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
[James K] The whole idea that a person can only offer legitimate and acceptable criticism if he is accepted within the group just smacks of more of the same pride, ignorance, and rebellion to the truth in Christ. People are actually debating how to save fundamentalism. One person has proclaimed himself part of the last who can do it. Others doubt if that same person is even in the movement. Sad and melodramatic.
And to add on to this, one looks at the amount of grief that Bauder is taking from sectors of the Internet and think that he’s advocated the crucifixion of believers.
Well, maybe that is a little bit of an exaggeration.
James - Nice ATC reference, there!
"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
[Don Johnson]As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.
I see what you are saying. Let me rephrase the above:
As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they see them simply as personal attacks and not as constructive criticism.
As an example, the post that follows yours is easily dismissable because the poster regularly uses intemperate language to simply attack his opponents. If there is any substance there, it is obscured by the rhetoric.
I have worked at changing my own language in posting, although it is very easy to slip into sarcasm mode. Throwing verbal bombs will not convince anyone.
And before someone brings up recent postings on my own blog regarding the use of the word apostasy, I, along with bro. Bauder, see the worldly contemporary ‘Christian’ music as part of the apostasy (the falling away). I don’t apologize for that view, I am a fundamentalist after all. But let’s not get into a harangue about music in this thread.
If we expect to persuade, we need to put a guard on our mouths (or keyboards).
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]I see what you are saying. Let me rephrase the above:
As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they see them simply as personal attacks and not as constructive criticism.
As an example, the post that follows yours is easily dismissable because the poster regularly uses intemperate language to simply attack his opponents. If there is any substance there, it is obscured by the rhetoric.
I have worked at changing my own language in posting, although it is very easy to slip into sarcasm mode. Throwing verbal bombs will not convince anyone.
And before someone brings up recent postings on my own blog regarding the use of the word apostasy, I, along with bro. Bauder, see the worldly contemporary ‘Christian’ music as part of the apostasy (the falling away). I don’t apologize for that view, I am a fundamentalist after all. But let’s not get into a harangue about music in this thread.
If we expect to persuade, we need to put a guard on our mouths (or keyboards).
Don,
I must say, and I am really trying to be as gracious as I can, but your last several posts (including your latest response to Kevin) have been decidedly under whelming. You are not winning the battle of ideas. And yet you seem to almost wear that as a badge of honor. Statements like: “I don’t apologize for that view, I am a fundamentalist after all” seem to imply that you aren’t truly interested in dialog at all. I urge you to consider thoughts such as Greg Barkman shared in post #199. Please do so. He communicates very well what I am convinced many people are thinking. When you use words like apostasy (again, however nuanced) to condemn people like Matt Olson it is irresponsible, at best. At worst, it is sinful. I know you’ve said that you published a list of questions for Matt to answer and he did not respond. Why would he? Why should he? Look at how you and some of the people you have cyber association with treat Matt! The astounding thing to me is that you treat heterodox, fringe troublemakers far more graciously than you do Matt! Look, I’m no Matt Olson apologist. I met him one time at a conference but he probably has no idea who I am. So I have no ulterior motive here other than I am simply dumbfounded by your (and other’s) treatment of Matt, especially in light of your (and other’s) silence on far more serious issues that I have noted earlier. I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. And this is where there is a huge disconnect between me (and I believe many others) and your brand of fundamentalism. And if your final word on these types of matters is “I don’t apologize for that view. I am a fundamentalist after all”, then I think many (perhaps even some in the FBFI) are going to ultimately turn and walk away. And sadly, they might just be right to do so.
Mark Mincy
Don,
Thank you for your responses thus far. Before I offer any response, I would like to ask you one further question.
To what extent do you believe that your answers reflect the thinking of the FBFI board and membership as a whole? You’re on the board, right? You’ve been privy to the behind-closed-doors conversations. I’m assuming that you’re in a position to know.
Pastor Harding, if you’re still out there, I would appreciate it if you would also answer this question. I believe that you and Don represent slightly different perspectives. It would be interesting to me to know if the two of you are reading the FBFI in the same way.
My thanks in advance to both of you.
Kevin
The comments I make here are my opinion, the board speaks through Dr. Vaughn and our Polycy and Position statements.
But I will say that this specific question has not been discussed (as far as I can recall) by the board. I have had some correspondence with other preachers since this thread began, one of them a board member. From that correspondence, at least that handful of people appears to agree with me.
But really, does it matter what the board thinks? I think that the kind of thing I am calling for is simply the right thing to do.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
It appears that you will only be satisfied with 100% agreement with your views. That is unlikely to happen, as I am sure you are aware. If you are so dead set against reading my views with charity, then don’t read them at all. It will help you keep your spirit in better shape, most likely.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]It appears that you will only be satisfied with 100% agreement with your views. That is unlikely to happen, as I am sure you are aware. If you are so dead set against reading my views with charity, then don’t read them at all. It will help you keep your spirit in better shape, most likely.
“Thou art the pot, I am but the kettle” :)
I wish you well, Don. I really do.
