An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum
Dear Brother Ketchum,
Over the past couple of months my attention has been directed to several of your writings, some of which mention me. While I do not make a practice of responding to unsolicited criticisms, two factors have influenced me to write to you. The first is the fact that we have labored together in the same corner of the Lord’s vineyard and have come to know each other well enough to speak frankly. The second is that, while I know you to be an honorable man who would never willingly misrepresent a brother, your recent writings have contained a sufficient number of misunderstandings that I have heard people question your credibility. So I am writing to you simply to set the record straight, I hope in a way that is charitable.
One of your concerns is that you believe you have been ridiculed, particularly within the Minnesota Baptist Association. You state, “I have talked to a few men in the leadership of the Minnesota Baptist Association of churches regarding these issues. My comments were received with a smirk of derision and ridicule.” Since the only board member of the Minnesota Baptist Association whom you mention by name is me, people are likely to infer that I have ridiculed you, or perhaps that I have encouraged others to ridicule your pronouncements.
Actually, I don’t recall having heard you ridiculed, either in public or private, by any board member or pastor of the Minnesota Baptist Association. Personally, I respect you too much to subject you to mockery. I have witnessed God’s grace in your life. I have watched you face severe trials with equanimity, treat opponents tactfully, and persevere both in faith and in ministry. While we disagree about some issues, I believe that you are a man of honor and a man of God. If I heard someone attack your character, I would want to be one of your defenders.
As you know, however, defending a man’s character is easier than defending his every pronouncement. For example, you recently complained that someone ridiculed your article on the Hegelian dialectic. Yet your description of Hegelian dialectic contains little that would be recognized by anyone who had perused a serious book about Hegel, let alone read Hegel himself. Consequently, I find that you have left me with no answer for those people who wish to ridicule it.
The same may be said of your remarks about John MacArthur. You state, “John MacArthur is a hyper-Calvinist, believes in Lordship salvation, Presbyterian polity, uses CCM and Christian-rock in his church ministries, and is undoubtedly a New Evangelical.” Some of your allegations are certainly true: for example, John MacArthur does believe in Lordship salvation. Some are beyond my knowledge: I really do not know whether MacArthur uses CCM or “Christian-rock” in his church ministries, though I know of many fundamentalists who do. (The only rock concert to which I’ve ever taken my wife—inadvertently—was a chapel service in one of the King-James-friendly Bible colleges). Some of your observations are simply not accurate. MacArthur’s polity is not so much Presbyterian as it is Plymouth Brethren. No historic definition of hyper-Calvinism can imaginably be applied to MacArthur. Only the most pejorative standards would classify him as a New Evangelical. When people ridicule you for making such accusations, it becomes very difficult to defend you.
As I recently glanced through your writings, I discovered that I myself had been similarly misinterpreted. For example, you stated that I have “regularly criticized people for criticizing Reform [sic] Theology, especially Reformed Soteriology. Under [Bauder’s] paradigm, anyone believing that Reformed Soteriology is unscriptural, and is [sic] willing to say that publicly, is outside of his acceptable Fundamentalism.” Well, there is a grain of truth here. I have on a couple of occasions said that we do not need to fight about Calvinism. But the fact is that I myself believe that some tenets of Reformed thought are unscriptural, and I am willing to say so publicly. For example, I do not believe in Limited Atonement as it is traditionally defined. I have actually written about some of the areas in which I differ with Reformed theology, and I see no particular problem in allowing others to express their disagreements as well. The question is not whether we may disagree, but how. The kind of disagreement that would label John MacArthur as a hyper-Calvinist is clearly not helpful. It is the kind of thing that invites ridicule. Though I disapprove of aspects of MacArthur’s soteriology, disagreement does not deliver me from the obligation to represent him fairly.
The same can be said of the following sentence:
When professed fundamentalists such as Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Douglas McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, and Dr. Dave Doran begin to defend men like Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever, C.J. Maheney [sic], and Rick Holland (to name a few), it becomes very apparent that there has been a considerable change in direction regarding the practice of militant separation.
