Remonstrans
Crossdressing
06/26/09
Crossdressing
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 89th Annual Fellowship would not have met under lowering clouds and many would not have sat at home on the 19th 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.
Trackback address for this post:
Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:
1 Comment from: Watchman [Visitor] 
· http://www.watchmanswords.blogspot.com
· http://www.watchmanswords.blogspot.com
He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. Proverbs 26:17
If the people with no dog in the fight had stayed out of the fight, it wouldn't have been a very long or public fight at all...but then how would "we" have demonstrated the superiority of "our" separatist principles over someone else's? I've had a front-row seat for the multiple divisions, splits, dichotomies and denouncements among various groups of fundamentalists for four decades, and your statement that it's not in the past may be the most perceptive and accurate summation I've seen yet.
It's almost like we think the statement of Christ was that all men will know we are His disciples by our fractiousness...
If the people with no dog in the fight had stayed out of the fight, it wouldn't have been a very long or public fight at all...but then how would "we" have demonstrated the superiority of "our" separatist principles over someone else's? I've had a front-row seat for the multiple divisions, splits, dichotomies and denouncements among various groups of fundamentalists for four decades, and your statement that it's not in the past may be the most perceptive and accurate summation I've seen yet.
It's almost like we think the statement of Christ was that all men will know we are His disciples by our fractiousness...
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 07:13 2 Comment from: Bob Bixby [Visitor]
Actually, I didn't label my stuff rants. I said I was responding to a fundamentalist rant. If you think it was a rant, fine. But it's not what I said about it.
And, another clarification. You called it a Sweatt/Bixby nexus. My issue wasn't primarily with Sweatt. It's with the FBFI. And, frankly, still is.
Finally, what parts of my "immature" response to Sweatt were untrue? I'm quite willing to recant.
I realize that it may not have seemed nice, but of all people in the world you should be one to realize that sometimes the best way to communicate to certain people is by sticking a finger in the eye. Particularly if one knows that he is attempting to breach a good-old-boys enclave.
And, another clarification. You called it a Sweatt/Bixby nexus. My issue wasn't primarily with Sweatt. It's with the FBFI. And, frankly, still is.
Finally, what parts of my "immature" response to Sweatt were untrue? I'm quite willing to recant.
I realize that it may not have seemed nice, but of all people in the world you should be one to realize that sometimes the best way to communicate to certain people is by sticking a finger in the eye. Particularly if one knows that he is attempting to breach a good-old-boys enclave.
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 07:47 3 Comment from: de profundis [Visitor] · http://bradkelly.wordpress.com
· http://bradkelly.wordpress.com
Bob,
You say, "All this is a necessary preliminary to the blazing criticism [emphasis mine] that I intend to launch in the next few pages..."
He says, "rants"
Can't we all just get along?
You say, "All this is a necessary preliminary to the blazing criticism [emphasis mine] that I intend to launch in the next few pages..."
He says, "rants"
Can't we all just get along?
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 08:07 4 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor]
"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."
Of the triad, you last mention. None of these was done in any purity, but they may have been present in some corrupt fashion. Fundamentalists seminary presidents are in a difficult situation. Their clientele is going off to Louisville. Salaries are being cut, positions reduced.
Then, when the local internet gadfly - Bixby this time - makes use of the situation to run the movement into the ground thus guiding even more towards Louisville, Bauder feels the need to respond. There is some opportunity here. At the very least, some counter-manipulative manipulation occurs. It fairly breathes of politics.
However, I doubt even Bauder really believes that there is a fundamentalism worth saving. His progeny that now follows you is witness to this fact. For him, a fundamentalism worth saving is a hypothetical category like some people's understanding of a salvation that can be had by perfect law-keeping. It just happens to be where Bauder finds himself. Bauder chose to stay on the Titanic and help people into the life boats. I don't really think he is trying to rearrange the deck chairs - except to make way for the people on their way to the life boats. Others, like yourself, threw your Sevylor inflatable over the side and anxiously attempt to convince people that the ship is indeed sinking. An argument could be made for both approaches.
It may certainly be argued that both you and Bauder represent a Janus-like face to the defense of separatist orthodoxy. The former attempts to imitate the actions of Sardonis - who also led a seminary, whilst the other his criticisms.
Now, I await the incoming as I have surely given reason for righteous indignation to dissidens, Bauder, and Bixby.
Of the triad, you last mention. None of these was done in any purity, but they may have been present in some corrupt fashion. Fundamentalists seminary presidents are in a difficult situation. Their clientele is going off to Louisville. Salaries are being cut, positions reduced.
Then, when the local internet gadfly - Bixby this time - makes use of the situation to run the movement into the ground thus guiding even more towards Louisville, Bauder feels the need to respond. There is some opportunity here. At the very least, some counter-manipulative manipulation occurs. It fairly breathes of politics.
However, I doubt even Bauder really believes that there is a fundamentalism worth saving. His progeny that now follows you is witness to this fact. For him, a fundamentalism worth saving is a hypothetical category like some people's understanding of a salvation that can be had by perfect law-keeping. It just happens to be where Bauder finds himself. Bauder chose to stay on the Titanic and help people into the life boats. I don't really think he is trying to rearrange the deck chairs - except to make way for the people on their way to the life boats. Others, like yourself, threw your Sevylor inflatable over the side and anxiously attempt to convince people that the ship is indeed sinking. An argument could be made for both approaches.
It may certainly be argued that both you and Bauder represent a Janus-like face to the defense of separatist orthodoxy. The former attempts to imitate the actions of Sardonis - who also led a seminary, whilst the other his criticisms.
Now, I await the incoming as I have surely given reason for righteous indignation to dissidens, Bauder, and Bixby.
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 08:34 5 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Bob Bixby:
As to your first paragraph, point taken. I had in mind the statement:
http://weblog.wordcentered.org/archives/2009/05/13/a_young_and_restless_response_to_a_fundamentalist_rant.php
But I stand corrected: you did not literally call it a rant.
Thanks for catching the error.
Second, I agree with your second point as well. By “the Sweatt/Bixby nexus” I meant only to identify what occasioned your Response, that is, Sweatt’s talk. [As is obvious from the statement I quoted above.] I happen to agree that the primary offense here was not one man’s sermon, it was the occasion and the entire political environment. Fundamentalists’ hostile and opportunistic statements about Calvinism did not begin or end with Sweatt but they survive in places like FBFI.
Third, I know of nothing that you said that was untrue. Again, both true and false statements can be said well or said badly. There can be irenic falsehoods and provocative truths. My point here is not about the truth of the matter, it is about how fundamentalists run their shop.
Finally, “niceness” is overrated. It’s not nice to push an old lady down in the street…unless of course it is to save her from being hit by a bus! Often the occasion warrants the exceptional reaction. I don’t think I myself have a reputation to support a defense of niceness in every circumstance. Jesus was not sufficiently nice for the Pharisees.
I speak here only of the environment we create in which to sort out the problems.
As to your first paragraph, point taken. I had in mind the statement:
All this is a necessary preliminary to the blazing criticism that I intend to launch in the next few pages about one particular message entitled “Young and Restless” that was delivered at the regional meeting by Pastor Dan Sweatt.
http://weblog.wordcentered.org/archives/2009/05/13/a_young_and_restless_response_to_a_fundamentalist_rant.php
But I stand corrected: you did not literally call it a rant.
Thanks for catching the error.
Second, I agree with your second point as well. By “the Sweatt/Bixby nexus” I meant only to identify what occasioned your Response, that is, Sweatt’s talk. [As is obvious from the statement I quoted above.] I happen to agree that the primary offense here was not one man’s sermon, it was the occasion and the entire political environment. Fundamentalists’ hostile and opportunistic statements about Calvinism did not begin or end with Sweatt but they survive in places like FBFI.
Third, I know of nothing that you said that was untrue. Again, both true and false statements can be said well or said badly. There can be irenic falsehoods and provocative truths. My point here is not about the truth of the matter, it is about how fundamentalists run their shop.
Finally, “niceness” is overrated. It’s not nice to push an old lady down in the street…unless of course it is to save her from being hit by a bus! Often the occasion warrants the exceptional reaction. I don’t think I myself have a reputation to support a defense of niceness in every circumstance. Jesus was not sufficiently nice for the Pharisees.
I speak here only of the environment we create in which to sort out the problems.
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 08:58 6 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
exlibris:
Hmmmm.
