Saints and Demons

What Kevin says here is true:

[Kevin T. Bauder] The same must be true of other leaders whose ministries were draped in controversy. People like John R. Rice, Lester Roloff, and Bob Jones Jr. had larger-than-life public personas. They faced daunting challenges and lived in perplexing times. It does them no disservice to recognize that they made mistakes and committed sins—which of us does not? We need not agree with their every decision, and we need not necessarily take them as models.

To demonize these leaders, however, would not be just. They were sinners saved by grace, and God’s grace was surely sustaining and transforming them throughout their lives. Although we are aware of their flawed humanity, we should also remind ourselves that they loved God, they loved the gospel, they loved souls, and they loved ministry.

But in the May 15 Nick of Time, Kevin said this of a similar list that included Dr. Bob Jones Jr.

[Kevin T. Bauder, May 15, 2009] I am old enough to remember every one of the “giants” on Pastor Sweatt’s list. I watched them during their public ministries. Their leadership and spiritual insight never impressed me. These were not the men I wanted to be like then, and I do not want to be like them today. Indeed, when I was a twenty-something, they and their kind were the greatest hindrance to my becoming a fundamentalist. Along the way, however, I discovered that such men did not and do not represent mainstream, historic fundamentalism. They may have been “giants” in terms of their public image, but they contributed little to biblical fundamentalism. Indeed, they are among the very heavy liabilities that fundamentalism has had to bear.

I am grateful to have been reared in a version of fundamentalism that was led by men who refused to become “giants.” You have probably never heard their names, because they were not trying to create or control empires. They were willing to stand up to bullies, however, and in some cases they were savaged by the very “giants” whom Pastor Sweatt identifies.

In light of brother Bauder’s improved insight as per today’s article, could we get an apology for his earlier savaging of Dr. Bob Jr?

I only had the opportunity to take one class with Doc at Central (the last one he taught) and it was well worthwhile just to hear him tell old “war stories”. In some cases, I think he did what he felt he had to do, and he knew in many cases the opposition played dirty. He was not afraid to mix it up with them. We do get a rather Pollyannish version of what conflict is really like. In his time, lay people were losing their land and buildings, pastors were losing their retirements, and denominations and fellowships were led by some who were entrenched and less than scrupulous.

This picture does not always fit with the succeeding generation’s view of how things should be. We often fail to point out and weed out “spiritual opportunists” within fellowships.

Doc was certainly “over the top” for what is considered OK today, but was definitely a man of his time.

Don,

I don’t see any reason for an apology. The present article does not say we must accept lock stock and barrel every aspect of a man’s ministry. It calls for balance and as much charity as possible. That does not preclude dealing with the shortcomings as they appear. I see no contradiction between the posts.

Chip, please don’t put words in my mouth. Dr Bob had his faults, as we all do. Kevin has acknowledged this and has said the same about him in the current article. But he earlier, in reference to Dr Bob said:

[Kevin T. Bauder] such men did not and do not represent mainstream, historic fundamentalism.

and

[Kevin T. Bauder] they contributed little to biblical fundamentalism

and

[Kevin T. Bauder] they are among the very heavy liabilities that fundamentalism has had to bear

and

[Kevin T. Bauder] (the leaders of his brand of fundamentalism) were savaged by the very “giants” whom Pastor Sweatt identifies

Now, I acknowledge that his statements of some on Sweatt’s list fit his description. But he clearly and publicly smeared Dr. Bob Jones Jr by his response to Sweatt. He has never, to my knowledge, retracted or clarified but has instead let the smear stand.

Today’s article is what should have been said of Dr. Bob Jr a long time ago, but it falls short of an apology for his earlier smear. He is guilty of the same thing he is criticizing in today’s article.

Now, I realize that he, too, has feet of clay. I realize I do also. But it seems to me that a clear apology is in order.

Don,

I still don’t see the contradiction. I praise Jr. for that which is praiseworthy. But I agree with each of the highlighted statements in post 4. No doubt, many people were positively affected by his ministry. Thank God He chooses to use all of us despite our failings. However, Jr. and his ilk:

- did not and do not represent mainstream, historic fundamentalism.

- contributed little to biblical fundamentalism.

- are among the very heavy liabilities that fundamentalism has had to bear.

And I agree with KB that, despite all the good that may have come from their ministries, I have not, do not, and will not place them as patterns to be followed.

not much more can be said. Astonishing.

This article isn’t about voicing criticism, but about taking one extreme view or the other-

Over the years, I have observed other fundamentalist leaders whom I did not wish to emulate. When they became involved in controversy, they could do brutal things. They could sometimes act like bullies and speak hateful things. In their public personas, they sometimes hurt fundamentalism. For these reasons, some have been inclined to demonize them.