You seem to think that it is unacceptable to defend men when they are falsely accused. Well, I am willing to defend these men from slanders against their character or false statements of their views, in the same way that I am willing to defend you. Nevertheless, at a great many points I have challenged their views: in some cases over miraculous gifts, in other cases over church polity, in yet others over contemporary methodologies. I have attempted to persuade them that fellowship and separation involve more than simple adherence to the gospel (some of them already understand this to varying degrees). I think that I can defend their character while disagreeing with some of their theology, just as I do with you.
If you scold a child for everything, then she will pay no attention when you scold her for the thing that matters. Something like this has happened with the incessant fundamentalist scolding of conservative evangelicals. If you want to open the way for competent fundamentalists to articulate our differences with conservative evangelicals, your best approach is to expose and reprove fundamentalist periergazomenous* whose only spiritual gift appears to be censoriousness.
“But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you…though we are speaking this way” (Heb. 6:9, NASB). You are an honorable man, and that is why I have felt comfortable offering both clarification and exhortation. I trust that you take my words in the charitable spirit in which they are intended.
With affection,
Kevin
Notes
*—see 2 Thessalonians 3:11.
Untitled
Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)
Thy Name, O Christ, as incense streaming forth
Sweetens our names before God’s Holy Face;
Luring us from the south and from the north
Unto the sacred place.
In Thee God’s promise is Amen and Yea.
What are Thou to us? Prize of every lot,
Shepherd and Door, our Life and Truth and Way:—
Nay, Lord, what art Thou not?
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 738 views
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ…
[Jay]
@KevinM, I think Bauder has only done one book, so that probably wasn’t common enough to be a threat to us. Yet. Don’t worry though, someone will probably start a blog warning us of his apostasy if he does another, or maybe he’ll earn an FBFI resolution of his very own. ;)
Actually, as author, editor, or contributor, (and one or two forewords) I think I’ve got a piece of eight nor nine books now. Publishers include:
Zondervan
Regular Baptist Books
Kregel
RAM
Central Seminary press
BMH
Baker Book House
There are a couple more in the works right now, including a history of Baptist Fundamentalism in the North (with Robert Delnay), and a couple more beyond that on the back burner.
Kevin
[Don Johnson][Jay]I mean, there’s got to be someone out there that us younger guys can look to, right? Someone outside the people that tell us that everyone (who isn’t our kind of fundamentalist) is wrong? I haven’t seen it yet in the roughly fifteen years that I’ve travelled in “our circles”. I’d love to be proven wrong on that.
My first thought on this may seem like I’m being a smart-alec. How about Jesus Christ? Really, is there any other man we should look to? I’m serious about this. Why do we need some man to follow other than Him?
I think understand the sentiment of your remarks, Don. We’re living in the age of “celebrity” and hero worship, which can be a very unhealthful preoccupation. But I think Jay’s talking about something legitimate, something actually quite biblical. Paul alludes to it in 2 Tim. 2:2.
On the one hand, the Church (and the church) needs teachers who have the gifts and abilities to take what they’ve learned and communicate those things to others. On the other hand, men who are going to be equipped for the ministry need other men to look to who will teach them (us!) what they’ve learned. Paul doesn’t expect future teachers to bypass Timothy and simply “look to Jesus.” Instead, he expects them to look to Timothy and learn of Jesus and the doctrine. And to continue the thought, if we didn’t need “some man to follow other than [Jesus] ,” I suppose there would be no need for teachers at all, and the work of pastoral ministry would be so much easier — or would it even exist?? We’d simply lead people to faith in Christ, hand them a Bible, and tell them, “OK, now, just keep looking to Jesus and all will be well.”
So, if I’m reading Jay correctly, he’s suggesting that pastors in formation can look outside the “fundy box” and actually learn a great deal from men/teachers whom some within the “box” decry as being “wrong” and unworthy of attention.
[BryanBice]So, if I’m reading Jay correctly, he’s suggesting that pastors in formation can look outside the “fundy box” and actually learn a great deal from men/teachers whom some within the “box” decry as being “wrong” and unworthy of attention.
