Pensees: A Confession

Wow. I can’t say that I saw the need for the apoogy, but this apology says more about his character than any of the many well intentioned and (in my opinion) correct defenses of his statements ever could.

I can only hope that those within the body of Christ who were so quick to criticize this good man are equally willing to accept his apology so that our attention can be focused on the true issues that led to his statements.

I’m sure this apology was sincere and therefore pleasing to the Lord. However, the length, seriousness, self-examination, earnestness, thoroughness, and self-abnegation of this apology would have been in proportion if he had actually fire-bombed their houses. Since what he did, instead, was to make an ironic and mildly snotty jab, a non-fundamentalist reader of the apology would have to be forgiven if he thought that it was not an apology but a goof.

DGus,

I’m inclined to sympathize with your analysis. I personally believe that apologies for public mistakes need to be measured. Thorough, yes, but measured. This is because the part of the audience that is genuinely offended will be genuinely appeased by a frank, complete, and humble apology. The part of the audience (in this case, thousands) that is rankled for ulterior reasons will either not be appeased or use the apology to get as much mileage out of it as possible to advance their distorted purposes.

I am therefore inclined to think that Bauder’s apology bordered on over-kill, giving credibilty to the stupidity of his readers.

However, I am also conscience of the fact that I know very few of the variables. I do not know Bauder’s heart. I do not know how the Lord is using this to sanctify the man. I do not know how much this embarrassment has been used to by God to force his conscience to go to the extremes that he did in order to clear itself. The purposes of God in a man’s soul are mysterious to us.

Therefore, as I believed that the best should have been assumed with the original firebomb statement, I also believe that the apology needs to be accepted as stated.

It is unfortunate that sheer stupidity, willful ignorance, and malicious reading might be justified by a sincere man’s apology. But that is no fault of Bauder’s.

I, for one, have no problem with the depth of the “apology.” I think this word is really the wrong word. The content of Brother Bauder’s post was confessional. A heart smitten by sin (whether recognized by the majority or not) must respond in reference to the holiness of God that has been violated. Our sin must not be defined solely by the context of the occurrence, but must be defined in the context of the law of God. In this case some do not consider the incident a violation of God’s law at all, but they are not the judge here; Brother Bauder’s conscience is. If he believes he has sinned, and he clearly does, then this was definitely what was needed.

It appears that many of us struggle with the depths of this kind of confession, because we would not go to such lengths. I suggest then that this confession becomes a mirror to our own views of what confession is and is not. I know that I have failed all too often to obey James 4:8-10. It is clear to me that my repentance of sin is too often tainted by worldly sorrow. This is evidenced by the lengths I am willing/not willing to go in repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-11). Bob, I do not accuse you, for I remember such a time not long ago, when you had your own public “mea culpa.”

We need men to be examples of true and complete confession. I pray that I will grow to hate and despise sin in such a way that the smallest sin sickens me, and the slightest lack of glory to my God breaks me. Certainly our communication is regular need of rigorous examination. Our deceptive hearts are all too adept at excusing our failures in communication instead of allow our spirit to be crushed as it should be ever time we sin.

I appreciate Brother Bauder’s comments and it has greatly altered my views of him. In the past I have appreciate his thoughts, but privately questioned his heart. This incident has revealed that Brother Bauders knows that in his “flesh there is no good thing.” As my regard for my Lord and God increases so must my regard for men like Brother Bauder who can prostrate themselves and clearly communicate not only the truths of the Word of our holy God, but also the realities the sin that resides in his own heart.

For these reasons I appreciate Brother Bauder; however, it would be just as wrong to judge the communication of another who has similarly communicated by Brother Bauder’s confession as it is for us to discount the sin that Brother Bauder alone can assess. According to Paul the heart of man is known only by the man himself (1 Corinthians 2:11). May we each be as rigorous with our own communication as Brother Bauder has been. However, in light of the command to love one another, may we each be equally as gracious in the communication of others (1 Corinthians 13:5d).

Christian Markle