First, it’s true that seminary presidents are in a hard place. I might feel some sympathy for them if it were not a place of their own making. I actually think it is good for education that seminaries are in a bad way. I realize Bauder & Peers will complain that these are all problems they inherited. I think if you wear the hat, you should be able to ride the horse.
A seminary president, theoretically, is an educator or an educator’s aide. The minute he assumes the role of a spokesman for a movement (especially a movement characterized by the sort of behavior so recently witnessed) my sympathy evaporates.
You ought to read Jonathan Pratt’s recent “history” of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College. Note how certain schools rise and why they fall. Read it for its attention to details. It will not take a genius to observe that certain emperors and their lieutenants are engaged in far more than education. I really don’t see why the rest of us should ignore the obvious. A school is not a constituency. A school is a school and a constituency is a constituency. This is why all the fundamentalists in the richest country the world has ever seen cannot produce a single school to compare to, say, Hillsdale College.
If Bauder wants more people to go to Central and fewer to go to Louisville, he needs to build a better seminary than Louisville has.
I do not care to guess what Bauder believes anymore. I hear what he says he believes.
And just between you and me—since it’s relevant to this discussion—I do not adopt Sardonis’s criticisms in toto. Many of them are true, but the larger issue is the make-up of this entire culture. It really is not just that good leaders with high ideals occasionally mess up; it’s a question of culture.
Read the books, listen to the sermons, and consider the music. Do they or do they not reveal the spirit behind them?
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 11:05 7 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor]
dissidens,
With the exception of your categorical opinion on Bauder, I am in agreement with you.
It likewise baffles me, putting the Pillsbury paragraph together with its following paragraph/sentence, that a movement so dominated by its pride of academic institutions struggles to find the money to actually make these institutions good in their ostensible role.
This confusion disappears once I realize that the institutions exist for the purpose of power and not academia. When an administrator takes the reins and tries to move in the direction of academia, he is often viewed with suspicion until he once again demonstrates the use of of the institution as an instrument of power. There is no way of getting around this culture. We wait for it to burn down around us, and we hope to find valuables that survive the devastation.
But your point is well made, this is the culture fundamentalism has created for itself. I was reared in it, Bauder was reared in it, and I believe that it was formative in your upbringing.
Do we have the luxury of standing outside it and judging it? Even your discourse is a reaction to it and a result of your former connections to it. Likewise, I find the sometime humorous rants of Bixby to be the best illustration of fundamentalist culture. I'm sure Norris beams with pride, from his level in the Inferno, whenever he reads Bixby. Bauder's are really no different. Why should I think yours are any better (well, you do have a better literary imagination than those two)?
We're all fundamentalists, and we can't get over it. While I am sympathetic to the critiques that you, Bixby, and Bauder have to offer. I catch a whiff of Miss Rebman's perfume or the acrid scent of the gunpowder fired from the night watchman's pistol every time I read a critique by any of you. It's part of your culture - make that, our culture.
We cannot start anew like pioneers upon a virgin continent. We are what we are. We must suppress the vile and encourage the sublime - is this not what St. Paul encourages us to do personally? I would believe that all of the names mentioned heretofore are at various places of suppression and encouragement, but I'm really at loss to figure out how we are going to fare in the future given the fact that everyone still seems to behave like our forebears.
And, no, I don't think we should melt into one big happy fundamentalist Woodstock. Is there a place to withstand to the face and yet still recognize brotherhood? A trip down the hall, perhaps?
With the exception of your categorical opinion on Bauder, I am in agreement with you.
It likewise baffles me, putting the Pillsbury paragraph together with its following paragraph/sentence, that a movement so dominated by its pride of academic institutions struggles to find the money to actually make these institutions good in their ostensible role.
This confusion disappears once I realize that the institutions exist for the purpose of power and not academia. When an administrator takes the reins and tries to move in the direction of academia, he is often viewed with suspicion until he once again demonstrates the use of of the institution as an instrument of power. There is no way of getting around this culture. We wait for it to burn down around us, and we hope to find valuables that survive the devastation.
But your point is well made, this is the culture fundamentalism has created for itself. I was reared in it, Bauder was reared in it, and I believe that it was formative in your upbringing.
Do we have the luxury of standing outside it and judging it? Even your discourse is a reaction to it and a result of your former connections to it. Likewise, I find the sometime humorous rants of Bixby to be the best illustration of fundamentalist culture. I'm sure Norris beams with pride, from his level in the Inferno, whenever he reads Bixby. Bauder's are really no different. Why should I think yours are any better (well, you do have a better literary imagination than those two)?
We're all fundamentalists, and we can't get over it. While I am sympathetic to the critiques that you, Bixby, and Bauder have to offer. I catch a whiff of Miss Rebman's perfume or the acrid scent of the gunpowder fired from the night watchman's pistol every time I read a critique by any of you. It's part of your culture - make that, our culture.
We cannot start anew like pioneers upon a virgin continent. We are what we are. We must suppress the vile and encourage the sublime - is this not what St. Paul encourages us to do personally? I would believe that all of the names mentioned heretofore are at various places of suppression and encouragement, but I'm really at loss to figure out how we are going to fare in the future given the fact that everyone still seems to behave like our forebears.
And, no, I don't think we should melt into one big happy fundamentalist Woodstock. Is there a place to withstand to the face and yet still recognize brotherhood? A trip down the hall, perhaps?
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 12:15 8 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Well, I should first address the smaller matter of Bixby. Bixby and I have profoundly different views, but his presence in this matter is not a result of those differences. I’m not trying to score off him. The sequence of events places him here. We could not honestly discuss this problem without noting his involvement. But that’s as far as I am prepared to go.
He was certainly provoked, and not only that, we all know that certain fundamentalist hostilities were ramping up. For quite some time. The young fundies were given to know what was thought of them. We were all given to know.
I realize this is not the point of your comment, but I wanted to volunteer this before things get pulled out of perspective. I’m amused by certain voices who now claim that proper deference among some young fundamentalists was lacking.
“Fathers, provoke not your children…”
As to your larger question, Yes, we are all products of our culture, we all live downwind of fundamentalism. Even emergents live downwind of fundamentalism. It seems to me the worst mistake to make—and the one being made now—is to think that once we remember the sordid past we become pure, innocent and enlightened. We’ve been complete clods in the past about our music and our entertainments, but we’ve been reminded of a few things, we read a few books, so you can trust us now.
Very dangerous.
I do think there is a need for those trips down the hall, yes. But really, with the present hostilities, that is not gonna happen.
Down that hall is one angry man!
I think it starts with some quiet reflection. Then discussion. (And not one of these contrived symposia; real discussion.) Not everyone flying the separatist banner will make the best case for separatism. I think we still need to inquire into first things, and, ironically, that is what this present distress is about: effective teachers and irenic men outside fundamentalism and bombast and aggression inside fundamentalism.
We’ll watch to see what happens.
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 13:41 9 Comment from: Lou Martuneac [Visitor] · http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
· http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Good Afternoon:
You wrote, “Then he (Bauder) published a string of private correspondences in support of himself. Pure opportunism, pure manipulation, pure politics.”
Absolutely correct! That was the third article on the same theme Bauder had been posting on. I prepared a paragraph on that very thing, refrained from posting it, but glad you did.
You asked, 1) “Since when does a member of an organization publicly demand such a thing?” 2) “Do rational people behave like this in your workplace?”
That is a fair question(s).
1) Public censure can and should be called for when it is warranted and what Bauder did, three times in the public venue, warranted private and public calls for his removal. Considering his position as a seminary president, he behaved irresponsibly, when he followed the first, with two more forays into and fomenting greater controversy. That was the “piling on” that accelerated calls for and discussion of his removal.
2) Ditto! Do you read the Wall Street Journal? Furthermore, this morning on FOX News I watched a SC congressman call for Governor Sanford’s removal from office because of his public breach of trust and lapse in ethical behavior. Yes, rationale people, in the workplace, do and should behave like that when it is warranted. Bauder’s actions clearly warranted his removal.
Calls for Bauder’s removal from the platform were being made to the FBFI executives by men within the board and membership of the FBFI before I was even aware of it. It wasn’t so “goofy” as you suggest, especially if you knew the identity of certain men who were calling for his removal, why they were calling for his removal, all of which were well underway before I publicly echoed that sentiment. His removal was already under discussion and he knew it, which he revealed in one of the private e-mails from the article you correctly identified as, “Pure opportunism…manipulation…politics.”
