Browning! Since Chaucer was alive and hale, no man hath walkt along our roads with step so active, so inquiring eye, or tongue so varied in discourse.

--- Walter Savage Landor

Wednesday we oozed on down to Belton, TX, for The Inspired Line, Selected Prints of Albrecht Dürer and Rembrandt van Rijn. The nice part about looking at great art in Belton, TX, is that no one down there is interested, and because no one is interested, no admission is charged and there are no lines at the front door, and there are no people getting in your way as you go right up to masterpieces and examine them closely with a magnifying glass almost as large as your steering wheel.

If you're smart, you will drive down to Belton, TX, before August 11 and see for yourself.

After that we scooted back up to Temple, TX, to check out a Czech museum, but it was being moved to another building. That was a real bummer and my travel agent will pay dearly for this lack of due diligence.

So we shook the dust off our feet and left Temple for Waco. We got into our Marriott Courtyard third-floor room overlooking the Brazos River and the first bridge ever built to cross it, the Waco Suspension Bridge. The plaque on the south end said it was—at the time it was built—the longest single span suspension bridge in the world. I have reason to doubt this, but I did take a picture of the claim just to remind Texans not to lie to a Brooklyn boy about suspension bridges.

We are very sensitive about that.

You can see the bridge on Google Earth here:  31°33′40″N 97°07′39″W.

So I and my bargain-basement travel agent got in the car and drove through the Baylor campus and over to the Armstrong Browning Library pictured below.

If you look high on the opposite wall as you walk in, you read Landor's statement. If you pass through either of the two doors through that wall you will come to The Foyer of Meditation. If you are ever in Waco, you should go to this library and get some sense of the minds, loves and worldly possessions of the Brownings. And you must go to the Foyer of Meditation. However cultic and vainglorious the name, you must see this room. I know Heaven will make that place look like a derelict outhouse, but still, until Heaven, you need to see this room. If you've ever had any noble thoughts, take them with you.

The rest of our time was spent cruising Waco for pictures of historic homes, gardens and churches. Then tragedy struck and we had to visit to the Dr. Pepper Museum.

Do not ask me why we did this. Apparently the travel agent spent a good amount of her childhood at a soda fountain with her friend, Jeanne, drinking Dr. Peppers.

You take the bad with the good.

There are more outrageous doings in the land than we have had opportunity to reveal.

It has now come to light that Al Mohler, Mark Dever and others have conspired to honor a most wicked man by the name of Duke McCall. A welcome pavilion—yes, you read correctly—a welcome pavilion! was named after him, and worse still, kind things were said about him during the ceremonies.

This almost slipped by without notice and very nearly deprived us of an occasion to express our disapproval, but Agent Doran of the Detroit Office exposed this mind-boggling departure from the faith.

This is what boggles my mind. Here you find a staunch theological conservative (Al Mohler), backed by other staunch conservatives (e.g., chairman of the SBTS board, Mark Dever), naming a pavilion in honor of a man whose service at SBTS produced the mess which Mohler is credited for reversing. Recognizing him at the event is one thing, but naming a pavilion after him? What biblical justification can there be for something like this?

I think it is fair to assume that Dr. Doran and Detroit Seminary will be not be extending the right hand of fellowship toward the SBC for much longer. Fundamentalistic persons must continue to maintain their own high standards of fellowship.

Mark Rogers doesn't know quite what to make of Doran's dudgeon and offers some pretty rickety excuses for this blatant apostasy, but I'm not sure how much of an explanation is really necessary: I think Doran's reasoning pretty much speaks for itself.

I've been involved in a few discussions recently having to do with Dan Sweatt's diatribe at The Wilds. Some have suggested that the whole mess was no big deal in the sense that it represented nothing unique in fundamentalist behavior. And this is true; this fits onto a recognizable continuum. I'm sure many people, insiders and outsiders, breathed a heartfelt Ho Hum, this is not news, let's flip over to the Sports Section.

But not all breathed that heartfelt Ho Hum, and sometimes the distance between what is and what ought to be is so great that we are forced to reflect. Had this happened twenty years ago, it would have gone straight down the memory hole. It's true.

One of the people I talked with [not C. Anderson] questioned my use of the McCune quotation. How was that appropriate? he wondered. It is true that McCune said it, but it is also true that he was not talking about the Sweatt affair. So I went back and reread the post in light of that question.

Perhaps because the question didn't occur to me when writing the post it still seems foreign to my point. But I can—to a slight degree—see how it might confuse a reader. So I'm happy to offer an explanation.

