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.