BTW, I am wondering if Bauder asked for and received permission from each of the authors of the e-mails before he posted them for political advantage? Bauder, of course, will not acknowledge or respond to any legitimate questions or criticism. If he did not, then SI violated one of its (SI) own comment polices (by publishing that article with the private e-mails) which states that publication of private correspondence without permission is not allowed.
Once Bauder piled on with his second of three forays into fomenting controversy with harsh, ill-timed commentary about men from our IFB heritage I went public to support his removal from the platform, which now in post-FBF Fellowship hindsight, would have been a good idea. I have a pretty good idea his appearing on the another FBF annual fellowship platform is highly unlikely because of his on line behavior running up to this year’s fellowship.
Incidentally, arguably the most disconcerting thing about Bauder’s commentary on historic IFB men was that he did not draw a clear distinction between Hyles/Gray & Jones/Rice. Bauder left open the suggestion of a moral equivalency, which was a reckless thing coming from a man whose theological and academic pedigree is frequently touted. Bauder could have discussed his concerns from IFB history without naming those men especially since it would have taken a significantly longer discussion to draw all the necessary distinctions.
Since you reference my public calls for Bauder’s removal unfavorably I think it is fair to provide your guests a link to both of those articles so that they can make their own judgment; OK?
Article 1 & Article 2
Well, I offer this one comment for your consideration. I am not trying to reignite a debate. A friend from the west coast told me about this article otherwise I never would have seen it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this blog before and I do not know who you (Dissedens) are.
Kind regards,
LM
You wrote, “Then he (Bauder) published a string of private correspondences in support of himself. Pure opportunism, pure manipulation, pure politics.”
Absolutely correct! That was the third article on the same theme Bauder had been posting on. I prepared a paragraph on that very thing, refrained from posting it, but glad you did.
You asked, 1) “Since when does a member of an organization publicly demand such a thing?” 2) “Do rational people behave like this in your workplace?”
That is a fair question(s).
1) Public censure can and should be called for when it is warranted and what Bauder did, three times in the public venue, warranted private and public calls for his removal. Considering his position as a seminary president, he behaved irresponsibly, when he followed the first, with two more forays into and fomenting greater controversy. That was the “piling on” that accelerated calls for and discussion of his removal.
2) Ditto! Do you read the Wall Street Journal? Furthermore, this morning on FOX News I watched a SC congressman call for Governor Sanford’s removal from office because of his public breach of trust and lapse in ethical behavior. Yes, rationale people, in the workplace, do and should behave like that when it is warranted. Bauder’s actions clearly warranted his removal.
Calls for Bauder’s removal from the platform were being made to the FBFI executives by men within the board and membership of the FBFI before I was even aware of it. It wasn’t so “goofy” as you suggest, especially if you knew the identity of certain men who were calling for his removal, why they were calling for his removal, all of which were well underway before I publicly echoed that sentiment. His removal was already under discussion and he knew it, which he revealed in one of the private e-mails from the article you correctly identified as, “Pure opportunism…manipulation…politics.”
BTW, I am wondering if Bauder asked for and received permission from each of the authors of the e-mails before he posted them for political advantage? Bauder, of course, will not acknowledge or respond to any legitimate questions or criticism. If he did not, then SI violated one of its (SI) own comment polices (by publishing that article with the private e-mails) which states that publication of private correspondence without permission is not allowed.
Once Bauder piled on with his second of three forays into fomenting controversy with harsh, ill-timed commentary about men from our IFB heritage I went public to support his removal from the platform, which now in post-FBF Fellowship hindsight, would have been a good idea. I have a pretty good idea his appearing on the another FBF annual fellowship platform is highly unlikely because of his on line behavior running up to this year’s fellowship.
Incidentally, arguably the most disconcerting thing about Bauder’s commentary on historic IFB men was that he did not draw a clear distinction between Hyles/Gray & Jones/Rice. Bauder left open the suggestion of a moral equivalency, which was a reckless thing coming from a man whose theological and academic pedigree is frequently touted. Bauder could have discussed his concerns from IFB history without naming those men especially since it would have taken a significantly longer discussion to draw all the necessary distinctions.
Since you reference my public calls for Bauder’s removal unfavorably I think it is fair to provide your guests a link to both of those articles so that they can make their own judgment; OK?
Article 1 & Article 2
Well, I offer this one comment for your consideration. I am not trying to reignite a debate. A friend from the west coast told me about this article otherwise I never would have seen it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this blog before and I do not know who you (Dissedens) are.
Kind regards,
LM
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 16:03 10 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Lou:
Mmmmmnope; I don’t follow you there, Lou.
First of all, I don’t care about the public censure thing. You can publicly censure anybody you like. In fact I would appreciate it if you would publicly censure me.
But no, that was not my question. I asked by what authority a member of FBFI could demand that a guest speaker be disinvited. I don’t see your name listed as any sort of director or officer. But now that I have you, if I became a member of FBFI, could I demand a reinvitation of somebody another member demanded a disinvitation? How would that work?
And to be honest, I don’t care what WSJ does or what Fox News does. In fact I’ve been thinking of publicly censuring both of them.
A public servant is a different matter. A public servant is answerable to the public. Bauder is not a public servant unless the Fourth Baptist Church secretary lied to me. He is, if I heard her correctly, answerable to Fourth Baptist and Central Seminary. I do so wish you were right on this point because I would like to demand that WCTS be burned to the ground, but when I mentioned this she just chuckled like I’d told a joke.
And no, I don’t know if Bauder asked for and received permission from each of the authors of the e-mails before he posted them for political advantage. If you find out, let me know.
Mmmmmnope; I don’t follow you there, Lou.
First of all, I don’t care about the public censure thing. You can publicly censure anybody you like. In fact I would appreciate it if you would publicly censure me.
But no, that was not my question. I asked by what authority a member of FBFI could demand that a guest speaker be disinvited. I don’t see your name listed as any sort of director or officer. But now that I have you, if I became a member of FBFI, could I demand a reinvitation of somebody another member demanded a disinvitation? How would that work?
And to be honest, I don’t care what WSJ does or what Fox News does. In fact I’ve been thinking of publicly censuring both of them.
A public servant is a different matter. A public servant is answerable to the public. Bauder is not a public servant unless the Fourth Baptist Church secretary lied to me. He is, if I heard her correctly, answerable to Fourth Baptist and Central Seminary. I do so wish you were right on this point because I would like to demand that WCTS be burned to the ground, but when I mentioned this she just chuckled like I’d told a joke.
And no, I don’t know if Bauder asked for and received permission from each of the authors of the e-mails before he posted them for political advantage. If you find out, let me know.
Permalink
06/26/09 @ 17:07 11 Comment from: Guest [Visitor]
Wasn't Bauder on the horns of a dilemma? If he doesn't respond, he is castigated for standing idly by as things go wrong. Business as usual for fundamentalism. If he does respond, then he is castigated for interfering. I'm not sure there is a scenario here that doesn't involve criticizing him.
Permalink
06/27/09 @ 08:16 12 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor]
Lou,
It seems to me that you could argue whether or not it was Bauder's place to publicly chastise Sweatt.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. . .
I say this because you have no comparable vituperation for Sweatt. Sweatt managed to paste the label of heretic on significant portion of the FBFI. That was fairly serious. An argument ought to be made that the FBFI was in the wrong for not adequately dealing with Sweatt.
But, back to my Shakespeare quote. . . .
I fear that your ongoing anti-Bauder cabal has more to do with the fact that you actually agree with Sweatt and his careless application of nomenclature. Calvinism leads to denial of inerrancy? Pure silliness, ignorance, and typical fundamentalist demagoguery. Arguably equaled only by Bauder's reactionary demagoguery.
Since when did the ethical standards of the FBFI rise so significantly that it now has the moral obligation to censure either Sweatt or Bauder? From what I understand, the organization's guiding light was a lush, and it has countenanced thousands of egregious and ruthless power grabs far surpassing either Sweatt's or Bauder's.
Hey Lou,
"Get over it!"
It seems to me that you could argue whether or not it was Bauder's place to publicly chastise Sweatt.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. . .
I say this because you have no comparable vituperation for Sweatt. Sweatt managed to paste the label of heretic on significant portion of the FBFI. That was fairly serious. An argument ought to be made that the FBFI was in the wrong for not adequately dealing with Sweatt.
But, back to my Shakespeare quote. . . .