I quoted McCune not because his remark was contemporary with, or a commentary on, the current squabble but because it was relevant. McCune was dismissing the Young Fundamentalist critique of the movement; he perceived in it an ignorance and a political motivation that stood in the way of progress. (There was some truth to that perception: some of those guys were ignorant and resentful. But not all: Young Fundamentalism is not monolithic. It is also true that their criticisms were factual. The way fundies do business is wrong, and criticism should not be so peremptorily dismissed. I maintained at the time that it was inflammatory, and that "getting over it" and moving on was now less likely.)

My reason for repeating the McCune statement was not its timeliness but its relevance to the current situation. What Sweatt did was conspicuous in its ignorance and its political motivation, and this was obvious to everyone. He himself made it obvious with his introduction. A shirt that seemed tailored for a Young Fundamentalism in January of 2006 seemed to fit established Fundamentalism quite handsomely in June of 2009.

My salient objection, then and now, to the notion that some indiscretions of the past should be forgotten is simple: they are not yet in the past. They are the stuff of today's business. It is fundamentalism's culture.

_______________

At the risk of turning too long a post into an annoyingly interminable post, let's rehearse the most conspicuous public offenses.

First came Sweatt (with whom everyone claims some disagreement), then came Bixby's public complaint, then there was Bauder's raising the ante, then Doran jumped in and did his cheerleading for Bauder, then there was the FBFI's tardy and inadequate response, then there was Sweatt's church-site response, then there was the goofiness of Martuneac's call for Bauder's disinvitation, and then there was the fallout of the Schaumburg meeting—which so far seems to have resolved nothing for anybody.

• Sweatt didn't offend just Bixby, he transgressed the policy of the FBFI. Explicitly. And FBFI made no public comment on that transgression.
• Bixby clearly responded in an immature way and certainly made it harder for anyone to proceed in a deliberate, thoughtful way. He himself labeled his stuff rants.
• Bauder might have been the worst of all. With no direct involvement at all, he publicly insinuates himself and tries to define this notion of a fundamentalism worth saving. Then he published a string of private correspondences in support of himself. Pure opportunism, pure manipulation, pure politics. The very first resolution to be passed by a fundamentalism worth saving: Outsiders don't try to co-opt the crisis of the moment by redefining the movement and in doing so raise more resentment among the belligerents. Bauder might as well have said sic'em. And, we note, the blogosphere registered that incitement. Doran followed suit in such a way that this thing, which began as a Sweatt/Bixby nexus, turned into a brawl which now included two extraneous seminary presidents. Like handlebars on a basketball!
• Then the FBFI refused to recognize the significance of Sweatt's infraction and piously advised everyone to be fair and charitable. After what Sweatt did on their platform? That impertinence was not lost on many.
• Martuneac was clearly piling on. Since when does a member of an organization publicly demand such a thing? Do rational people behave like this in your workplace?

So. That overview illustrates what I take to be the essential point: What fundamentalism did in the past cannot be consigned to history because it is not history at all. We may well be humbled by the failures of Shields and Norris and Gray and Bell and Hyles and...but what we live with is this style of leadership, activism, bellicosity, grand-standing and political interference by those who should be humming to themselves all the verses of Blessed Quietness.

This is a problem that is not going away. Only the young fundamentalists will be doing that. Some of the old guard seem to think that would be a good thing, but a little thought would be worthwhile: what comes of separation when that happens?

CODA:

I was asked by a correspondent how it should have been handled. Given that they don't tolerate a board making autocratic decisions, what might have happened? I know that no one "over there" wants to hear from me, so some of you can stop reading now. But in fairness to the questioner I will answer him and tell why I think it would have lessened the impact of Sweatt's remarks.

Had I been in a position to speak for the FBFI (perish that nightmare), I would have posted this on the website as soon as I was able to get my computer turned on:

Pastor Dan Sweatt said some things this evening, and from our platform, which egregiously mischaracterized a certain theological viewpoint. It is important to us that you understand our position. It is still our policy that Calvinists and non-Calvinists can be members in good standing within the FBFI, and it should be important to you that we regard the opinions voiced tonight as a violation of that policy. We regret that our organization was implicated in their dissemination.

It is not necessary for us to ventilate our relationship with Pastor Sweatt, and we meekly—even obsequiously—request that no more be made of this than is good for the integrity of the organization. We shall handle private matters privately, but we shall make very public our hospitality toward all those who have legitimate reason to have taken offense tonight.