Let me ask you, though, are fundies really saying “don’t read X teacher” or are they urging caution at points in the ministry that they are aware of? Maybe I’m out of the loop but when people ask me about a writer, I rarely give a blanket endorsement. Most of us have some quirk that might need explanation or caution ahead of time. I suppose if I ever got around to writing a book people might have a few things to say about me before recommending it.
Of the popular CEs, I can only think of one who I would have very strong reservations about, from what I have read of most of them, I’d recommend them with cautions.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So, if I’m reading Jay correctly, he’s suggesting that pastors in formation can look outside the “fundy box” and actually learn a great deal from men/teachers whom some within the “box” decry as being “wrong” and unworthy of attention.
Well, there is that, and I am also concerned about the amount of negative ‘advice’ against writers. Caution is good and has its’ place, but it is interesting to me that that Fundamentalist ‘book recommendations’ are largely 99% along the lines of “That guy is EVIL! Don’t read him!” Is there no one worth reading anymore? Seriously?
Maybe I’m just oversensitive to this, but it seems like we ought to be able to accentuate one or two guys that could actually be helpful rather than pointing out everyone’s problems all the time whenever a new and helpful book is brought up in discussions.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Yes, Don, at least some Fundamentalists warn against reading anyone who is not a Fundamentalist (in their opinion). Several years ago, I attended a meeting of about 40 Fundamental preachers and heard the following during group discussion.
“When I go into a preacher’s study, and see commentaries by John MacArthur on the shelf, I want to gag. Fundamental pastors shouldn’t be reading books by neo-evangelicals.”
It has happened. It still happens. I’m glad you are not one who speaks in such a manner.
G. N. Barkman
[Don Johnson][BryanBice]So, if I’m reading Jay correctly, he’s suggesting that pastors in formation can look outside the “fundy box” and actually learn a great deal from men/teachers whom some within the “box” decry as being “wrong” and unworthy of attention.
Let me ask you, though, are fundies really saying “don’t read X teacher” or are they urging caution at points in the ministry that they are aware of? Maybe I’m out of the loop but when people ask me about a writer, I rarely give a blanket endorsement. Most of us have some quirk that might need explanation or caution ahead of time. I suppose if I ever got around to writing a book people might have a few things to say about me before recommending it.
Of the popular CEs, I can only think of one who I would have very strong reservations about, from what I have read of most of them, I’d recommend them with cautions.
SOME fundies are saying “don’t read X teacher.” My guess is, based on my albeit limited experience, that most who take this approach come from the “IFBx” end of the fundy spectrum.
Some don’t say “don’t read X teacher,” but they demonize X to such an extent that one is left with the conclusion that he’d better stay away from him at all costs. Quite honestly, from personal experience, John MacArthur was so demonized in the 80s & early 90s by our branch of fundyism that I seriously thought he was a borderline heretic. He was blasted by the fundy leaders I looked up to with as much rancor as they had heaped on Billy Graham in the 60s & 70s. Even as I write, I can still hear the voices in my head! Yet I don’t ever recall anyone saying, “Don’t read MacArthur” — they didn’t need to any more than they needed to say, “Don’t go to a Graham crusade.” [By the way, out of “rebellious curiosity” I got ahold of Mac’s commentary on Hebrews, read the offending passage re. “the blood issue,” and saw with my own two eyes how terribly misrepresented Mac had been! I read more, and discovered I agreed with Mac on just about every issue that my “mentors” had blasted him over. Talk about feeling betrayed!] I’m guessing, but I venture to say this is the kind of thing Jay’s referring to.
Some fundies — the only ones I still give serious attention to — aren’t afraid to recommend books, conferences, materials that will be helpful to me in the work of the ministry and in my growth in Christ. And they do so without feeling like they have to “glue a sticker inside the front cover.”
Grah…editing timer ran out on me :(
Don, maybe it’s just a style thing. When people ask me about stuff, I tend to recommend specific books, not specific authors..so I don’t necessarily feel the need to put a caveat on the author. I just say “__________________ was a great book, so I’d read that first” or something like it.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
The irony of this panel discussion at the T4G is quite humorous to me.
http://t4g.org/media/2012/05/celebrity-pastor-indecent-exposure-2/
Speaking of books, I once did an experiment, and interspersed books authored by Swindoll, Ruckman, Warren, Grady, Piper, Colson, Greene, Gipp, and Spurgeon… on my shelves, just to see what would happen.