The criticism is warranted, but even so- that doesn’t make them the Spawn of Satan.

My questions run more toward what IMO are somewhere near the roots, which I believe are 1) how do these men become Big Names and 2) how do they end up embroiled in controversy? Aren’t even the Big Names accountable to others? How do you enact Biblical church discipline when someone is a Big Name? Why do folks invest in these men and their ministries to the point where they are afraid to acknowledge their flaws? Wouldn’t Big Names have more credibility if they opened themselves up to constructive criticism from their peers and elders?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Don,

why should someone apologize for having an opinion about the life and ministry of another person? Or voicing it, for that matter? We can dispute if he is right or not, but if he has not said anything demonstrably false, what’s the issue.

When I’m dead, I hope my kids can discern and discuss in a constructive way areas in which their father failed to measure up to Christ . Perhaps with their children or other folks who knew me. Depending on how discerning they are, they may find the have a lot to talk about.

In the current paper, Kevin says we should not demonize these leaders, but note their accomplishments, specifically mentioning Dr. Bob Jr.

In the previous paper, Kevin demonizes a list of leaders as having made no contribution to biblical fundamentalism, etc, saying this of a list including Dr. Bob Jr. You can’t have it both ways.

P.S. I hope that my children are well aware of my faults and don’t imitate them. But if they spend their time talking about them, I would wonder at what kind of human beings they are. My own dad died in February. He had many faults. But he was a saint who led me to Christ and is in heaven now. The faults are history and I’ll not be bringing them up.

Kevin,

Wow - really an amazing article! This is refreshing on multiple levels and frankly helps me hit “re-set” on my relationship-compass with a few leaders I’m thinking of. It really is a “true-ism” here - If “they” as leaders are indeed God’s child, and if they are actively loving the Gospel and Christ’s church, at some level we must assume the best even when (maybe especially when) we’ve been hurt by the flat side of a leader’s ministry. This is a great call for all or any of us us who both lead and follow! Oustanding!

Straight Ahead!

Joel

Don, I think there is some benefit from frank discussion about the failures of those we love and who have done a lot of good. My own father died in 2003 (seems like last month). He too was a dear saint with some serious failures. I don’t know that we do anyone (remaining or gone) a favor by refusing to talk about those issues in a way that is as respectful to the departedas possible while remaining helpful to the discussees.

While I normally roll my eyes at what I’m about to say, it may be very much worth our while to define what it means to truly “demonize” someone. There are a lot of words that have very flexible definitions, and while everyone assumes everyone else “knows what I mean,” sometimes that’s not actually the case and a lot of e-ink is spilled over misunderstandings arising from the lack of a key definition or two.

Am I “demonizing” someone by saying something unflattering about him? Did Dr. Bauder “demonize” BJ2 by saying that he “made no contribution to biblical fundamentalism”? To me, that’s kinda unflattering, but I’d hardly say that’s demonizing the guy. To me, you cross the line between “critical” and “demonizing” when you start inferring that someone’s life patterns make him an agent of evil, a true demon on earth. With that said, there are very few “Big Names” that have been truly “demonized” in the history of the movement, who have been accused of ushering in evil through their actions. I can think of a few that you could make the argument about, including one on his list, but rather than derail this into a public airing of everyone’s past accusations, suffice to say that even I, who can be more than a little critical of Fundamentalism’s “Big Names” of the past, don’t think there are many truly demonized folks on the theological right. Now, to the left, sure - I’ve seen some pretty heated things about Piper and especially Graham that I would consider are close to “demonizing,” and in those cases I would say let’s pay attention to what Dr. Bauder is trying to say. But overall, with a few exceptions, this article strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.

[Don Johnson] In light of brother Bauder’s improved insight as per today’s article, could we get an apology for his earlier savaging of Dr. Bob Jr?

Actually, http://centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick217.html what Bauder said was:

Pastor Sweatt suggests that we must live through a generation in order to judge it, but this notion cannot be applied with any consistency. If we cannot judge Hyles, Rice, Jones, Roloff, or Gray, then we cannot judge Ockenga, Carnell, Henry, Lindsell, or Graham. For that matter, Pastor Sweatt is not even permitted to judge people like Calvin, Beza, Knox, Edwards, or Spurgeon.

Pastor Sweatt hopes to excuse the excesses (a better word is “brutality”) of these earlier fundamentalist leaders by appealing to the results of their ministries. The numerical success of fundamentalism, however, was never as impressive as that of the New Evangelicalism. The Graham crusades, Youth for Christ, Campus Crusade, and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship certainly reached tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. When faced with those successes, though, fundamentalists have always been quick to point out that faithfulness matters more than results.