Mark Mincy
[Kevin T. Bauder] To what extent do you believe that your answers reflect the thinking of the FBFI board and membership as a whole? You’re on the board, right? You’ve been privy to the behind-closed-doors conversations. I’m assuming that you’re in a position to know.Pastor Harding, if you’re still out there, I would appreciate it if you would also answer this question. I believe that you and Don represent slightly different perspectives. It would be interesting to me to know if the two of you are reading the FBFI in the same way.
I’m going to be a little more pointed, and yet try to be gracious as well because there is a considerable amount of personal frustration with the FBFI that is bleeding over into this thread. From what I’m hearing and seeing of the FBFI, it seems to me that they are oblivious to the kinds of questions and concerns that are being voiced by people like me or people in the org that are unhappy or unsatisfied with the attitude and ideas espoused by the FBFI. This is exactly why I was so floored at Mark Minnick’s response to the Sweatt mess back in 2009.
Yes, I know that it seems like I’m pulling in disparate threads to weave a tapestry…but how many times does this kind of stuff have to happen before it becomes a pattern and problem at the FBFI instead of just a bunch of isolated incidents that we ignore? I was stunned at the complete non-answer that the FBFI posted in response to that mess. Why can’t they seem to figure this out?
I don’t get this. When I was in college and grad school, the FBFI had it’s act together and was a solid org that I wanted to join. Now it seems to be falling apart and I’m frankly alarmed at some of what’s going on in 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
There is no question that many will reject outright any criticism simply because it is criticism. Their sensibilities are too delicate to be confronted (see #208). They will screech and blast at others repeatedly. To them, truth is treated as something to be considered if it is palatable. The FBF is a fellowship. People are posturing for power within a fellowship. That should tell you all you need to know about its worth.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Kevin,
Your question has to do with the overall opinion and disposition of the FBFI board toward the changes we have seen in fundamental seminaries and colleges as well as the aberrant segments of fundamentalism. Kevin Schaal is our current chairman. I find him a knowledgeable and fair minded man. I have known Kevin for 28 years. He is a grad from BJU, Calvary Seminary, and has a D. Min. from IBS (Sproul’s seminary). He and I would favor strongly keeping up our ecclesiastical fences between mainline fundamentalists and the conservative evangelicals, yet recognize their helpful contributions to defending the gospel and fighting certain kinds of error. Personally, I don’t attend or endorse conferences in the evangelical world. I believe I have a stewardship of influence (Mark Minnick’s terminology) over my own staff and many young men in the ministry who observe what I do. I would not have brought in Bruce Ware to speak on Open Theism to impressionable undergrad students. Bruce is a continuationist and a progressive creationist. Would I use some of his writings on the subject of Open Theism with my class? Yes. It is easy to qualify one’s use of a resource. I would not have brought in Holland to speak to my undergrad students in chapel. Holland is reasonably solid theologically, but clearly crosses the orthopathy line at his RESOLVED conference. I wouldn’t advertise at the Desiring God conference either. Piper, for all his good points, is a strong advocate of continuationism and positively interviews people like Rick Warren and Mark Driscoll giving credence to their ministries and philosophies. I certainty wouldn’t take a large segment of my student body to hear a Big Daddy Weave concert or tacitly endorse the CCM world that is filled with theological and ethical problems. My educated guess is that most of the men on the board would be in basic agreement with what I have just written. I thought that your interaction with Dever along with Doran was helpful to clarify our view of church government over against his view. Nor did I object to Minnick being interviewed by Dever regarding questions of where Fundamentalists stood on separation.
Where there is disagreement regards our disposition toward the aberrant segments of Fundamentalism. I have already stated my opposition to the KJVO, easy-believism, anti-intellectual, externally eccentric elements in Fundamentalism. There are some men who are tolerant of those elements. Such toleration is not defensible in my estimation. When good men resign the FBFI board over the toleration of those elements, it makes our job more difficult. We need to hear their voices of theological accuracy and fair-minded judgment. The FBFI board is in better condition today than it was before. We have had our problems internally and have dealt with them honestly. We are a fellowship, not a denomination, and we must resist acting as if we were a denomination. Where we have done wrong (and we have), we as godly men should honestly repent. Nevertheless, overall we are a group of sincere separatists who have signed a very strong doctrinal statement and endeavor to stand against the theological, cultural, and philosophical compromise that appears as a tsunami to engulf biblical Christianity.
Pastor Mike Harding
Don and Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. While I appreciate your replies, I think that I must have failed to communicate clearly what I was asking.
Don, by no means do I want you to speak for the board of the FBFI or to become its voice. We both understand that Dr. Vaughn has that job (though we can both remember one incident in the recent past in which another official assumed the responsibility).
Mike, I largely agree with your assessment of the current condition of Fundamentalism, especially as expressed in the first paragraph. I’m sure there are some small wrinkles of difference, but we both understand that there are times and places in which important aspects of the faith must not be de-emphasized, even for the sake of the gospel. Having said that, as helpful as your evaluation was, it really wasn’t what I was looking for.
