbury Academy or as an expert witness on Baptist polity in suits to prevent the Northern Baptist Convention from stealing the property of churches who voted to withdraw from it, or simply during the formation of a new association.

This has droned on far more than intended, typical of the “few minutes” that Baptist preachers promise to audiences. I did not take space for anecdotes of his life as a pastor, friend, counselor, family man, and others. There his kind and gentle side always showed, whether for a student finding a job, those needing food and raiment, a pastor looking for a church, or churches looking pastors. For funerals he would ask for the Bible and “life verse” of the deceased and conduct a very meaningful service. He was willing to be called back from his annual vacation in Florida (in February/March usually, naturally) for emergencies.

I hope that these vignettes put the man in a better light than is too often forgotten or ignored.

__________________

Rolland D. McCune

I trust those remarks have been encouraging to those who appreciate what the best of Fundamentalism has been, can be and still looks like.

Related Reading:
*Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif…Will Not Carry the Day.”

**In October Baptist World Mission celebrated its 50th anniversary at the church where it was founded, Marquette Manor Baptist Church.
SI Administrator, Jim Peet, posted  a particular comment in the thread.  Dr. McCune rebuked him for it.  For example,

“If this is any kind of resemblance to the apparently newly discovered and coveted kind and gentle fundamentalism, you have discredited them and embarrassed yourself.”

Go to Jim Peet in the Jaws of the Lion

Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif...Will Not Carry the Day.”

Rarely is there any article or comment worthy of mention at the pseudo fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI). A comment that would be encouraging and uplifting for Fundamentalists. SI and its contributors frequently besmirch and castigate Fundamentalism with the broad brush, most notably and frequently by Dr. Kevin Bauder. Those who sought to speak for and on behalf of Fundamentalism at SI were/are routinely gang-tackled by the site publisher, its moderators and evangelical wanna-bes that frequent the site. Today, however, a comment has been posted that will encourage fundamentalists.

Under Kevin Bauder’s Credit Where Credit Is Due, Part 2 Dr. Rolland McCune submitted the following (comment #5). I reproduce his comment in its entirety here, for your consideration.

Fundamentalism a Generation Ago
I appreciated Dr. Bauder’s autobio; it was interesting, informative and legitimately idealistic. He apparently came to a kinder-gentler fundamentalism that could be found in Mr. Roger's neighborhood but not many places else. That is certainly commendable. I personally knew and enjoyed ministry with almost all the personalities he mentioned and enjoined as worthy of all acceptation, and still count them as close friends and comrades-in arms. I would not object to Bauder's description of them. I would even vaingloriously wish to count myself of their ilk.

However, when it comes to public leadership in battle, leading gently must on occasion “bare their teeth and draw their swords” in defence and propagation 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) immediately 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 will 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 caliber replaced.

My point is that the kinder-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.

Dr. Rolland McCune
Fundamentalism a Generation Ago

To one SI member’s complaint Dr. McCune replied as follows.

David: I totally fail to see what is inflammatory about the term Kinder/Gentler, 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, parliamentary 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 much less than the “holy Jesus meek and mild.” As RVC was wont to say, somewhat parabolically, “Don’t try to be more Christian than Christ.”

Kinder/Gentler “Milquetoastees”

Dr. McCune’s academic pedigree alongside his published works on New Evangelicalism makes him the best choice to say something. Dr. McCune, believers in pulpits and the pews of fundamental churches across America who are deeply concerned with a redefined Fundamentalism “that will not carry the day,” which Kevin Bauder (Dave Doran, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan and Doug MacLachlan) propagate appreciate your timely remarks. We thank you!

Related Reading:
A Letter from *Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

“Kevin Bauder, It Won’t Fly With Those of us Who Know…”

“If Kevin desires to take Dr. Clearwaters’s venerable institution a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be guardian of the legacy. I knew Doc well enough to know that he would not be at all happy with the direction of Central Seminary under Bauder’s leading. It’s bad enough that his school is headed in a decidedly leftward direction. Please, Dr. Bauder, don’t make it any worse by pretending some affinity with one of the greatest separatist Christians of the last century.”

