DISCUSSION WITH A RUCKMAN DEFENDERBy David W.

PETER RUCKMAN'S SPEECH
By David W. Cloud
Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org

The following is an e-mail dialogue I had recently with a pastor who defends Peter Ruckman's speech and who therefore took offense at my article which criticizes Dr. Ruckman's manner of speaking as unchristian.

Some of the names Ruckman calls men who disagree with him are "jackass," "poor, dumb, stupid 'red legs,'" "silly asses, "apostolic succession of bloated egotists," "two-bit junkie," "two-faced, tin-horned punk," "some incredible idiot," "this bunch of egotistical jack legs," "conservative asses whose brains have gone to seed," "cheap, two-bit punks," "jacklegs," "stupid, little, Bible-rejecting apostates."

Dr. Ruckman can get pretty vulgar. He calls the New American Standard Version "more of the same old godless, depraved crap" (Satan's Masterpiece--the New ASV, p. 67). In The Unknown Bible, p. 100, Ruckman says, "You see how people get all screwed up?"

Ruckman believes it is God who has called him to speak like this. In 1985 he wrote the following testimony: "God called me to sit at this typewriter and pour forth VINEGAR, ACID, VITRIOL, AND CLEANING FLUID on the leading conservative and fundamental scholars of 1900 through 1990. ... God is in charge. He ... destines me to sit at this typewriter and LAMBAST, SCALD AND RIDICULE these Bible rejecting fundamentalists who `believe the Bible is the Word of God,' ... I hereby dedicate myself anew to the task of DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AND NEGATIVE BLASTING against every adversary of that Holy Book" (The Bible Believers Bulletin, Dec. 1985).

I, for one, am not an "adversary of that Holy Book." I have never questioned one word in the King James Bible nor have I encouraged anyone else to do so. Even so, Ruckman has treated me as an apostate and a fool in his paper. Consider a couple of examples --

"Peter Ruckman ... is the Lord's 'junkyard dog' for biting the britches out of conceited asses like David Cloud that don't have enough real knowledge about the contents of the Book to put into the left eye of a blind mosquito" (Bible Believer's Bulletin, November 1994).

"... you little lying rascal, you. ... you lying little hypocrite ... Davey, ole son, you need to get you a sail stitcher's needle and puncture your inflated ego. ... you buttery, smook, slick, mush-mouthed sissy ... The wimps all talk alike if you analyze them. ... Correction, Davey! You smooth, slick, little, fluctuating compromiser ... A puffed-up, conceited ass cannot stand to have his balloon punctured" (Bible Believer's Bulletin, November 1994).

This is Ruckman's standard operating procedure. Are these the words of a gracious man of God? Some think so. Consider the following letter from a Ruckman supporter, and my reply to him:

DISCUSSION WITH A RUCKMAN DEFENDER, OCTOBER 6, 1996

RUCKMAN DEFENDER: Mr. Cloud, I was reading your article "What about Ruckman," and noticed that you repudiated Dr. Ruckman's "slanderous mouth." I want you know that I disagree with your OPINION concerning this. Maybe you're unaware of this, but the Christian is COMMANDED not to love anybody with his MOUTH! 1 John 3:18 "My little children, let us NOT love in WORD, neither in TONGUE; but in deed and in TRUTH."

CLOUD: 1 John 3:18 does not say that we are not to love with our tongue. It says we are not to love ONLY with our tongue. Are you saying that it is O.K. to verbally abuse people and to be unloving in our conversation as long as we are loving in our deeds? Your marriage probably wouldn't last very long if you tested that strange philosophy on your wife.

Our speech is to be characterized by the following -- "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man" Col. 4:6.

Maybe you think Dr. Ruckman's speech is gracious. I don't, and I have a right to my observations, and by God's grace I will continue to exercise that right.

RUCKMAN DEFENDER: My preaching and teaching style matches Dr. Ruckman's. The reason why this style of preaching is repudiated today is because of the SISSIFIED generation of this day and age. The Lord Jesus Christ was a plain preacher as well (Mt. 23:15 for example), and this is why He was crucified. Isaiah referred to unsaved men as "dumb dogs," "greedy dogs," "ignorant" and "beasts" (Isa. 56). What do you think of that? Do you still consider it WRONG to talk in such a manner? If so, please explain.

CLOUD: This thing about men not understanding Ruckman's language because they are sissified is a smokescreen. The Lord Jesus Christ was indeed plain spoken. So were the Apostles. I believe in plain preaching. If you would take the time to read my writings, you would see that. But I have read the words of Christ and I have read the writings of the Apostles; I have also read the writings of Peter Ruckman, and I don't believe Peter Ruckman's speech is like that of Christ and the Apostles. I believe it is in a different category and arises from a different spirit. The Bible says of Christ that the people "all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth" (Luke 4:22). That was Christ's testimony. That is not Peter Ruckman's testimony.

RUCKMAN DEFENDER: Paul warned us that a man preaching with "GOOD WORDS AND FAIR SPEECHES" is doing so to DECEIVE US (Rom 16.18). One can never deceive a man with a NEGATIVE approach; only with a positive approach can one deceive a man. I'm sure you're aware of this fact. Jude made it clear that there're TWO ways to lead a man to Jesus Christ--compassionately or with FEAR (Jude 21-23).

CLOUD: The fact that false teachers use good words to deceive men does not mean that we should not use good words. James 3:17 says, "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then PEACEABLE, GENTLE, and EASY TO BE ENTREATED, FULL OF MERCY and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy."

These are the characteristics of true wisdom. I have as much trouble as the next man seeking to obey these things, seeking to bring my thoughts and speech into conformity with the will of God. I can get as angry as the next man. I can spew forth hatred toward those who oppose me. I receive hundreds of letters a month which criticize me in various ways. It is not easy to give a gracious reply. The nature response is to lash out at those who do not agree with me, or who attack me. There is no glory in that. It comes naturally. The lost man can do it. But to be peaceable and gentle and to be full of mercy and to be patient with those who oppose us and themselves -- THAT is not of the flesh.

RUCKMAN DEFENDER: When it comes to dealing with a SAVED, we're commanded to "rebuke them SHARPLY that they may be SOUND in the FAITH" (Titus 1:13).

CLOUD: I am all for rebuking sharply that they may be sound in the faith. I preached for 10 years in South Asia, among people who have a character very similar to that of those in Crete as described in Titus. They must be dealt with firmly and plainly. I don't believe that is what Peter Ruckman does, though. I have corresponded frequently with Dr. Ruckman. He has never given me the impression that he cares one iota for me or my faith. He has done nothing but mock me.

RUCKMAN DEFENDER: The writer of this verse (as you know) said that he was "RUDE IN SPEECH." Although he was this way, he COMMANDED us to be FOLLOWERS OF HIM EVEN AS HE WAS A FOLLOWER OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (1 Cor 11:1). In view of these apparently CLEAR passages, what is your response?

CLOUD: It is one thing to be rude in speech, meaning in the context that he was down to earth in his speaking rather than speaking on an ivory-tower level; it is quite another to be a rude speaker. I believe Dr. Ruckman is a rude speaker. I have read Paul's writings, and I have read Ruckman's writings. They are not written with the same spirit and manner. Paul was rude in speaking, but he was not a rude man. His Christian grace and gentleness is evident in all of his writings, even though he was indeed plain spoken. I find no Christian grace and gentleness in Ruckman's writings.

I stand by my article. I believe I will probably face many things at the judgment seat of Christ which I will regret, but I don't believe I will regret my judgment that Peter Ruckman's writings are not expressive of Christian grace, and that he has done harm to the cause of the King James Bible by his unchristian spirit.