I fear that your ongoing anti-Bauder cabal has more to do with the fact that you actually agree with Sweatt and his careless application of nomenclature. Calvinism leads to denial of inerrancy? Pure silliness, ignorance, and typical fundamentalist demagoguery. Arguably equaled only by Bauder's reactionary demagoguery.
Since when did the ethical standards of the FBFI rise so significantly that it now has the moral obligation to censure either Sweatt or Bauder? From what I understand, the organization's guiding light was a lush, and it has countenanced thousands of egregious and ruthless power grabs far surpassing either Sweatt's or Bauder's.
Hey Lou,
"Get over it!"
Permalink
06/27/09 @ 09:51 13 Comment from: Max Kolonko [Visitor]
Dissidens,
Your blog always challenges my thinking, but I must admit to being a bit disappointed that you would give any credence to Martuneac by mentioning his name in the OP. It's kind of like when a group of men get together to play baseball and the prepubescent teen keeps trying to work himself into the game. You don't want him to play because you'd have to pitch underhand, make sure he wears a helmet at all times, and be reduced to using monosyllabic words when giving instructions. So the men ignore him hoping that eventually he'll see a grasshopper and chase after it. I guess my concern is now you're going to have to pitch underhanded quite a bit more, and I'd hate to see the game suffer.
Your blog always challenges my thinking, but I must admit to being a bit disappointed that you would give any credence to Martuneac by mentioning his name in the OP. It's kind of like when a group of men get together to play baseball and the prepubescent teen keeps trying to work himself into the game. You don't want him to play because you'd have to pitch underhand, make sure he wears a helmet at all times, and be reduced to using monosyllabic words when giving instructions. So the men ignore him hoping that eventually he'll see a grasshopper and chase after it. I guess my concern is now you're going to have to pitch underhanded quite a bit more, and I'd hate to see the game suffer.
Permalink
06/27/09 @ 09:51 14 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Guest:
That is a very revealing question, and I think it points us to where we should be looking. At least one of the places. Here is a depiction of the soul of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists, it seems to me, are aggravatingly careless about their categories, and this is something they need to think through.
IF A SEMINARY PRESIDENT is the official custodian or caretaker of a movement, or if he sees himself as a great reformer of a movement, then certainly his followers will look to him to step up and do his job. Certainly he will be expected to act when, as you put it, “things go wrong”. Theoretically he will be held officially accountable when things go wrong and he doesn’t fix them.
IF A SEMINARY PRESIDENT is merely the head of an educational institution, then he will be perceived as a meddler by those whose president he is not. When he challenges outside institutions to comport with his expectations, glances will be exchanged and political ramifications will be calculated. In this case, FBFI execs might wonder at, or resent, this external demand.
Pastor Sweatt has handed you an opportunity to show what you really believe. If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth saving, then the time has come.One can hear the response voiced in the blogosphere.
Sez you!
IF A SEMINARY PRESIDENT occupies some vague and dynamic middle ground, something of a president, something of a spokesman whose personal fortunes rise and fall, then he tends to represent in people’s minds a less helpful voice declaring “where ____________ Seminary stands”. This suits tribal fundamentalism quite well. This is how things work now, give or take. All you need to do is peruse the extended “debate” on Sharperiron.
There are several problems with this, obviously.
The most prominent and immediate problem—and relevant to this dust-up—is this. If Bauder stands up and touts A Fundamentalism Worth Saving, he immediately alienates thousands who are quite certain they possess a fundamentalism worth saving, thank you very much. And of course this is exactly what we saw in the blogosphere: How dare you cast aspersions on our dear leaders! Cast aspersions on their dear leaders if you must, but we’ll thank you not to redefine our fundamentalism for us.
If this cuts some fundamentalists too close to the bone, it might help to consider Doug Pagitt who claims to be offering the world A Christianity Worth Believing. Most of us who accept the ancient symbols of the church look at Pagitt and think, That poor child must have been dropped on his noggin! We’ve had a Christianity worth believing for thousands of years, and what he’s offering is not Christianity.
So I agree with you that, at present, there is no way to avoid criticism. This is why I think it essential to define the sphere of one’s authority and then honor it.
Permalink
06/27/09 @ 12:45 15 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Max:
I think yours is a good perception but not an apt suggestion. This whole affair has been a public brawl. Martuneac played an eloquent role in it.
I agree with your assessment of Lou. But I don’t “give credence” to him, I merely note his contribution. Here is someone with undetectable credentials popping up out of the weeds demanding the ridiculous. I agree that he is cartoonish, but who better to demonstrate the nature of this cartoonish showdown?
I agree he doesn’t belong in the game, and the owner may claim he’s not on the team, but this is a league where the police never usher him off the field.
I think this is worth remembering.
Permalink
06/27/09 @ 13:00 16 Comment from: Sam Hendrickson [Visitor] · http://theologshmeolog.wordpress.com
· http://theologshmeolog.wordpress.com
Diss,
I'm sure your "dialogue" with some here could be more forceful/acceptable if you used more underlining, italics, all caps, and bold red font face. Till you do, I remain unconvinced...
Re: http://remonstrans.net/index.php/2009/06/05/this_juncture_in_the_chain
I'm sure your "dialogue" with some here could be more forceful/acceptable if you used more underlining, italics, all caps, and bold red font face. Till you do, I remain unconvinced...
Re: http://remonstrans.net/index.php/2009/06/05/this_juncture_in_the_chain
Permalink
06/27/09 @ 13:40 17 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Looks like we are going to have to requisition a lot more more colored ink.
Permalink
06/27/09 @ 18:14 18 Comment from: T.J. Pennock [Visitor]
Diss,
Here's some soapbox material.
The year is 1827.
The subject is the theatre.
The place is Boston.
And the remarks reflect the very Calvinism the young fundies find so cuddle-worthy. I thought you'd enjoy the tenor and tone of the article (especially the last paragrpah) and the possibility of a new round of theatre-preaching by recently minted Calvinos.
___________________
THE THEATRE,
In this city, says the Boston Recorder and Telegraph, was opened for the season on the Monday-evening of last week. We do not mention this fact to give information;—we mention it to excite Christians to pray against the wide-spreading pestilence; to exhort Christian parents to keep their children from the vortex of destruction; to sound an alarm among all ranks of society, where a relic of virtue or morality remains, and beseech them to feel, and tremble while they feel, that " the hour of temptation is come." We mention it too, for the purpose of introducing the following extract. It was written by a wise man, who well understood his subject, and the foundation of private and public morals; by a man of urbanity and politeness, who would not rudely assail the innocent practices of any portion of the community. Having mentioned and condemned the amusements of Horse-racing., Cock-fighting, Bull-baiting, and Gaming, Dr. Dwight proceeds as follows:
"From the gaming table turn your researches next to the Theatre. Think, first of the almost uniform character of the miserable wretches, who are trained to create the diversion. How low are they, almost without an exception, fallen; and how low do they fall, of course, by the deplorable employment, to which they are most wickedly tempted to devote themselves! If you are at a loss, read a history, or even a professed panegyric, of this class of mankind. You will find it filled up with crimes, which disgrace the name even of sinful man, and with characters which are a blot even on this guilty world. Consider, next, the Performances, which these unhappy men and women are employed to exhibit. How few can be read without a blush, or without a sigh, by a person not seduced by habit, or not lost to virtue, and even to sobriety! How great a part are mere means of pollution! What art, labour and genius, are engaged in them to garnish gross and dreadful vice; to disguise its nature and effects: to robe it in the princely attire of virtue; and to crown it with the rewards of well-doing! How often is even common decency insulted, ridiculed, and put to flight! In how many ways, and with how much art, is corruption softly and secretly instilled into the soul! In how many instances is virtue defaced, dishonoured. and, like the Saviour of mankind, crowned with thorns, sceptred with a reed, and mocked with pretended and insolent homage!
"Turn your eyes, next, to the Audience, whose wishes and property give birth to this whole establishment. Of whom is this audience composed? Of how few persons, whom virtue ever it new, or with whom she would not blush to confess her acquaintance! Of how many, who are strangers to all good! Of how many, who are ignorant even of decency; to whom vice is pleasing, and grossness an entertainment.
"Accordingly, all the course of exhibition, except a little part thrust in as sacrifice to decency and reputation, is formed of polluted sentiments, and polluted characters, in which whatever is not directly and openly abominable is meant merely as the white covering, intended to shroud from the eye the death and rottenness within. Our own copious language, employed in the thousands of dramatic performances, probably cannot boast of a sufficient number of plays, such as an Apostle would have pronounced innocent, to furnish a single stage for a single season.