It was very disappointing. Not even a puff of smoke.
Wow…lots of thoughts flying around here. It is ironic that this thread started as an open letter to Lance Ketchum :). Where’s Lance?? Oh well…I’d like to offer a couple points as to why I and many of the guys I regularly communicate with continue to avoid the “fundamentalist” label.
First, there is a continued inconsistency on the matter of separation. Just one example (of which there are many): There seems to be a growing collaboration between recognized fundamentalists (some of the big-name camps in particular) and West Coast Baptist College/Lancaster Baptist Church. Based upon an email I received from WCBC a couple years ago, all their graduates are required to stand in agreement to a statement that says (in part): “…That the Bible is the fully verbally inspired Word of God, and that God has preserved His Word in the King James Version for the English speaking people…That if at any time, as a graduate of West Coast Baptist College, you disagree with these teachings, or live a life that is contrary to the Word of God and the convictions of this college, you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.” To my knowledge, this statement still stands. While there is perhaps the slightest bit of wiggle room in that statement, I think we all understand what they mean. And yet I don’t hear any fundamentalists speaking out against WCBC. I do, however, hear fundamentalists railing against Matt Olson and Northland. The inconsistency is clear in my mind. Worse, in this particular example, fundamentalists are silent on the issue of heterodox bibliology while pummeling an orthodox brother (Matt Olson) and institution (Northland).
Second, there is continued confusion on the seriousness of secondary issues. One such issue is…wait for it…the issue of music :). Though I am a musician (and a conservative one, at that), I have no desire to enter a debate about musical styles and preferences. But I simply use it as an example on this point (secondary issues) because it has been referenced in this thread. Both Don (not in this thread, but on his own blog) and Kevin (in post 150) use the word apostasy in the same breath as music. Kevin also stated: “I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ.” I am much less sure what Kevin means by his statements than I am what Don means (because Don explains himself on his blog). I’m not entirely sure what Kevin means (or what specific kinds of music he is talking about) when he says “…Certain kinds of music are so incompatible with the Christian message that their use is blasphemous. They represent an apostasy, not from orthodoxy, but from orthopathy.” Be that as it may…the point I wish to make is that using the word apostasy (however nuanced) when talking about brothers in Christ who simply choose different music styles is a huge leap. If a movement uses the word apostasy to refer to a style of music and yet remains silent on matters of heterodox bibliology, isn’t the inconsistency obvious?
I’ll stop there. But those are 2 of several reasons that I struggle with the fundamentalist movement that I am familiar with. I am thankful for this ongoing discussion. It has been helpful. I pray that we can continue to learn from each other.
Mark Mincy
Don,
I have read through your advice several times. Thank you for putting in the time and thought to write it. While I think you deserve a reply, I want to consider what I intend to say rather more carefully than usual. While you are waiting, however, you might help to crystallize my thoughts if you would answer another question, or (depending on your answer) perhaps two.
I’ll ask the first question in a few different ways, but I see it as all one question. This question presumes that I am disposed to take your advice.
What do you intend to see accomplished if I take your advice? What will changes will occur in evangelicalism and in Fundamentalism? How do you think the change in my approach will affect and be received by younger Fundamentalists, both those that are committed to the idea of Fundamentalism and those that are wavering between Fundamentalism and some version of evangelicalism? How do you think the change will affect and be received by the leadership of the FBFI? Of other Fundamentalist organizations?
Again, these are meant as serious questions and not as debating points.
Kevin
Mark,
You and I sound very similar - across the board. While I am also conservative on music I also was uneasy with the statements you noted.
Let me defend Kevin and guys like him (Harding and the Beehtoven Group). Harding and I studied together at DBTS both in M.Div and Th.M studies. Kevin helped me through my doctorate at Central. I know and love (and trust) these good men. They will (and have) as quickly fought the good fight against the un-orthodox bibliology of hyper-fundamentalism (KJV only) as anyone. Both Kevin and Mike will separate from anyone and I mean anyone on the areas of Scripture. If you are out of line - and you violate a healthy fundamentalism in the area of Bibliology - it doesn’t matter to them. They have no time for politics which is why I love these guys. There are some who I call “Type A” guys who do play the kind of politics you are calling out - but it’s not these guys.