I am old enough to remember every one of the “giants” on Pastor Sweatt’s list. I watched them during their public ministries. Their leadership and spiritual insight never impressed me. These were not the men I wanted to be like then, and I do not want to be like them today. Indeed, when I was a twenty-something, they and their kind were the greatest hindrance to my becoming a fundamentalist. Along the way, however, I discovered that such men did not and do not represent mainstream, historic fundamentalism. They may have been “giants” in terms of their public image, but they contributed little to biblical fundamentalism. Indeed, they are among the very heavy liabilities that fundamentalism has had to bear.

A ‘savaging’ of Jones, Jr would imply that Bauder attacked Jones individually. However, Jones, Jr.’s name only appears once in the entire article, which is why I linked to it and then quoted. Bauder had strong words for the “leaders” of the movement (which is why the words above are bolded), not for Jones Jr. individually. I do agree with you that throwing out Jones, Jr’s name wasn’t wise, but I don’t know anything about Jones Jr personally so I can’t really comment either way on the person.

Furthermore, Bauder also added http://centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick219.html in his correspondance article :

Concerning your present article, did you intend to lump Bob Jones Jr., JR Rice, and Lester Roloff with Jack Hyles and Bob Gray. To me, I see a wide, wide difference between the first three and the last two, who were virtual cult leaders and clearly involved in immorality. It seems unfair to lump them together. I am sure you have your reasons, just curious.

‑FBF board member

After reading your essay and seeing that you attended Denver Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary, and Dallas Theological Seminary, I understand that you are espousing the new evangelicalism you were taught. Hopefully, you will see the error of your way and repent. Of course, most men who graduate from new evangelical institutions look upon faithful fundamentalists (Bob Jones, Jr.) with an air of contempt and superiority. By the way, when I attended college in Tennessee 44 years ago, a professor wisely told us that if a person attends an institution of compromise he should denounce the institution.

‑Unknown

I have suggested to Drs. Vaughn and Smith that they need to cancel you as a speaker. at the National Meeting. I do so because of your statement concerning Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. that he was one of the very heavy burdens that fundamentalism has had to bear. I do not believe that Dr. Sweatt should have included Dr. Bob Jones along with the others that he called “giants”. Therefore it would follow that I do believe that, in your reply to Sweatt’s message, you should have differentiated between Dr. Jones, and Drs. Hyles, Gray, and Roloff. I doubt that those three, Hyles, Gray, and Roloff, were ever members of FBF or the fellowships out of which it grew, CBF and The Fundamental Fellowship of the ABC. (Not sure of the name when it was associated with ABC).

Dr. Jones was vitally connected with the FBF and was a strong fundamentalist. Dr. Rice was not particularly involved with the FBF, but should be differentiated from the other three—the only reason for not differentiating them is that Dr. Rice did promote the ministry of the other men in The Sword of the Lord—though I do believe Dr. Rice was different. But you grouped them all together as men you did not count as authentic fundamentalists. Therefore I am not sure you should be in a speaker’s position at the National Meeting, particularly in the light of your blog.

I recognize that I know you only by name. I am not sure that I have ever heard you speak. I recognize you as a leader by virtue of your position with Central Seminary. Further I recognize that Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., being a man, probably made some mistakes. But to say that he was a liability to fundamentalism that caused you to consider not being identified with fundamentalism cause me to wonder just what type of fundamentalism it is that you espouse. Therefore I have suggested to Drs. Vaughn and Smith that they not use you to speak at this National Meeting at this time will be the best for the FBFI. I am not saying you are not a fundamentalist, but I do have questions as to whether you are the militant type fundamentalist as those were with whom I had fellowship in the founding days of the FBF. You may be the very fundamentalist of whom I speak as a militant fundamentalist. But I would think that before you be allowed to speak there should be an apology given to the leadership at BJU. You see, you, as an Administrator at Central Seminary, speaking of a former President and Chancellor of a companion institution, are making a statement about that institution and those of us who stand with it.

It may be that our paths may cross some day and that we can sit down and talk about these things.

‑Retired pastor and FBFI emeritus board member

If he had intended to ‘savage’ Jones, Jr., then why would he publish this correspondence? It certainly doesn’t help support his ‘savaging’ argument. Savaging would be if he had only cited the comments that proved Jones, Jr. was a bad dude or was corrupt or whatever, which he didn’t.

Mounty, Jay answers your question with the more expanded quote, don’t you think? He added these words which I had omitted:

Pastor Sweatt hopes to excuse the excesses (a better word is “brutality”) of these earlier fundamentalist leaders by appealing to the results of their ministries.

Would you say ‘brutality’ is a demonizing word?