"From the Stage, men are directly prepared to go to the Brothel. The corruption of the one fits the mind, with no common preparation, to direct its course to the other."
Here's some soapbox material.
The year is 1827.
The subject is the theatre.
The place is Boston.
And the remarks reflect the very Calvinism the young fundies find so cuddle-worthy. I thought you'd enjoy the tenor and tone of the article (especially the last paragrpah) and the possibility of a new round of theatre-preaching by recently minted Calvinos.
___________________
THE THEATRE,
In this city, says the Boston Recorder and Telegraph, was opened for the season on the Monday-evening of last week. We do not mention this fact to give information;—we mention it to excite Christians to pray against the wide-spreading pestilence; to exhort Christian parents to keep their children from the vortex of destruction; to sound an alarm among all ranks of society, where a relic of virtue or morality remains, and beseech them to feel, and tremble while they feel, that " the hour of temptation is come." We mention it too, for the purpose of introducing the following extract. It was written by a wise man, who well understood his subject, and the foundation of private and public morals; by a man of urbanity and politeness, who would not rudely assail the innocent practices of any portion of the community. Having mentioned and condemned the amusements of Horse-racing., Cock-fighting, Bull-baiting, and Gaming, Dr. Dwight proceeds as follows:
"From the gaming table turn your researches next to the Theatre. Think, first of the almost uniform character of the miserable wretches, who are trained to create the diversion. How low are they, almost without an exception, fallen; and how low do they fall, of course, by the deplorable employment, to which they are most wickedly tempted to devote themselves! If you are at a loss, read a history, or even a professed panegyric, of this class of mankind. You will find it filled up with crimes, which disgrace the name even of sinful man, and with characters which are a blot even on this guilty world. Consider, next, the Performances, which these unhappy men and women are employed to exhibit. How few can be read without a blush, or without a sigh, by a person not seduced by habit, or not lost to virtue, and even to sobriety! How great a part are mere means of pollution! What art, labour and genius, are engaged in them to garnish gross and dreadful vice; to disguise its nature and effects: to robe it in the princely attire of virtue; and to crown it with the rewards of well-doing! How often is even common decency insulted, ridiculed, and put to flight! In how many ways, and with how much art, is corruption softly and secretly instilled into the soul! In how many instances is virtue defaced, dishonoured. and, like the Saviour of mankind, crowned with thorns, sceptred with a reed, and mocked with pretended and insolent homage!
"Turn your eyes, next, to the Audience, whose wishes and property give birth to this whole establishment. Of whom is this audience composed? Of how few persons, whom virtue ever it new, or with whom she would not blush to confess her acquaintance! Of how many, who are strangers to all good! Of how many, who are ignorant even of decency; to whom vice is pleasing, and grossness an entertainment.
"Accordingly, all the course of exhibition, except a little part thrust in as sacrifice to decency and reputation, is formed of polluted sentiments, and polluted characters, in which whatever is not directly and openly abominable is meant merely as the white covering, intended to shroud from the eye the death and rottenness within. Our own copious language, employed in the thousands of dramatic performances, probably cannot boast of a sufficient number of plays, such as an Apostle would have pronounced innocent, to furnish a single stage for a single season.
"From the Stage, men are directly prepared to go to the Brothel. The corruption of the one fits the mind, with no common preparation, to direct its course to the other."
Permalink
06/27/09 @ 19:46 19 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Hmmm.
This Dwight fellow seems unlikely to have benefited from the artistic discernments of the American Bible college. I wonder if he’d’ve written that if he saw Maranatha Baptist Bible College’s production of The Importance of Being Earnest.
Poor blighter.
But seriously, a genuine thanks for that.
Permalink
06/27/09 @ 20:15 20 Comment from: greg linscott [Member]
Tracy,
From what source did this come from? It is intriguing.
From what source did this come from? It is intriguing.
Permalink
06/28/09 @ 12:26 21 Comment from: greg linscott [Member]
I believe I found a source-
http://books.google.com/books?id=MJIVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA287
http://books.google.com/books?id=MJIVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA287
Permalink
06/28/09 @ 12:36 22 Comment from: T.J. Pennock [Visitor]
Greg,
Your link works, and so does this one:
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&output=text&as_brr=1&id=MJIVAAAAYAAJ&dq=Evangelical+Witness&jtp=287
Here's another set of queries about the theatre:
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&output=text&id=CN8oAAAAYAAJ&jtp=108
Your link works, and so does this one:
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&output=text&as_brr=1&id=MJIVAAAAYAAJ&dq=Evangelical+Witness&jtp=287
Here's another set of queries about the theatre:
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&output=text&id=CN8oAAAAYAAJ&jtp=108
Permalink
06/28/09 @ 15:54 23 Comment from: T.J. Pennock [Visitor]
I wonder how these questions would play in Wisconson and South Carolina.
THE THEATRE A SCHOOL OF MORALS. Will any of you who have been to theatres, please to tell whether virtue ever received important accessions from the gallery of theatres?
Will you tell me whether the pit is a place where an ordinarily modest man would love to seat his children?
Was ever a theatre known where a prayer at the opening and a prayer at the close would not be tormentingly discordant?
How does it happen that in a school for morals, the teachers never learn their own lessons?
Would you allow a son or daughter to associate alone with actors or actresses?
Do these men who promote virtue so zealously when acting, take any part in public moral enterprise when their stage dresses are off?
Which would surprise you most, to see actors steadily at church, or to see Christians steadily at a theatre? Would not both strike you as singular incongruities?
What is the reason that loose and abandoned men abhor religion in a church and love it so much in a theatre?
Since the theatre is the handmaid of virtue, why are drinking houses so necessary to this neighbourhood, yet so offensive to churches?—H. W. Beecher.
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&output=text&id=CN8oAAAAYAAJ&jtp=108
THE THEATRE A SCHOOL OF MORALS. Will any of you who have been to theatres, please to tell whether virtue ever received important accessions from the gallery of theatres?
Will you tell me whether the pit is a place where an ordinarily modest man would love to seat his children?
Was ever a theatre known where a prayer at the opening and a prayer at the close would not be tormentingly discordant?
How does it happen that in a school for morals, the teachers never learn their own lessons?
Would you allow a son or daughter to associate alone with actors or actresses?
Do these men who promote virtue so zealously when acting, take any part in public moral enterprise when their stage dresses are off?
Which would surprise you most, to see actors steadily at church, or to see Christians steadily at a theatre? Would not both strike you as singular incongruities?
What is the reason that loose and abandoned men abhor religion in a church and love it so much in a theatre?
Since the theatre is the handmaid of virtue, why are drinking houses so necessary to this neighbourhood, yet so offensive to churches?—H. W. Beecher.
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&output=text&id=CN8oAAAAYAAJ&jtp=108
Permalink
06/28/09 @ 16:01 24 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
"Which would surprise you most, to see actors steadily at church, or to see Christians steadily at a theatre?"
Our times certainly have answered that question.
Permalink
06/28/09 @ 16:14 25 Comment from: Brent Marshall [Member] · http://bemarshall.wordpress.com
· http://bemarshall.wordpress.com
Two areas of question:
1. I am not understanding the problem with what Dr. Bauder did, especially why it "might have been the worst of all" -- which I understand to suggest that it might be worse than Pastor Sweatt's originally said. How is that?
Do we know that he has no direct involvement, that he was an outsider interposing himself? Regardless, are positions of authority the only consideration? Are not positions of influence also relevant? Do we know his motives? "Pure opportunism, pure manipulation, pure politics" seems to leaves no room even for mixed motives (some good, some not good).
2. I understand the statement that you would have made had you been the FBFI spokesman and how such a statement would have undercut much of what followed. Indeed, had such a statement been issued, I do not see that Dr. Bauder's piece would ever have been written (or Pastor Bixby's either, for that matter). But it seems that it was precisely because the FBFI did not act and because the problem remained that action was necessary, no? The questions then are who and how (which leads back to #1).
1. I am not understanding the problem with what Dr. Bauder did, especially why it "might have been the worst of all" -- which I understand to suggest that it might be worse than Pastor Sweatt's originally said. How is that?