On Kevin’s statement about music and the virgin birth - I’m sure he will clarify the statement when he can. Right now the poor guys is having 192 different conversations over at least three different threads all at the same time. He’s probably not slept in 4 days. He’s probably in a trance speaking his ancestry’s German language! I’m sure he’ll come back and explain his thoughts. You have to remember when Kevin speaks you have to understand the context. Sometimes he speaks as a pastor….sometimes as an educator…..sometimes as a historian…..some times as a philosopher. So Kevin might be saying “even though a different brother can use a certain kind of music and even though there might be a surface presentation of truth - the style or approach or whatever about the music in implication undermine the gospel (intrinsically) just as a wrong view of the virgin birth does (extrinsically).” I think that’s some of what he means….however only God knows what is in Kevin’s mind so I’ll let him explain himself…..but my guess is that’s at least part of what he means.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Mark,
Please do not hold Fundamentalism accountable for my views on music. I readily admit that I do not take a very Fundamentalistic position on music. On the contrary, I take a conservative position.
I judge that there is no qualitative difference between what was done by Doane, Sankey, Bliss, or Rodeheaver, and what has been done by Bill Gaither, Larry Norman, REZ, Petra, or Stryper (you can tell that my limited exposure to CCM is badly out of date). In holding this view I acknowledge myself to be idiosyncratic (at best!) from a Fundamentalist perspective.
This is the point at which I am least Fundamentalistic. Nevertheless, my views do not make me more like evangelicals than like Fundamentalists. They simply make me more conservative—which puts me on the opposite side of Fundamentalism from virtually all evangelicals. I know of few places within either Fundamentalism or evangelicalism where my understanding of music would be welcomed.
By now, I’m pretty sure that even my friends are cringing. Sorry.
Fundamentalism has always been committed to the idea that the music (and other manifestations) of popular culture should be appropriated for use in worship and religious service. Whether it’s Rodeheaver (in the Victorian-Edwardian era), Wyrtzen (in the Jazz age), Peterson (who brought show tunes to church), Hamilton (whose work is just goofy), or the rock-rap-techno-glam-grunge-Indie-metal-Goth-funk-punk crowd, it all comes out to about the same thing, none of it good. Some Fundamentalists just want to stop with their version of popular music.
So am I actually a hyper-Fundamentalist? Believe me, I’ve asked myself this question. But I don’t think so, for the simple reason that I do not hold up my views on music as a standard by which to judge anyone’s standing as a Fundamentalist, nor do I seek to enforce my views upon anyone else. As I said to Lance Ketchum, the only rock concert to which I’ve ever taken my wife was a chapel service in one of the KJV-exclusive colleges. I’d have avoided it if I’d known, but I don’t question the institution’s bona fides as a representative of Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism has had no consensus on the question of music. As nearly as I can tell, even if you are a head banger, you can still be a good Fundamentalist. Plenty of them are. If that’s all that’s keeping you away, it shouldn’t.
Kevin
[Joel Tetreau]He’s probably in a trance speaking his ancestry’s German language!
Only you, Tetreau! Only you could think of such a thing :).
It’s getting late for us east coasters, but let me just clarify one thing. I’m not trying to call anyone out - particularly men like Mike Harding (who I know reasonably well and have much respect for) and Kevin Bauder (who I do not know personally, but have much respect for based upon what I know of him). I’m just trying to be a part of what I believe to be a very important conversation. And I’m searching for some answers to lingering questions in my mind. Hopefully, I can do that and do it with the right spirit. You’ll notice I have a whopping 11 posts to my name (maybe this will make 12)! That’s because I normally avoid these types of forums for fear of communicating poorly or being misunderstood. Anyhow, I know you weren’t implying any of that, necessarily, but just wanted to clarify my purpose for being here.
Thanks for your thoughts, friend!
Mark Mincy
Discussion