It seems to me, however unsatisfactory this would be to the principals, such a statement does what needs to be done and it does no more than should be done. It doesn't scold, it doesn't incite, it does not provoke, it does not advantage one faction or the other; it merely clarifies the legitimate position of the organization and discourages the intrusion of members and non-members, pastors and seminary presidents and meddling bystanders. And if this statement were posted the same night, none of the massacre witnessed on the blogosphere would have been persuasive. Additionally, the 89^th Annual Fellowship would not have met under lowering clouds and many would not have sat at home on the 19^th disappointed with the result.

If this were indeed a fellowship of individual Baptist Fundamentalists, there would be no place for this string of political acts. This should never have taken on the spirit of a battle in the ongoing

TOTAL WAR FOR THE SURVIVAL OF SEPARATISM IN OUR GALAXY!!!

We could do with a bit less of that, I think.

Are we really simply looking for objective facts in order to induce healing, or perhaps vindication if not some form of vicarious retribution?

 ---Rolland McCune

Well, ok, it's not much of an empire, and if this constitutes a strike, we guess the rebel alliance can relax and smoke ‘em if they got ‘em.

In one sense this whole affair of the last month is a nearly insignificant matter and of interest to a very small number of people. And of that small number of people there may be an even smaller number who know the history and spirit of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International. But for that small number there is something here to reflect on.

It will be important for those who care about this institution to note the sort of manipulation and the underlying defiance shown throughout. In fact it would be worth your time to listen to all the sermons and it would be especially helpful to get hold of Dr. Robert Congdon's innovative ideas as soon as they are committed to CD.

This is what the movement has come to.

Again, for most this is a very small matter. For some it is more important that there might be a fly in the garage. But for those who will want to reflect on the final disintegration of a notable—if not beloved—segment of American separatism, it is most useful. Here we view a religious movement which has lost its bearings and is content to watch its offspring looking for less embarrassing accommodations elsewhere.

For my part it is sad to watch. It is not as painful for me as it is for others: it's not my house that has fallen into a heap and they are not my delicates that are blowing through the neighborhood. But it is the house of some friends, and I'd like to hope they are thoughtful enough to take note of how things begin, how things change, and how things end.

Emergents aren't quite ready to wear long pants, but they are giving some thought to the day they will have to.

Tripp Fuller is asking for "input" here. He needs your help coming up with a definition. Maybe you can help him out. It is going to be tricky, though. Definitions have a way of nailing down a position to be defended, and, as emergents are always reminding us, defense of doctrine invariably yields schism. There will be no more of this it's-just-a-conversation-don't-get-all-bent-out-of-shape wheeze.

_______________

So, Dear Brother Tripp:

I am reasonably sure that I'm not the sort of person you had in mind when you started scavenging the internet for a description of your movement, but I've been on a good works binge lately and I see in this situation the possibility of getting yet another star in my crown.

So here are some simple tips.

First, try to keep your name out of it altogether. If people notice your name, they might check out your blog and read:

....that is Down Low.  Both Alecia and I's hard drives died within 12 hours of each other so I have been out of action.  With the death of both hard drives went the texts for all my final papers for my first semester in a phd program.  Now that you know all the HBC Deacons out there can rest assured that at the completion of my papers (for the second time) I will be back giving you adequate blogging attention. Tim Conder's podcast is safe on the HBC network and will be reeditied for your listening pleasure soon.

Most guys working on a Ph.D. find a way not to write like that. "Both Alecia and I's hard drives died..." will almost certainly leave readers of the Handbook of Denominations with the impression that you all are a bunch of boogey-eating PBS Kids. You should say instead: "Alecia's and I's hard drives died..." otherwise they may think Alecia is dead.

Second, the less you say about "post-modern philosophy" the less dated you will appear. People who haven't mastered first person possessive pronouns tend not to have a firm grasp of philosophies, especially the out-dated and abandoned ones.

Third, don't submit your definition in all uppercase letters. Mankind has used the lowercase alphabet to pleasing effect since roughly the time of the Carolingian Renaissance. Uppercase text is most useful for short messages on important signs like BEWARE OF DOG or HIPPIES USE SIDE DOOR.

Fourth, I think you do a great disservice to EV by failing to mention the pivotal rôle of Trucker Frank. Meister Schutzwohl's fine work in the field of truck stop evangelism ranks right up there with the ministries of St. Paul, St. Patrick, William Carey and David Livingstone.

Fifth, the hair and beard are just not working. They make you look like one of those balloon twisters at children's parties. While it may be appropriate for your emergent cohort, you need to think of the wider world of religious people.

I could suggest some other improvements but I'm sure you have many more e-mails to read and balloons to inflate.