Do we know that he has no direct involvement, that he was an outsider interposing himself? Regardless, are positions of authority the only consideration? Are not positions of influence also relevant? Do we know his motives? "Pure opportunism, pure manipulation, pure politics" seems to leaves no room even for mixed motives (some good, some not good).
2. I understand the statement that you would have made had you been the FBFI spokesman and how such a statement would have undercut much of what followed. Indeed, had such a statement been issued, I do not see that Dr. Bauder's piece would ever have been written (or Pastor Bixby's either, for that matter). But it seems that it was precisely because the FBFI did not act and because the problem remained that action was necessary, no? The questions then are who and how (which leads back to #1).
Permalink
06/29/09 @ 20:56 26 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
All fair questions.
Let me answer the second. It’s quicker to answer and you’re right, it leads back to the first.
A proper and timely response from the FBFI would almost certainly have quelled the commotion. It may not have made everyone happy, but it would have taken the wind out of many sails. Every subsequent complaint would have been mitigated.
I also agree that absent that response some other less desirable, and perhaps less productive, action was inevitable. No doubt that motivated several people to act. If you were to ask my preference, I would rather have read a timely word by the FBFI. Failing that, I’d’ve preferred actions other than those we got. But that leads me back to the first question.
First, I agree with Bixby (and some others I’ve talked with) about the real nature of this conflict. Sweatt was the proximate cause; and I mean that in the philosophical, not legal sense. I don’t mean to diminish his responsibility; were it not for his provocation, fundamentalism would not be where it is now.
But as already noted, Sweatt didn’t do anything out of the ordinary. This anti-Calvinist prejudice existed in the FBF back when Bell was its leader and I was there to witness it in Colorado. This was not an aberration and it hadn’t been an aberration for a long time. When I first became involved with fundamentalists, I was given to understand that Detroit Seminary was Calvinist, nay, Hyper-Calvinist, and I was informed in such a way that I understood this was a bad and dangerous thing: Detroit was not to be trusted, and it was not an acceptable place to go for my Th.M.
This attitude goes way back to before I left evangelicalism. It was clearly in the FBF, but not limited to the FBF.
So this is nothing new or exceptional. I heard Bell express very similar sentiments, just not as ineptly—never anything like the Calvinism-inerrancy connection. So one more sermon at one rather sparsely attended regional meeting does not account for what happened here.
What aggravated the situation somewhat was Bixby’s Response. Whatever else it did, it set a tone and made it a nationwide cause. Again, part of that is the nature of the web. The Young can do with their computers what the Old could not do with their mimeograph machines. That too cannot be laid at Bixby’s door. And Bixby cannot be blamed for the frenzy that took place on Sharperiron where people began lining up behind their favorite fundy leader demanding explanations and expecting retractions. All of this demonstrates a simmering problem: Sweatt didn’t have to bring dynamite to this party, just a match.
And all of this moves the issue from just anti-Calvinism to the integrity and candor of the FBFI, which allowed all this to go on without a peep. I know there were private discussions going on; I know there were a number of ducks that had to be lined up. Nevertheless the long silence allowed temperatures to rise to such a level that any statement they were about to make would have to be well thought out.
It wasn’t.
What I take to be the flashpoint is when Bauder said:
Within the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International I have no power at all. The only thing that I can do is to appeal to the members of the board, whom I believe to be men of integrity and good will. Pastor Sweatt has handed you an opportunity to show what you really believe. If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth saving, then the time has come.That was the last paragraph. In earlier paragraphs he recognized that this was not in fact just about Calvinism or Sweatt; it was about young men leaving fundamentalism. It was movement-wide and idea-relevant. He then named some very prominent fundamentalists that reached far beyond the FBF. These, he said, were men he did not want to be like and who “were a hindrance [to his] becoming a fundamentalist”. This of course accounted for more of the heat on the web than the original Bixby piece.
It really did change the character of the fight. He constructed his own argument, he chose his words, he picked his names and he challenged the FBFI to do the right thing according to his reading of fundamentalism.
In the earlier paragraphs there were statements like these:
First, I want to reassure worried younger fundamentalists that Pastor Sweatt does not represent historic, mainstream fundamentalism.This is what we who lived on the playground knew as a “calling out”. This was no longer about a sermon, this was no longer about Calvinism or conservative evangelicalism, this was no longer about the FBF: it was about men across the entire spectrum of American fundamentalism. This was a challenge to the soul and the idea of the movement. It speaks of “historic, mainstream fundamentalism” and it reads Sweatt out of it, he calls Sweatt’s fundamentalism an aberration, “not really fundamentalism at all” and “fundamentalism-plus”. He addresses the Young Fundamentalists directly and invites a rejection of Sweatt. He identifies himself as a welcoming fundamentalist and Sweatt as an example of “everythingism”.
From the perspective of history, Pastor Sweatt’s fundamentalism is an aberration. It is not really fundamentalism at all. It is fundamentalist-plus.
If you are a younger person listening to Pastor Sweatt, please do not think that you have to accept his perspectives in order to be considered a fundamentalist.
Whether you are Calvinistic or not, I am one fundamentalist leader who is willing to offer my hand to you in fellowship.
Furthermore, I want you to know that there are institutions in which it is safe to be a Calvinist. The seminary at which I preside is one such place.
Again, I know these are the views Bauder puts forward. I don’t accuse him of lying. I may accuse him of error in the way he parses this movement to make it less objectionable to guys glancing over the fence at Piper, MacArthur and Mohler. But I didn’t say he was disingenuous; I said this was the worst reaction we witnessed. What had been violent, though limited in scope, became a redesignation of the entire movement. Bauder may have prepared his students for his view of fundamentalism; the FBF was not prepared.
All that I have said so far is a bare skeleton. I realize there are a lot more people involved [Vaughn, Smith, those they conferred with…] and a lot more ornaments that could be hung on this tree. I don’t mean to exclude any of them. All I am doing here is to answer your question about the rôle of Bauder. When this thing began there was a more or less coherent view of fundamentalism; by the time it was over there were a number of self-identified fundies around an FBF campfire. Out beyond the reach of its light were Bauder (“I have no power at all”), Doran and unnamed, unidentified others with some standing within the movement. We were not told who they were so we cannot discern if they were embracing Bauder’s rejection of the movement’s historic lights, or if they were just outraged by the high-handed way the FBFI permitted Sweatt to treat its own members in a careening tirade. This was not made clear to anyone publicly.
You raise a good question about the possibility of “influence”. This, I think, bears some scrutiny. By any normal measure, influence is reasonable and expected. But as I said to exlibris, how these “influences” determine the course of this movement’s assets is open to criticism. Influence yes; influence in the form of some disembodied eyes circling the edge of the campfire?
Prolly less than stabilizing.
Permalink
06/30/09 @ 06:28 27 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
P.S.
While out and about today it struck me that in my long-windedness I neglected to answer one of Brent’s questions.
If I were to give my wife a bouquet of flowers, she might wonder if I’d been a bad boy and she might suspect I’d broken or lost something, but I don’t believe it is fair to infer that just because I gave her flowers that any motives are suspect. I think political acts, like gestures of affection or philanthropic acts, might be done for good, bad, or mixed motives, but I don’t think that categorizing them as political acts is to cast aspersions.
Bauder posted a list of anonymous emails which, each and all, expressly supported some views he recently published. None of us believes that Bauder was informing us that his email was now working fine. No one supposes these were statements of support that he gets on a regular basis for publication. None of us thinks that Bauder was posting those anonymous opinions because by some computer fluke message and sender got separated somewhere in the email system. He didn’t post these so that their authors could come forward and identify themselves.
I don’t care to speculate as to his motives, good, bad, or otherwise. He may have had good intentions, he may have hoped it would accomplish some purpose I cannot guess at. But to call his post an entirely disinterested and unrelated act seems a bit implausible.
The larger question, it seems to me, what we should most reflect on is not personalities and motives but the way certain groups do business. The most important parts of this are not really about Sweatt, Bixby, Bauder and Vaughn. They could be about Harrison, Smith, Jackson and Howell and it should interest us equally.
This is how business is conducted.
Is this a good thing? Is it helpful? Should it be continued?
And if it is continued, how much confidence in fundamentalism will remain?
Permalink
06/30/09 @ 14:06 28 Comment from: Brent Marshall [Member] · http://bemarshall.wordpress.com
· http://bemarshall.wordpress.com
Diss, thanks for the explanations. They revealed some points that were not clear before, at least not to me, and thus were helpful. I agree that the preferred choice would have been for the FBFI to address this from the beginning. I also agree that a different overall response to their silence would have been preferable. Still, I do not yet see a problem with Dr. Bauder's statement, but now I think I understand why we are perceiving it so differently.
