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.

Seven o'clock Saturday morning I left with my current wife for Ellis County. The next day was to mark our 34^th year of marriage, and she thought it was time for me to take a break from my Fort Remonstrans Heresy Awareness Project and bring her up to speed on the rôle of cotton in Texas history.

After turning off 35-E for Waxahachie we stopped for a slurp and a nibble so the sleepy citizens could get out of bed and begin adding local color to our holiday. I invested in a cinnamon bun as big as my steering wheel and began my lectures.

I told her that before the Civil War there were only a few settlers scratching the land for corn, oats, sweet potatoes and wheat. According to the 1860 Agricultural Schedule, only 389 bales of cotton were produced. In ‘79 the Waxahachie Tap Railroad laid some track. Then came the Fort Worth and New Orleans in '86, the M-K-T in 1889, and the Trinity and Brazos Valley Railroad in 1907. Ellis County discovered a world which showed a keen interest in its cotton-related industries. By 1900 Ellis County produced more cotton than any in the nation. In 1910 the Agricultural Schedule recorded that 106,384 bales of cotton had been raised, processed and shipped.

There was a little economic boom that lasted until the Depression. Thirty-two saloons sprang up around the Square. The Shelton Opera House opened in 1880 to satisfy the great Texas thirst for "culture" and entertainment. There was a racetrack, there were fairgrounds, there were bawdy houses and there was a Chautauqua Auditorium for showcasing Will Rogers, John Philip Sousa, William Jennings Brian and collateral American embarrassments.

Some of this wealth went into an interest of mine: residential architecture, and some of it went into an interest of my wife's: the decorative arts. So we checked the batteries in our cameras, hit the Gingerbread Trail and started collecting photographic evidence of the Courthouse, "Carpenter Gothic" homes, some local commentaries on the Arts & Crafts movement and the Chautauqua Auditorium at Getzendaner Park.

By this time I had finished my cinnamon bun and we began looking for a restaurant to do lunch in. Eventually we moseyed northward through Texas until we found our own personal hovel located in what used to be a Texas cotton field.

The wife and I agreed that our marriage had not been the unmitigated failure her mother and the Dean of Men expected it would be and we decided to extend the relationship into the foreseeable future.

But a day spent thinking about Arts and Crafts reminded me of William Morris and his words on the decorative arts—and sentiments not at all foreign to the Chautauqua circuit:

Now if the objection be made, that these arts have been the handmaids of luxury, of tyranny, and of superstition, I must needs say that it is true in a sense; they have been so used, as many other excellent things have been. It is also true that, among some nations, their most vigorous and freest times have been the very blossoming times of art; while at the same time, I must allow that these decorative arts have flourished among oppressed peoples, who have seemed to have no hope of freedom; yet I do not think that we shall be wrong in thinking that at such times, among such peoples, art at least was free; when it has not been, when it has really been gripped by superstition, by luxury, it has straightway begun to sicken under that grip. Nor must you forget that when men say popes, kings, and emperors built such and such buildings, it is a mere way of speaking. You look in your history-books to see who built Westminster Abbey, who built St. Sophia at Constantinople, and they tell you Henry III., Justinian the Emperor. Did they? or, rather, men like you and me, handicraftsmen, who have left no names behind them, nothing but their work?

Sometimes looking at even the humblest of these works elevates the soul.

We must admit we were warned: we were told that everything had to change. So sure enough, change started kicking in. McLaren vamoosed. Pagitt is off pretending to be an economist. Tony Jones (who with no evidence at all regards himself an over-educated white man) magnanimously stepped down as National Coordinator of the Emergent Village. Then we saw a bunch of wannabes posting announcements on YouTube of their intentions to step up and fill the vacancy.

This was a "decentralization of power".

Now come the complaints, the whinging, and the back-stabbing. It's like an FBFI annual "fellowship" after they pass out the namecards and knives. Villagers are disillusioned, energy is down, spirits are low. You can examine the debris field thither and yon.

Two extremely intelligent and very articulate Villagers published a real thoughtfest on the web. It began with Zach Lind, a drummer, saying to Nick, his good friend:

Basically I was like, you know, I read what you said, and I had like, cuz see, I kinda come at it from a different perspective, like I totally don't begrudge frustration or anything like that, but I'm kind of wondering like, I guess for me it was sort of like, I understand it, but like, what is, what was your expectation, you know, like I guess, that's me, it seems like the hardest part to swallow about what you're saying is you sort of said that you and your friends expected everything to kind of change and it's not really changing you know. Do you think it's not changing at all, or do you think it's just not changing as quickly as you would like it to?

Emergence is a "conversation", ironically.

Then we read this from a hopeful skeptic:

Emergent is de-centralizing, loosing leadership, and ten odd years into it, it still hasn't been able to define itself completely. As it struggles to define itself, some of us loose faith in it.

So what am I saying, that I don't like Emergent? No. Just that I guess some of us where hoping that everything would change, and it seems that the only thing that has changed is we have seen the group get dispersed and less potent.

Maybe it's our fault for not putting in our two cents early on. Maybe it's the fact that the leadership of Emergent was too accommodating to really define themselves in a way to produce a movement. Maybe I was stuck on the idea of revolution and movement, and it was only a conversation.

They where [sic] hoping everything would change, but that didn't happen. So we still have a bunch of friends with a website and a 501(c)3 tax-exempt classification, but we now also have a map.

And good luck with that map thingy! That looks like something that could really help you retain leadership and define the conversation/movement/ethos/whatever.

Let us all fervently hope the Villagers can sort through this loss of faith so they can focus their mighty intellects on ending poverty, war, and environmental destruction.

