Pensees: The FBFI Responds to Criticism of their Keynote Speaker, Dan Sweatt

The FBFI Responds to Criticism of their Keynote Speaker, Dan Sweatt

If it can be shown with books and Bible that the speaker you have promoted on your platform is factually wrong, logically convoluted, and spiritually off the mark, and the message has been heard far and wide, this is how the FBFI believes you should deal with it.

Speaking the Truth in Love

There has been a lot of interaction and discussion over the past few days related to fundamentalism, Calvinism, and how men who disagree with one another ought to express those disagreements. The FBFI has always included both Calvinists and non-Calvinists because we recognize that godly men can agree with one another on the fundamentals of the faith while disagreeing with one another in this area. In any disagreement, we must represent one another fairly and treat one another charitably. To make this a test of fellowship among fundamentalists has not been the position of the FBFI and will not be our position.

The only way we can maintain unity on the fundamentals of the faith is if we learn how to express our disagreements on other points in a way that does not damage that fellowship through unbiblical communication. We must honor our biblical responsibility to use speech that edifies and displays Christ-like love. We must demonstrate an unwavering commitment to humble integrity. Caricatures and personal attacks do not honor the Lord or advance His work. Neither pulpit nor keyboard exempt us from these biblical obligations.

Kevin Bauder magnanimously spins opines: It’s good, he says. I truly believe that he is attempting to exemplify the spirit of charity toward the FBFI, and I understand the pressure some of the men may be under. I am a person of no import, but I have received several angry emails, some almost venomous. His explanation of the FBFI statement will certainly garner the appreciation of the FBFI leadership who — I must agree with Kevin — are probably feeling some pressure from constituents on both sides of the argument. Kevin calls it an “intermediate step” and therefore “adequate.” This is, of course, a very generous explanation for a statement that essentially says nothing at all, and I simply do not buy the paranoia of appearing denominational (a sure-fire effective dissuader with independent Baptists) if they publicly take note of the message and comment that it does not represent the tone and intellectual rigor that we ought to hope to expect from an FBFI platform.

Forget the Calvinism/Arminianism conflict. This clouds the issue. The issue is the ethic of preaching the way Dan Sweatt preached. Even strong Arminians that I know object to the ethic of that message. They actually feel that Sweatt’s message misrepresented them! Bauder thinks it’s okay that the FBFI doesn’t mention Dan Sweatt’s message. He practically heroizes the leaders for their brilliance in finding an “intermediate step” but in the same article explains that the leadership was totally taken by surprise by the message. I know some readers will think I’m being snarky, but who wants to be part of an organization that is surprised by what comes from their pulpits when all one has to do is pull up a few messages from the past and find out that there is really nothing to be surprised about? Granted, if the history of the FBFI was such that this kind of preaching had never happened, that would be one thing, but we all know that Dan Sweatt’s message wasn’t all that unusual and that’s why there was not even a peep of protest that we know of until somebody decided to hold the FBFI accountable for it on May 13, 2009, a full month and a week after the surprising message.

Another weakness in Bauder’s remarkable piece is that he seems to stereotype young and old fundamentalists. I’ve been getting lots of email; and they’re not all young. In fact, I would say that a good percentage of the private correspondence that I have gotten is from people in the sixties and seventies. Some have simply had enough. Chris Anderson makes that point clearly enough. (Link below)

Nonetheless, I think Bauder is on to something. The bottom line is that his magnanimity doesn’t stoke the the passions and those who want his head are going to have a hard time calling for it when he’s basically made himself the de facto leader of the conflict resolution by, first, defining it in both articles on Sweatt and, second, graciously giving the writers of the lame FBFI statement rhetoric to defend it. Rhetoric that we all know they would have never come up with: “intermediate but adequate steps.”

It makes me chuckle. The genius of this rhetoric is that it commits the FBFI leadership to go somewhere with this matter. They can’t let it die. Why? Because the step is only an “intermediate but adequate” step. “Intermediate” appeases my type. “Adequate” appeases others. Simply brilliant. In the meantime, intelligence has been given more time, and the hope that the FBFI has to attract a thoughtful crowd stays alive. Barely.

I’d nominate Bauder as president of the FBFI, but I let my membership lapse.

Others have commented too. And, frankly, I think they see things Kevin may be choosing to ignore. Dissidens with his pain-in-the-rear clarity seems more on the mark. as to how outsiders with no relationships in “the group” will see it, especially people who knew fundamentalists to beat their chest for “taking a stand” against error. “Fundamentalists wonder why their star is in retrograde? No public statement is offered which is to the point, and no public statement is made of any private rapprochement. They get to instigate the fight and then scold the belligerents. . . . Reminds me of the episode where Moe sets the house ablaze and then scolds Larry and Curly for mishandling the fire hose.”

Basically, the anonymous crank is scratching his head like most people and wondering how an organization can have a “regional meeting,” a keynote speaker, and still get a pass for not being a party with the offender. He’s right. Especially in a group that is famous for guilt-by-association condemnation. The FBFI started the fight. It was their platform. Their keynote speaker. Go figure. But then they make a vague statement about how everybody should be nice. See Anderson’s blog.

(They do have explanations, by the way, as to how they are not responsible. Apparently, the host of the conference gets to choose the speakers. Fine. But it’s still their problem. It was all under the auspices of the FBFI.)

Anderson is gracious, but says what everybody knows is really the truth — even old guys. He is a must read.