Muddying the Clearwaters by Pastor Marc Monte

This series continues with, A Kind and Gentle Yet Aggressively Militant Richard V. Clearwaters

Muddying the Clearwaters by Pastor Marc Monte

There is a sad irony in Kevin Bauder’s recent article “Let’s Get Clear on This.” As president of *Central Seminary in Minneapolis, Bauder is the heir to the fundamentalist, separatist legacy of Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters. Clearwaters was many things to many people, but he was preeminently a fundamental Baptist separatist who preferred the label Biblicist above all others. He was a scholar, pastor, and champion of local church ideology. He often spoke of the “lengthened shadow of a man,” meaning the legacy a man leaves after he is gone. Central Seminary is part of Doc’s “lengthened shadow;” but, sadly, the shadow bears little resemblance to the man who cast it.

Bauder’s position differs markedly from the strong separatist stance of R.V. Clearwaters. “Doc,” as he was called, had no trouble “calling a spade a spade.” Bauder struggles with that. For example, Bauder distinguishes the conservative evangelicals (CE) from the fundamentalists by admitting their “anti-dispensationalism,” toleration of “Third-Wave charismatic theology,” accommodation of contemporary pop culture, and toleration of “apostates.” Yet, with that significant admission, Kevin hesitates to label any of these men “New Evangelicals.” If tolerating charismatic theology, adopting contemporary culture and tolerating apostates is not “New Evangelical,” I don’t know what is. Those who knew Clearwaters realize that he would have no problem naming these traits as characteristic of the New Evangelicalism. The idea that these men don’t practice “infiltration” techniques does not mean they are not New Evangelicals. For the most part, they don’t need to “infiltrate” anything; they have their own avowedly New Evangelical institutions over which they preside.

Having charitably distinguished CE’s from fundamentalists, Bauder immediately attacks fundamentalists as doctrinal obscurantists. For reasons known only to himself, Bauder mocks those whose doctrinal concerns include bibliology, the blood atonement, and sovereignty/freewill. Apparently Bauder feels that the doctrinal concerns of fundamentalists are illegitimate and ill-informed. He goes as far as stating that fundamentalists “have lost their doctrinal sobriety.”

Quite to the contrary, serious fundamentalist scholars have engaged in vital theological debate. While the text of Scripture appears of little consequence to Bauder, many fundamentalists recognize a settled, pristine text as essential to the “faith once delivered.” (Jude 3) The nature of the blood atonement of Christ, a central theme of the Gospel, has been vigorously defended against those who would repudiate “slaughterhouse theology.” Far from being fringe issues, these matters strike at the heart of Biblical Christianity, and fundamentalists take these things very seriously.

Kevin’s charge that “the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp” constitutes nothing short of slander. Perhaps Dr. Bauder does not know the fundamentalists I know. I can name scores of pastors who regularly and rigorously defend the gospel. Ah, but therein lies the rub. Note, I said “pastors.” You see, Bauder’s concern is that professional scholars defend the gospel, not lowly pastors. And here is the crux of the issue: Dr. Bauder sees it as the job of the Christian scholar (college and seminary professors) to defend the Gospel. The Bible, however, knows of no such thing. Paul said that the local church is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” In other words, the local church—not the college or seminary—is the first line of defense for the truth. Fundamentalist pulpits have not surrendered the Gospel. Fundamentalist pastors defend the Gospel every week. Pastors, not seminary professors, are responsible for the conservation and proclamation of the Gospel. By and large, the fundamentalist brethren are doing a splendid job at this—most without even referencing the latest book by John Piper.

The real issue with Bauder’s article is not whether fundamentalists should refrain from calling his beloved CE’s “New Evangelicals.” The real issue is an intellectual elitism that minimizes the importance of the local church and its pastor in defense of the faith.

Dr. Clearwaters understood that the local church was charged with the propagation of the truth. He founded a seminary, not to undermine local church authority, but to bolster the prestige of pastors in their efforts of defending the faith.

The bottom line is simple enough: Fundamentalist pastors are doing a superb job of defending the Gospel in their pulpits. They’re doing so without worrying about such foreign errors as “Third-Wave Charismatic Theology” and “Open Theism.” They’re boldly preaching Christ and Him crucified. They’re not known among the scholars, and most don’t have widely-read blogs. But they’re getting the job done for God.