I had previously asked Don for his recommendation of what he thought I ought to do. Then I asked for his assessment of how the world would be different and better if I were to follow his advice. He gave pretty clear answers to those questions.
Now I am asking each of you to give me your best guess as to the response that the various parties within the FBFI (both the board and the larger constituency) might make to his advice? What percentage do you think is likely to say, “Yes! Don nailed it, and that’s exactly what Bauder needs to do!”
What percentage is likely to say, “Don has some good points, but to make this advice workable it’s going to have to have something added or taken away.”
What percentage do you think will be saying “I sure hope that Bauder ignores Johnson’s advice, because we need him to be doing approximately what he’s doing now?”
Is this more clear?
Neither one of you can speak for the FBFI. But you both have some sense of who the major players are and how my acceptance of Don’s advice would be likely to affect the give-and-take within the organization.
Kevin
Jay,
I understand your frustration. Here’s what I would have you consider. There are good men in a variety of groups out there. Just be who God wants you to be. What’s hard is that some men who you love will look at you and you think they are saying, “shame on you Jay.” Actually a few might…..but most of them have been were you are and have had to work through these same kinds of issues - and have come to a conclusion as to where they will stand. While we think they (or even the majority of them) are “judgmental” of we who are not as conservative - the reality is most of them are not judgmental. Most of them are frankly gracious and loving. We’ve allowed a few excessively militant men to color our view of the whole group - and that’s not fair.
If a certain group does something you struggle with (like the FBFI) - we really need to just keep our eyes on the Lord and the mission that he’s given us. Believe me bro - you and I are not going to change “them” (whoever that is). All you can do is to be faithful with the mission God has given you and appreciate the brothers you can walk with to whatever degree you can walk. If someone is “doing” separation in such a way as to violate the Scriptures and/or to grieve the Spirit of God - it means we in some cases we will make an appeal and then re-evaluate how connected we can continue to be with those brothers based in part to how they respond to the appeal. In my view - the majority of the differences between the implication of separation is for the most part an “application” issue. We simply disagree with “how” (and that impacts “who”/”when” we might separate from another brother) one goes about separation. So (except for those that are clearly over the edge) with most brothers who are working hard not to be schismatic and yet on the other hand are wanting to pursue holiness (resulting in separation)….I think at the end of the day even if some are “more” or “less” separatistic than we think they ought to be - I don’t think this guy is our enemy. I think he’s trying to honor God with a clear conscience. At some level we ought to have some kind of a encouragement relationship.
So then how do I flesh that out for me personally? That means for me I will continue to reach out to men in a variety of contacts. We are “independent” but we line up fairly close to the approach taken by the GARBC and/or the IFCA. So then obviously it’s easy for us to reach out to men and ministries in that group or with that mind-set. The balanced men in the FBFI are to the right of me - but I grew up in that tent and love those men and frankly find that fellowship with many of them is natural. So as I can - I do. Equally, it’s easy for me to reach to the left of me and enjoy connection with brothers who would be where MacArthur and Dever would be on a variety of issues. I happen to find fellowship with those men equally natural! So with all of these other groups, there are points of disagreement, but with all of these men there is great agreement. In the main I try to focus on agreement. They have to answer to God just as I do. Remember for koinonia to be killed all together - it has to be more than they are “different” - they have to be clearly “disobedient.” (Jay - I know you know all of this - just seems worth repeating).
Jay - I’ll end with where I started. Just be clear on what you believe, who you are and enjoy being there! No matter what view you take, you’ll have some opposition. Like piranha in the amazon……it just comes with the territory! When you do that, you’ll be amazed at how many like-minded friends you’ll bump into!
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;
I’ve got to get out the door and make five visits, so my answer will have to be delayed.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Kevin,
What should you do? First of all, keep writing! Your lengthy posts and current articles are helpful to us. You are an articulate and thoughtful fundamentalist. Our fundamentalist movement, though very fractured, needs well-spoken, articulate, educated, and theologically accurate spokesmen to help navigate the theological, cultural, and philosophical issues that are inundating the average fundamental pastor. Second, please attend our fundamentalist meetings when feasible. This will help good men to get to know you as I do. Third, let some of our brethren who are considering crossing over to the Evangelical world know that the grass may not be nearly as green as it looks. I will not mention any names at this point. Fourth, be careful to maintain clear ecclesiastical fences between healthy fundamentalism and the evangelical world. In my opinion, the good and reasonable men in the FBFI will be open to your constructive criticism. If we are not, then shame on us.
Pastor Mike Harding
While most of the world may not care, it’s probably worth pointing out for the SI readership that my Nick of Time essays from last Friday, tomorrow, and next Friday were not prepared with an eye for the conversation that is going on here. Last week’s was a response to an immediate situation. This week’s and next week’s have been in the making for months—I pursued some of the research and roughed out the ideas back in October and November. The only thing that’s changed is that I had hoped to wait another week before publishing this week’s essay. But I ended up withdrawing the one that I wanted to go with because … well, just because.
Kevin
Discussion