I think Bauder’s point was that he knew a side of fundamentalism many who leave it never see. A rare side, of the low profile and genuine piety not a whole lot of us associate with the movement. He is not the only one who talks that way, but knowing what loyalty means to fundamentalists, it is hard for those who haven’t experienced a great deal of the meek and lowly elements to belive it is all that common. We may even question that such a side is really all that attractive (for this reason: the good guys are the ones who make people stay but don’t seem to be capable of running the bad ones away), but Bauder’s point still stands. There are such good people and there they are in the midst thereof.
Shall he not give them credit for finally persuading him?
So what is McCune’s point? That even the nasty guys are good at heart, just misunderstood? Perhaps more accurately that even some nasty guys were not really all that nasty if only they thought you were being sincere with them. Would you take McCune’s word for it that R.V. Clearwaters really had a good heart? (I am more inclined to believe that R.V. Clearwaters was some kind of resurrected frankenstein cheese). But he has a point, doesn’t he? How many people, after all, served under R.V. Clearwaters for as long as did McCune?
Which is perhaps why Bauder didn’t write about it. He’s writing about his heroes, the guys who influenced him and persuaded him to stay. If old R.V. didn’t, then why should he give him credit? Why don’t those who were under the great R.V.C. write something with a similar point as those who were under the so-called kindler and gentler parties involved? Maybe they could advance their cause. Maybe they could persuade.
McCune’s point is that having heroes like Bauder’s is good but not enough. It is too ideal and might lead to seeking ground with the opposition. It hasn’t been enough to define what fundamentalism is. And that is Bauder’s dilemma, or his cause, if you want, or his argument. Can it really be said the guys that kept him in stood for what fundamentalism really and truly is? Who gets to define fundamentalism? Each person for himself? This segment? Who?
* * *
Speaking of segments, have you seen the Martooniac take? I wonder how the Detroit people feel when the Martooniacs cheer them on. That’s gotta be a bit . . . peculiar.