Why try to split hairs? A lot of insulting words were used. It is quite clear from the context that Bauder intended to mean all those things of Dr Bob and Dr Rice. Now he says we shouldn’t demonize them. Fine, I agree. But a retraction of these insulting implications would be in order.

Grammar? What point of grammar are you trying to make?

Are you trying to say I took the quotation out of context? Your quotes only make my point stronger.

The fact that Kevin published some mildly critical correctives only proves my point - others saw the problem with his statements also. Kevin never responded to those criticisms.

No, I don’t think you’re taking things out of context; my basic charge is that you may be reacting more to the fact that Jones is on the list with dead criminals than to what the overall point Bauder was making in the first place…make sense?

Basically, I think your use of the term “savage” is incorrect on two counts. First, all of the parts that I bolded were plural, not singular - meaning that Bauder didn’t go after Jones, Jr. specifically, which is what you said in your first post. The second point is that Bauder is right - the work of Gray (who is now dead and who http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=11877] was accused of heinous crimes ) and Hyles (who was - at best - doctrinally aberrant and at worst http://www.biblicalevangelist.org/jack_hyles_story.php] a hustler, cheater, and thief ) does not constitute any kind of positive role model for any serious minded Christian (or Fundamentalist for that matter). Yet for many years, they were (and still continue to be upheld) in some places as role models. The fact that this continues to go on http://www.20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9844] while Sweatt is himself demonizing people that he didn’t agree with - Calvinists and others - is a problem.

I have already agreed with you that putting BJ, Jr.’s name out there was wrong. I don’t think that Bauder was “demonizing” or “slandering” BJ Jr because of the grammatical stuff that I noted. That’s all I was trying to say.

[Don Johnson] Would you say ‘brutality’ is a demonizing word?

Only if the characterization is dishonest or unfair. Otherwise it is merely descriptive.

[Jay C.] No, I don’t think you’re taking things out of context; my basic charge is that you may be reacting more to the fact that Jones is on the list with dead criminals than to what the overall point Bauder was making in the first place…make sense?

No, Jay, it doesn’t make sense. Bauder didn’t create the list. Sweatt did. It isn’t the fact that Jones was included in the list that bothers me at all. It isn’t the fact that Bauder reacted to Sweatt’s list. His reaction was appropriate with respect to Gray and Hyles. But to the grammar thing…

[Jay C.] First, all of the parts that I bolded were plural, not singular - meaning that Bauder didn’t go after Jones, Jr. specifically, which is what you said in your first post.

I grant that Bauder wasn’t going after Dr Bob individually, but that is irrelevant. He went after every name on the list indiscriminately. In his attack, he equated them all.

It was foolish of Sweatt to create the list in the first place. Incredibly insensitive and tone-deaf at the very least, to call ALL of those men GIANTS of fundamentalism.

And it was certainly OK for Bauder to criticize that, but he made no distinctions. Let’s leave Dr. Bob out of it. Was it right for Bauder to go after Rice as if he was anywhere on the level of Hyles or Gray? Granted, Rice was close to Hyles during his lifetime and passed away before Hyles most egregious activities were known, but would anyone really want to say that he was the same kind of man Hyles was? That Gray was? Please.

The same is true of Dr Bob.

So Bauder’s plural is inclusive, not exclusive. It proves my point, not yours.

[Jay C.] I have already agreed with you that putting BJ, Jr.’s name out there was wrong. I don’t think that Bauder was “demonizing” or “slandering” BJ Jr because of the grammatical stuff that I noted. That’s all I was trying to say.

Ok, fine, let’s drop ‘demonizing’ and ‘slandering’. I’m ok with this simple statement: ‘Bauder was wrong to imply that Dr. Bob Jones Jr. contributed nothing to Biblical fundamentalism and was wrong to imply that he was in any way on a level with Hyles and Gray.’ If he would simply admit that such an implication exists in his comments and that he shouldn’t have made them, especially in light of today’s article (which I agree with), then I have no problem any more.

I see what you’re saying and understand your point…I was so hung up on Bauder that I’d never realized the list of names came from Sweatt, and that does put a different spin on it, and continuing to lump Jones, Jr and Rice with Hyles and Gray is a HUGE problem that Bauder does bring on himself…he’s basically compounding Sweatt’s error.

Thanks for clarifying that; I appreciated the interaction.

FWIW… When we agree with criticism, it’s just criticism. When we disagree, it’s demonizing. When we agree with admiration it’s just appreciating strengths, when we disagree, it’s canonizing.

That’s the tendency. If you’re aware of it, you can compensate to a degree. If you’re not, you’ll continue to see the situation through highly distorted lenses and wonder why others don’t see it.

It’s a sensitive subject so emotional freighting is very likely.