It seems that the keys are what we perceive to be (1) the nature of the issue here, and (2) the nature of fundamentalism. I infer that you perceive the issue to be focused on Calvinism, at least until the FBFI's inactivity and online activity brought FBFI integrity etc. into question. I am inclined to think, however, that the issue was always broader: more along the lines of whether the tents of fundamentalism, in general, and of the FBFI, in particular, are broad enough to include persons of these differing views. Even if this was not so at the beginning, I think that it was by the time that Dr. Bauder's first piece came out. Consequently, I do not perceive him to have shifted the argument or changed the character of the fight. I understand how it would seem that way from your point of view, however.
The other point has to do with the nature of fundamentalism. I find this especially interesting because of my own past. From my time at BJU (1978-82), including chapel messages on this topic specifically, I came away with a particular view of what fundamentalism is. However, I did not realize the breadth of other views. After not noticing fundamentalism much in the intervening period, I have been struck in the last several years by the major differences among those who use the name "fundamentalist." Those in the movement are all over the place, so to speak.
From this experience, I am having trouble with your observation, "When this thing began there was a more or less coherent view of fundamentalism." It seems that this is an important premise in your analysis, and given the differences that I observe, I instinctively disagree, at least at this point (I recognize the danger of being so tied to my limited experience). One may agree or disagree with Dr. Bauder's characterization of historic fundamentalism: I regret that I have not yet read enough of the history to form an independent judgment. I will say that his definition of fundamentalism (the idea), as I presently understand it, hangs together better than what I learned in Greenville years ago, and I find that quite helpful.
Finally, returning to the totality of the situation, I think your final questions as to whether conducting business in this overall fashion is good or helpful are important ones. They strike me as rhetorical questions, to which the next questions in the minds of the readers should be, "How do we begin fixing this mess?"
Thanks for the interaction.
It seems that the keys are what we perceive to be (1) the nature of the issue here, and (2) the nature of fundamentalism. I infer that you perceive the issue to be focused on Calvinism, at least until the FBFI's inactivity and online activity brought FBFI integrity etc. into question. I am inclined to think, however, that the issue was always broader: more along the lines of whether the tents of fundamentalism, in general, and of the FBFI, in particular, are broad enough to include persons of these differing views. Even if this was not so at the beginning, I think that it was by the time that Dr. Bauder's first piece came out. Consequently, I do not perceive him to have shifted the argument or changed the character of the fight. I understand how it would seem that way from your point of view, however.
The other point has to do with the nature of fundamentalism. I find this especially interesting because of my own past. From my time at BJU (1978-82), including chapel messages on this topic specifically, I came away with a particular view of what fundamentalism is. However, I did not realize the breadth of other views. After not noticing fundamentalism much in the intervening period, I have been struck in the last several years by the major differences among those who use the name "fundamentalist." Those in the movement are all over the place, so to speak.
From this experience, I am having trouble with your observation, "When this thing began there was a more or less coherent view of fundamentalism." It seems that this is an important premise in your analysis, and given the differences that I observe, I instinctively disagree, at least at this point (I recognize the danger of being so tied to my limited experience). One may agree or disagree with Dr. Bauder's characterization of historic fundamentalism: I regret that I have not yet read enough of the history to form an independent judgment. I will say that his definition of fundamentalism (the idea), as I presently understand it, hangs together better than what I learned in Greenville years ago, and I find that quite helpful.
Finally, returning to the totality of the situation, I think your final questions as to whether conducting business in this overall fashion is good or helpful are important ones. They strike me as rhetorical questions, to which the next questions in the minds of the readers should be, "How do we begin fixing this mess?"
Thanks for the interaction.
Permalink
07/01/09 @ 21:00 29 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Brent:
I don’t for a moment what to challenge your understanding of fundamentalism-the-idea. [We’d have to chat about this at length before that would be at all helpful.]
Clearly there are ideas we can apprehend independent of a particular political movement just as we can, for instance, apprehend the idea of political freedom independent of the American war of independence and the US Constitution. But having said that, it is not at all fair, I think, to disconnect the two in such a way that we can retain some personal loyalty to the idea of “separatism”—which has had many proponents throughout church history—and the deeds, documents and institutions of fundamentalism, which is merely one instance (or articulation) of the idea of separatism.
Back when we were in school, the way my peers tried to distinguish themselves from the goofiness that typified the movement was to claim to be a “historic fundamentalist” as opposed to a BJ- or Maranatha- or Hyles-type fundamentalist.
They wanted to distance themselves from the embarrassments and eccentricities and still practice the essential virtue of separation from heterodoxy and worldliness.
I was never persuaded by these guys, and the older I got the less sympathetic I became. It seemed strange to me that this sort of distinction would not have had much meaning for a Machen or a Tulga.
Even more compelling, it seemed to me at the time, there is a terrible consequence for this way of thinking. If we could distinguish fundamentalism-the-idea from fundamentalism-the-movement, we are essentially writing off the statements and the applications that real, living fundamentalists used. We say, in effect, Yes, I believe in separation, but not American apartheid; Bob Jones University is hiding a racist idea under a very thin religious pretext they call separation. The problem is, though many didn’t like the idea, no one stood up and said, Oh, hush! Find that biblical principle in the church Fathers, Schoolmen, Reformers, Separatists…”. They did not do what Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. did when he wrote the John Birchers out of American Conservatism.
I think this whole question is very interesting and crucially important. What we are facing now in Young Fundamentalism is very much the same thing, so that when Bauder distances himself from Jones, Hyles, Rice, etc., we are getting exactly the reaction we would expect to get: What?! Jones and Rice and Bell are not real fundamentalists? I never heard such a thing! Imagine what Sweatt’s congregation is thinking when the president of Central Seminary publishes the idea that their pastor is not a fundamentalist, he is an everythingist.
I do think there is a gravity to this problem that we still have not recognized. These are not minor spats. This is what is lost when the centre does not hold.
Permalink
07/02/09 @ 13:41 30 Comment from: Stuart R. [Visitor]
When will people stop using public forums likes blogs to castigate other men for publicly castigating other men in public forums? (Got that? It's a bit mind-boggling, I know. So is the irony in all of this.) If Bauder was "publicly insinuating himself" with "no direct involvement" then what in the world is this article? If your criticism of him is that he was trying to "define Fundamentalism," then I implore you to read your own post and justly apply the same criticism. Leaders within a movement should not seek to define it, but bloggers without the movement can? Yeah, that makes good sense.
I am a fundamentalist to a degree. I don't know that I agree with Bauder. I certainly don't agree with Sweatt. And I don't even care about the FBFI. But if the "whole mess is no big deal" then why are your posts about it so long?
I am a fundamentalist to a degree. I don't know that I agree with Bauder. I certainly don't agree with Sweatt. And I don't even care about the FBFI. But if the "whole mess is no big deal" then why are your posts about it so long?
Permalink
07/06/09 @ 22:50 31 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
It’s not mind-boggling at all, Stuart; and if it’s ironic, it must be an irony of a very inferior quality.
When will it stop? I can imagine at least three conditions under which it might stop. First, it might stop when people begin disregarding Romans 16:17, which says, and I quote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”
Second, it might stop when everyone is at last persuaded that only bullies with pulpits are permitted to cause divisions and offenses.
Third, it might stop when the younger generation of separatists has moved on to some reconstituted evangelicalism and nothing is left of Fundamentalism but a bunch of sedated saints in a nursing home. (A day which seems not far off.)
You ask me why my posts are so long. You can blame my 12th grade teacher for that. She taught us that our writing should be like skirts: short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject. Given the length of her skirts, we had a difference of opinion as to what is interesting, but the analogy still proved helpful to the class.
My posts tended to be long in order to cover the subject. This confrontation involved quite a few people, a number of reactions and a host of opinions. Unlike fundamentalists, I’ve never seen the merit in oversimplifying matters for political advantage. Distinctions can be helpful, even when lengthy. I thought, and still think, that this fracas demonstrates the unraveling of fundamentalism: its genius is being unmasked. I thought it called for more than a brief comment.
I don’t say that this whole mess is no big deal. What I said was, there are many who think it’s no big deal, and they are correct only to a certain degree, i.e., it is not unusual; what Sweatt did was not exceptional. We’ve heard these pulpit screeds before.