Rather than fawn over the intellectual elites of our day, Dr. Bauder would better serve his constituency by turning out an army of seminary graduates who love souls, preach the Gospel fearlessly, defend the faith, separate from error, and boldly hold forth fundamentalist, Baptist convictions. And he should honor his godly predecessor by an unapologetic, thoroughgoing Biblicist stance.

In short, Dr. Bauder, Don’t Muddy the Clearwaters!


Pastor Marc Monte
Faith Baptist Church (Avon)

*See Thread for History of Central with emphasis on Doc Clearwaters.

Please continue to- A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitation: “Foremost Defenders of the Gospel Today?”

Site Publisher Note:
This article by Pastor Monte is the latest in a series of responses to Kevin Bauder's Let’s Get Clear on This. Some sites such as the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron have a tendency of intolerance toward some commentary that is critical of Kevin Bauder’s article(s) and the so-called conservative evangelicalism he advocates on behalf of. I am, however, willing to make various reactions, recollections and/or perspectives available, such as Pastor Monte’s above, to my guests for their consideration.

For the first two from my series, which reviews Kevin Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This see- Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations

Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations Part 2

You may also read A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder submitted by Evangelist Dwight Smith.

A Letter from *Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

Dear Dr. Bauder:

No doubt you are a bit familiar with me and the ministry God gave me in the not too distant past. I had humble beginnings, being born in Kansas into a Christian home. However, I turned from God in my teenage years. He lovingly brought me to Himself through the tragic loss of my brother and through an old fashioned, three week evangelistic meeting in Washington State.

God led me to train for ministry at the Moody Bible Institute. It was there I learned the essentials of Bible Institute training – The English Bible, gospel music, and personal evangelism. At this school, I heard the men who shaped my philosophy of ministry – men like R.A. Torrey, Billy Sunday, G. Campbell Morgan, and Griffith Thomas. From here, I received further training at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kalamazoo College, and the Chicago University.

From my early days as a Christian, I knew God had called me to the pastorate. As you may know, The Lord allowed me to pastor in Wilton Center, IL, Kalamazoo, MI, Cedar Rapids, IA and then Minneapolis, MN. My last pastorate spanned over four decades and was certainly full of God’s rich blessing. Many great revivals took place during my tenure as the pastor! Many people were saved! God even allowed me to found the Pillsbury Baptist Bible College and the school which you now lead.

It may seem strange that I am writing to you since my decease, but it is not nearly as strange as some of your recent writings are to me. I have noticed with great consternation, the e-posts you have placed on sharperiron.org and other places. As the founder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, an Independent Baptist Seminary, it is not a little troubling to me.

I want to appeal to a sense of love for and loyalty to the Scripture. When Central Baptist Theological Seminary was founded, we chose Isaiah 8:20 as the theme verse. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Do you believe this, Kevin? I am certain that you do. Allow me to bear my burden to you.

It is astounding to me that in many of your recent writings on a professedly fundamental, Baptist site, you seem to constantly extol the “virtues” of evangelical Protestants while, at the same time, deriding the “vices” of Fundamental Baptists. Reading your posts would lead some to wonder if you weren’t just writing a resume for some “conservative evangelical” seminary to read and then hire you. No doubt, Fundamental Baptists have their “flaws,” as do others in a different theological orbit, but must you constantly point these out with little or no qualification? It is hard to read even one of your tomes without hearing you constantly jab at the perceived flaws of some past and even present Independent Baptists. Could this constant derision of Fundamental Baptist preachers be sourced in bitterness toward those who have disappointed you in the past? Is this generalization of the movement, of which you “claim” to be a part, healthy? Do you think it is possible that your constant diatribe against “your own” is one of the main reasons some young people are leaving sound churches for “greener pastures?”

Also, while reading your articles, I have observed an inordinate affection towards pseudo-intellectual teaching and a disdain for old-fashioned, confrontational, Bible preaching. Make no mistake, old fashioned, confrontational Bible preaching is exactly why I founded Central Seminary. My burden was to train men with an airtight understanding of the Scripture, with the ability to stand in pulpits across the land and preach “thus saith the Lord,” with the desire to start churches and win souls to Christ. To the contrary, I did not start the school over which you preside, for men to flounder in unbelief, for them to wonder for decades where they stand, or for them to be given to counseling, teaching, and academic idolatry. I often told the men I was training, “We use the mind here, but we do not worship it.”