Friday I quoted Paul Gerhardt. Gerhardt was born in Grafenhaynichen, suffered much during his ministry and earned a reputation as one of the greatest of the German hymnists. I suspect he was the greatest, and I gather there weren't many who would qualify to clean his boots. In fact, your devotional life will be deepened by reading through some of his surviving hymns here. Wackernagel asks, "Where is the Evangelical congregation that does not know Paul Gerhardt?

"Well, Herr Wackernagel," I might respond today, "how long a list would you like?"

Some of Gerhardt's suffering was the result of persecution which followed his refusal to obey an edict of Elector Frederick William prohibiting the mention of sectarian differences in Reformed and Lutheran homilies. It seems Paul Gerhardt continued to treasure and disseminate those differences.

But I conjure the memory of this man of principle because of our moment in history. As some of us have noted recently, we suffer a serious misapprehension of authority. Indeed, I suspect we don't really know the meaning of the word. It has very nearly gotten to the point that the only people who mention a lack of authority are those merely demanding our conformity.

There was a time when, if people yammered like McLaren and Pagitt, they would be given a cookie and told to go outside and play. There was a time when the strutting recently observed among fundamentalists would have been infra dig. To look at fundamentalism now you could be forgiven for believing that anything goes so long as you line up behind the right personalities, and the whole point of the movement is to maintain certain political loyalties.

These days there are a lot people who resent your bringing this fact to their attention. They suppose you are just an eccentric running around as though your shirt were on fire, but they would resent this behavior even if your shirt were on fire. Even if you are permitted to disagree with heretics you must still assume a respectful attitude toward heresy.

Here on Remonstrans we speak about our own culture. We are occasionally—not often, but it happens—dismissed because many think culture is just nattering about opera and traditions and wearing ties. In fact, our culture is the first thing that determines which ideas are worth entertaining and who is worth listening to.

Our culture now lacks that function, and it will be crucial for anyone doing real ministry to consider how one will feed the flock when authority is in such disrepute and when its abusers hold high office. We can pretend there aren't people like McLaren vaporizing about the resurrection, Corcoran conjecturing about the eschaton, Sweatt surmising about Calvinism....

Men like Gerhardt have our respect because they knew something about authority.

His work thou must consider / If thine is to endure.

On Him place Thy reliance
If thou wouldst be secure;
His work thou must consider
If thine is to endure.

--- Paul Gerhardt

And the fratricide continues.

The I-70 Roach Paradise closed its doors briefly so local crime scene investigators could set out some numbered cards, collect blood samples and take photos. Management took this opportunity to rearrange the carpet stains and swap out the dingy orange curtains for dreary blue ones.

But now the pandemonium has resumed with fair vigor.

Elsewhere Lou Martuneac unveils the richness of the English language with his innovative use of bold, italicized, red and underlined Statements of Special Alarm. He shows the reading public no consideration at all with his posting of a quartet of fundamentalist eyesores. He also issues "a call for the removal from the platform" of one of the proponents of a fundamentalism worth saving for, I suppose, conduct unbecoming a proponent of a fundamentalism worth saving.

And this is the best fundamentalism to date?! Maybe this is a step up from calling someone a monster in human flesh as Dr. Bob, Jr., ("a widely respected man from our own IFB heritage") might have done.

I don't know what authority Lou has to call for this removal, it's not specifically addressed anywhere in the Big Book of Fundamentalist Protocols—but then neither was Bauder's general call for speaking up against Dan Sweatt's misbehavior. So I guess we have achieved some sort of equilibrium. We are slouching briskly toward June 16-18, and I get a sense of Lou's annoyance not from his cogent arguments but from his bold, italicized, red and underlined Statements of Special Alarm.

Very persuasive, yes?

I reproduce here a black-and-white transcription of Matuneac's complaint:

With an opportunity before him (Bauder) to promote unity, healing and reconciliation in the IFB community Dr. Bauder chose to pursue a different tact [sic]. 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.

I have found fitting moments to suggest that there is no such thing as a fundamentalism worth saving. I can believe in unicorns, ladies fine and wingéd swine, fauns, gorgons and three-headed dogs, but I draw the line at a fundamentalism worth saving. I could offer a complete list of reasons with footnotes, but I just gave you two very compelling links by way of preamble.

So this is what we find under one end of the religious rainbow: a good old-fashioned test of loyalties. It looks like a meeting of the politburo.

Under the other end we find this Brian D. McLaren guy coming up with a theological reverie we might expect from someone who buys lotus plants in bulk.

I am going to suggest, again, that we have put our trust in horses. We could do without fundamentalists and we could certainly lose the drooling McLaren, but even if we were to subtract these unreasonable men, what would remain?

Now more than ever is the time to fix our attention on what is good and true and beautiful, raise children who can appreciate the difference between the ministry and complete foolishness, and reflect on Mr. Gerhardt's idea.

And off in an entirely different wing of the religious loony bin we hear nutritionist Brian D. McLaren delivering himself of some helpful thoughts on the relationship between digestion and resurrection.

McLaren (after drinking some fair trade coffee) began exploring a major dimension of the meaning of the eucharist. It is only right that we inform our readers that Mr. McLaren has a bachelor's degree and a master's degree, but neither of them is in theology or the health sciences.

In Jesus' death, his blood was drained from his body. That is, crudely put, what death meant to most people in Jesus' day - especially violent death: the separation of blood and body. Today it struck me that in instituting the eucharist, Jesus was saying something like this: "My blood is about to be separated from my body, but when you take my body and blood into your body and blood, you will reunite them. I will live again in you. I will be resurrected in you." This is not to minimize Jesus' Easter-morning resurrection, but to suggest a major dimension of its meaning.

(Please don't laugh...at least not for an inordinately long time.)