But I happen to think it’s a very big deal in the sense that it finds a very different audience now. Everyone knows that what Sweatt did, he did in a very different environment. Young men are tired of this swill and are glancing over the fence at men who can really preach. In fact some can preach fundamentalists under the table. To hear this sort of divisive and unlearned nonsense, and then to see its sponsor unmoved by the consequences is a very, very, very big deal. Bigger than I think many perceive, even now.
Finally, I do not object to defining fundamentalism in the least. I did it for a while, and I’m still persuaded that it is a good thing to do. I am not objecting to a definition of fundamentalism, I am objecting to a redefining of fundamentalism. What we have here is a kind of rolling definition of the movement that is not at all atypical of fundamentalist behavior. As Tulga observed, “Fundamentalism today is a human movement with many Biblical truths, a gospel with a rather shallow doctrinal setting, influenced largely by many dominating and even domineering personalities, and many eccentricities and careless Biblical interpretations…It seldom includes the great Baptist doctrines which the hard core brethren profess to love so well, even though some of the never get around to practicing them.”
What Bauder has done, and what I am not doing, is participating in this rolling definition. There is no doubt in my mind that Sweatt is a fundamentalist of the first water.
And if you like irony, it is ironic that Bauder, a president of a fundamentalist institution and a man who quite obviously is willing to use his personal and professional connections to bring political force to bear on the moment, a man who is quite willing to read men out of the movement, seems to be continuing a hoary tradition, not ending it.
I hope this answer, though perhaps longer than it could be, has helped clarify.
Permalink
07/07/09 @ 08:38 32 Comment from: Stuart R. [Visitor]
Thank you for the reply. That does clarify your position for me.
Maybe I'll check back in on your blog in a few years after all the old Fundamentalists are sedated to your satisfaction and everyone has figured out that "movements" as defined by a few loud voices in positions of authority are really not that important in the grand scheme, but rather the thousands of believers who care more about preaching and living the fundamentals of the faith than what any particular convention or institution is doing lately.
Happy blogging.
Maybe I'll check back in on your blog in a few years after all the old Fundamentalists are sedated to your satisfaction and everyone has figured out that "movements" as defined by a few loud voices in positions of authority are really not that important in the grand scheme, but rather the thousands of believers who care more about preaching and living the fundamentals of the faith than what any particular convention or institution is doing lately.
Happy blogging.
Permalink
07/07/09 @ 14:54 33 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Great! I've penciled you in for July of 2012…let’s make it the 10th, John Calvin’s birthday.
Permalink
07/07/09 @ 15:35 Leave a comment:
Remonstrans
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Misc
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- A View From The Couch
- ChristianityTuesday: Yes, SIR!
- Yes, We Have No Cuisine
- Eliot Spills The Beans
- ChristianityTuesday: Wascally Wabbits
- Searching For Answers
- We Do Mock Revivals Because We Cannot Produce Real Ones
- ChristianityTuesday: Getting With The Program
- Laughable Yet Serious
- Certainty Or Certainty About Certain Things
- ChristianityTuesday: Monday Drool
- Why It Matters
- An Update
- July 2008
- ChristianityTuesday: Funday Fool
- A More Applicable Application
- Hell Is Other People
- ChristianityTuesday: Catch and Release
- Three Yahoos In Three Hats
- On His Loneliness
- ChristianityTuesday: Tit or Tat?
- An Unforgivably Serious Man
- Untroubled
- ChristianityTuesday: This or That?
- Ask Yourself
- A Simpleton Emotes
- ChristianityTuesday: A Magazine of Antithetical Conscription
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- In Reply To Kevin Corcoran
- Trucker Frank, Webisode 2
- Couch Potatoes
- The Ethos Of Emergence
- Ben Stein Talks With Monsters
- Rich And Layered
- The Heart Of Darkness
- In Reply To Billybob And His Many Friends
- Lighting up Frank
- The Remonstrans Billboard
- My Journey
- Take Me Out Of The Ballgame
- Beaks And Talons
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- Blest Remonstrans
- Doran Comments
- Who's To Blame?
- Tardy Discernments
- Still No Place For Truth
- Preach The Gospel To Every Creature
- The Real Nonsense
- From Columbia to Clearwater
- Your Shabby Culture
- The Power Of Liturgy
- Imagine
- Lord Of The Dance
- Mind The Goo
- Where Have All The Theologians Gone?
- Evangelical Engagement
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- Semi-digestible and Quasi-orthodox
- Getting Happy
- Fundamentalism (Updated)
- At Cafe Perplexa
- Faith, Hope and Popcorn
- Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount
- (Parenthetically)
- Still Getting Over It
- Hirelings
- Illustrated Proverbs
- q.e.d.
- Can We Fix The Pulpit?
- Locked Out
- Shepherding in the Modern Age
- Stragedy
- Shepherds and Wolves
- Wake Up
- I Almost Never Cry at Weddings
- J. Gresham, J. Frank, and Favorable Conditions
- December 2005
- November 2005
- “I Will Come Into Him”
- Come To Your Church
- Come and Shine
- Come Now
- Thanksgiving Proclamation
- Come
- Salt Mines
- Oo-rah!
- Nachtlied
- Quotes to Laugh At
- Church-Music
- Little Brown Church in the Wasteland
- Illustrated Proverbs
- A Dark Past and a Bleak Future
- True Greatness
- Imagining
- Imagining Redemption
- Acts of Desecration
- Renovations.....
- October 2005
- Imagining Truth
- Corporate vs. Private Worship?
- Thoughts For A Quieter Moment
- Cathedral By The Sea
- Contemporary Christian Music
- from Richard Baxter
- Some General Answers
- Illustrated Proverbs
- What You Can Do
- Cleanse Your Palate
- Plum Sizzle on a British Landrace
- Jury Duty
- Message and Metaphor
- On Becoming Serious
- Mercy Again
- The Gift of Irony
- To Worship
- Ouch
- Prayer for Joe
- Kazoo Lieder
- All Things Cheap and Cheesy
- Evening in Paradise
- Home Again
- Worship
- September 2005
- Stolen Worship
- Illustrated Proverbs
- Evangelical Antinomianism
- They're Being Serious Again
- Why Bach?
- Once Again
- Fixed
- Survey Of Young Fundamentalists - A Bad Beginning
- Illustrated Proverbs
- Serious Is As Serious Does
- Nota Bene
- Two Items of Business:
- A Must Read
- Christian Liberty: the Last Christian Virtue
- Drinking from the Well of Christian Liberty
- Ideas Have Consequences
- August 2005
- From the Pastor's Desk . . .
- Beauty Is Not Skin Deep
- For Contemplation
- Somewhat Misunderstandable
- Disappearing Convergences
- Our Perennial Predilection
- Blame the Tech Guy
- Unrecoverable Worship
- Disordering Our Affections
- More Lost Worship
- Hope
- Worship is Never Accidental
- Great Amusements
- None of God, All of Self
- Religious Affections By Jonathan Edwards
- July 2005
- Point of Clarification
- Morimur
- Not My Church, Not My God
- Shepherd or Swineherd?
- Bumpkin Apostates
- Relief!
- "By this all will know that you are My disciples"
- Rules to be Observed in Singing of Psalms
- "Untutored But Vigorous"
- Lost Worship
- Be not conformed to this world either....
- Outward and Inward Morality
- Surveys II
- Mein Herze schwimmt im Blut
- June 2005
- May 2005
- Saying the Wrong Things About Joy
- C.S. Lewis
- Can We Be Serious?
- Borrowing the Philistine Method of Transport
- Playing With Fire
- John Piper
- Dissidens comment worth noting...
- John Nelson Darby
- Little To Offer
- Machen on Separation
- Surveys - I
- A Short Chat
- We Apologize
- H. A. Ironside
- The Same Pleasures
- If I May Be So Bold
- Did God Ever Express An Interest In How He Was Worshipped?
- Beginners in the Examined Life?
- What Those Numbers Mean
- What Place is This?
- A.W. Tozer
- Note to Self:
- April 2005
- March 2005
Search
Categories
- All
- Cafe Perplexa (13)
- Old Main (703)
- Background (1)
- Landfill (0)
- News (0)
- SupportDocs (1)
Linkblog
Remonstrans Articles
XML Feeds
What is RSS?
Who's Online?
- Guest Users: 19
powered by