On another count, I am grieved when I see you lauding extreme Calvinists who are not even Baptists. Brother Bauder, they and their ilk are not responsible for founding the school called Central. Extreme Calvinists were not the ones who funded its inception. They did not show up each week to knock on doors and tell people about Christ. They were not the sacrificial givers who willingly gave to make God’s vision possible. I could not depend upon them to start and operate the WCTS radio station. They were not the ones who yielded themselves to make a Baptist camp possible. They did not give to support the cause of missions around the world. Yet you cannot seem to praise them enough? You call them an ally, when historically they have proven to be opponents of Fundamental Baptists? Is this right? These, that you laud, include the Aaron’s who have compromised in areas of separation. They include the Jehoshaphats who “love them that hate the Lord.”

A few weeks back you wrote an article called Conundrum and with amazing transparency told of your journey to where you are now. You listed several authors, left, center and right, who have helped shape who you are today. While I appreciate your honesty, it saddened my heart to hear how men, some of whom have little regard for the Law and Testimony, so influenced your life. I sought in vain to read where Paul, John, Peter, Matthew, Elijah, Michaiah, Samuel, or any others of the many Bible servants influenced you. I looked to no avail, for some of the godly, Fundamental Baptist men of the past to have molded your life. Why, Kevin? Why allow these new-evangelical, left-leaning men to have such sway in your heart? Surely you must know this is not what will build character in your young ministry students. Do you know that? Certainly you have heard the axiom, “What the parents do in moderation, the children will do in excess.” Doesn’t this give you pause to weigh carefully the consequences of your published e-words? Where is your caution as a preacher-training “parent?” Why do you continually laud men who violate Bible truth and systematically reject what we tried to teach in the early days of Central?

Lastly, I must say, that I preached my entire ministry from the KJV. Was that wrong, outmoded, or ineffective? You seem to loathe anyone who does preach from this Bible and won’t preach from another? With the help of God, I was able to see Fourth Baptist grow through old-fashioned preaching, soulwinning and discipleship. While this may contradict the conservative evangelical code, is this unacceptable or a violation of the Word of God? I preached the Bible faithfully, stood for it vigorously, and opposed the liberals, modernists, and evangelical protestant compromisers of my day. Did I miss some verse that contradicts these paths? Did I fail in my ministry in these areas? Be sure, I made some mistakes, and could elaborate them quite clearly, but in these matters, did I disobey God? We experienced real revival at our church, in our youth group, and at our schools. Is this out of date and no longer en vogue for the 21st century?

Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings, the students of Central, and even Central itself away from the Testimony upon which it was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism. As Samuel of old who, after his death, confronted Saul in his error, I plead with you to turn back “to the Law and to the Testimony.”

Sincerely,


Richard V. Clearwaters

*Written by Evangelist Dwight Smith who for several years attended Fourth Baptist Church, was challenged by Richard V. Clearwaters and whose dad was trained directly under his ministry. He may be contacted at the Evangelist Dwight Smith website.

Addendum from the Author:
For some time I have avoided posting on SI because of the condescending tone and critical spirit displayed by many of the contributors and moderators. Last fall, I signed up, and last Friday posted my first message. Their reaction indicates that the brothers at SI, in large part, are open to criticism as long as it is not directed at them.

Dwight Smith

Site Publisher Note: First appeared at the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron site (3/12/10) in a thread under Kevin Bauder’s Nick of Time, article, Let’s Get Clear on This (3/7/10). Permission was received from Dr. Clearwaters, I mean Evangelist Dwight Smith, to reproduce his thread comment here as a main page article.

For my series, which reviews Kevin Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This see- Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations

Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations, Part 2

For an extended discussion of SI’s handling and deletion of the Clearwaters letter see, SI Gang-Tackles “Doc” Clearwaters! Well Sort of

I have furthermore produced a second companion article to review an article related to Kevin Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This. The article I review is written by SI site publisher Aaron Blumer titled, I Learned it From Fundamentalists.

It is a genuine well written and heart felt depiction of his life’s journey in and around historic Fundamentalism. I commend him for this article and his expression of it. It does, however, raise some legitimate questions and comments that I would put to Aaron in his capacity as SI site publisher.

See my review of Aaron’s article at Aaron Blumer: Learned it From Fundamentalists for your consideration.