Pensees: An Explanation and An Apology

OK Bob, I’ll bite.

I knew Frank Bumpus for many years. As an attorney, I had the opportunity to be with him in a few transactions involving Bethel Baptist. Some were difficult and involved the Village government. You get to know what a person is made of when they are under pressure. When your lawyer is sitting next to you and you are trying to solve problems—that is pressure. I can testify to his fine character and love for his family and church.

I acknowledge what you say and I fully understand that you are not impugning character. It is, however, a very hard thing for folks to hear that you disagree with the ministry philosophy of their church or founding Pastor. Most at Bethel will take it personally. Yet, I know for a fact that you can and have had wonderful fellowship with folks from Bethel. Additionally, I personally saw you take a negative situation with Matt Olson and turn it very positive. If Frank Bumpus were alive today I have no doubt that you would have a spirited conversation and that you both could walk away friends.

Some brands of fundamentalism possessed a “take no prisoners” mindset for many years. If you disagreed, you were out or marginalized. Those that refuse to change from those negative practices are headed into sectarianism and will become islands unto themselves. The conversation about the future of fundamentalism possesses a lot of good folks. Kevin Bauder has given a nice road map in his address, A Fundamentalism Worth Saving. I know that you too are passionate about saving the very best of what fundamentalism has to offer. I know that in the end, we are on the same team. We just need to be extra careful about stepping on the bodies of former leaders who are in the grave.

Chuck

Bixby: “We not only don’t know who Frank Bumpus, Wayne Van Gelderen, Sr., Bob Jones, Jr., Jack Hyles, and John R. Rice were, but the little bit that we know we flat out don’t want to emulate…Having no emotional reason to bond to him…But I categorically did not want his doctrine, his preaching, or the product of his ministerial philosophy…I was then in a quandary.”

I do have an emotional reason to bond to Frank Bumpus. I grew up under his ministry, and still remember being baptized by him when I was seven years old. Thus, what do you mean by “product of his ministerial philosophy”? (I think you truly mean a philosophy of separatism, dogmatism in preaching, and emphasis on soulwinning over God’s glory.) But if you mean what I could think you mean, I am a “product of his ministerial philosophy” that you seem to be discrediting as something you “flat out” would not want to emulate. I dislike your putting Bumpus on the same plane as Hyles. I can say with experiential knowledge that the product of Bumpus’ ministry is not the same product as Hyles’. Maybe the credit can’t go to Bumpus entirely for this, but I think a lot can: that if you compare, or rather contrast, First Baptist of Hammond and Bethel Baptist Church of today, the product is much different. Bethel is not anywhere near as shallow as Hyles in philosophy and theology.

While you certainly could critique a man’s preaching based on a few college chapels, I’m doubtful as to how much you could judge his ministry. Is it fair to spend a somewhat harsh paragraph on Bumpus as you did when he’s long dead and you’re basing it on your college memories of a few sermons of his? I don’t believe that your analysis of Bumpus threw you into a “quandary.” If it did, it didn’t sound like a very thorough analysis. If I compare your descriptions of your personal knowledge of Bumpus and Bob Jones, Jr., it seems much different.

Further thoughts…

Bixby: “What I do want is Frank Bumpus’ heart for God that I thought to be genuine, his zeal for souls that I discerned to be exemplary, and his passion for ministry. Those are all excellent. But I categorically did not want his doctrine, his preaching, or the product of his ministerial philosophy.”

It seems to me that “heart…zeal…and passion” are all the same thing. So you said one positive thing about Bumpus, which might be his greatest positive outside of a very practical wisdom and love for his people that you probably would not know about if you weren’t under his daily ministry. But your positive is canceled out in my opinion by your critiques of him, which were three different, important categories! You’re saying, the only thing good about him was his zeal—to which most people immediately tag on “zeal…without knowledge,” especially after you basically said that yourself by saying you wouldn’t want to emulate his preaching or doctrine.

Maybe you will say upon reading my comments, “See, you’re shackled to Bumpus’ ghost! You can’t see the truth about him!” I agree that may be true to a small degree and maybe I’m just not seeing it; I know I am certainly very grateful for the ministry I grew up in, and he does deserve respect for the fact that he allowed the Lord to use him to build it! However, the extent of the hero worship displayed for Hyles cannot be found at Bethel. I think that can be proved by the fact that even though I grew up there, I don’t remember much about him. Older men who remember more are better to judge in this matter (like Bauder and Chuck Hervas), but as a member of Bumpus’ church, I didn’t know he was a “giant,” though I respected him. I am wondering if it is true or fair to lump him in with such descriptions (by Bauder) as “very heavy liabilities of fundamentalism…bullies…trying to create or control empires” and thus, not “men of faith and strength…of kindness and gentleness…biblically meek…honest and fair and charitable.” If Bumpus had had a small church all his life, I’m wondering if the critique on him would be lighter?

While I don’t want to be shackled to Bumpus’ ghost, I also don’t see how you honor a person if you criticize their “style, works, philosophy, and memory.” Can you explain how you honor a person when you criticize or flat out don’t want to emulate anything about them? The truth is that you flat out don’t want to emulate them at all, because as to their zeal, a zeal without knowledge is not worth emulating—right? And to that, I take a little offense that Bumpus is thrown in the mix. If you have nothing good to say about a person, especially a dead person you didn’t know much about, maybe it’d be better to pick a different example. It sounds to me like you don’t want to sound like (or be!) a rude upstart, so you temper your comments with the fact that you still desire to “honor their persons,” when in reality I don’t see anything, not even their final work, being honored. I think Bumpus’ “product” wasn’t too bad, myself.

You can critique the overall philosophy and theology of the old fundamentalists, and I’ll be right with you. But is it needful to name every name you remotely had a connection to among the so-called “giants” and systematically annihilate their memory in order not to be shackled to their ghosts? I get the impression sometimes that the only thing that matters to us young fundamentalists is being “smart.” I agree with so much, so much of what you said. I do hope, however, that while being smart and preaching expositionally, the young fundamentalists will really try to emulate the passion of somebody, whether that passion be the passion exemplified in the old fundys or the passion of John Piper. I hope the meaning of the text can go past the preachers’ intelligent heads and hit their hearts as well, or we will find ourselves with smart but cold congregations, a problem as large as the former days.

Amy, I’ll avoid giving you an exact explanation of what I mean by not liking the product of Frank Bumpus’ ministry because that would contrary to the stated purpose of this thread. However, I said what I meant.

It is precisely because you cannot understand how one can respect somebody without wanting to emulate aspects of his life (and unlike your accusation I did not say the “whole” of his life) that illustrates a part of the problem.

I can also assure you that the very fact that I let you get on my blog and be snarky to me as a pastor in front of the people of my church is one thing that Frank Bumpus would have never tolerated. Period.

If you want to argue with me on another thread, fine. But I made it clear that this thread was about sharing nice thoughts about the men I mentioned. In my mind you’re not helping Pastor Bumpus’ cause.

I will add that I have had family members of the above mentioned men (who are in responsible positions of leadership and who took offense at my original statement) tell me that the above apology/explanation was good.

I’ve had other people who were very close (and related) say I’m almost too charitable here. So, go figure.