An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum

As usual, excellent stuff, Pastor Barkman. I always appreciate and benefit from your words.

Andrew, Calvinists were always part of the fundamentalist movement. However, when the fundamentalists all lost the battles, some of the bigger named Calvinists stayed away from the fundamentalist name. Machen was one. He was a Presbyterian (sadly), and he wanted that to be the identifiable category.

If you have read through this whole thread, you would see that the FBF is little more than a power grab society about who will wield power over churches and dictate who can and can’t say what. One need only to look at Don being afraid of Kevin saying something to persuade the young guys away from the current FBF version of fundamentalism. The very fact that this FBF could even have a guy like Dan Sweatt rant about Calvinism so ignorantly probably sealed the FBF as hopelessly beyond saving more than anything Kevin could/would say.

[Andrew Henderson] I just read the description of the theme of the upcoming FBFI conference that Don posted and Dr. Bauder seemed to be excited about. In it we read, “This theme is especially appropriate in view of the fuzzy thinking today regarding Christ’s kingdom and the inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology into Fundamentalism.” Inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology into fundamentalism? Historically, have there not always been Covenant/Reformed people in fundamentalism? What in the world do they mean by that statement? What precludes a Covenant/Reformed person from being a fundamentalist?

What does it mean? It means that dispensational Baptists, which would include both the FBFI and FBBC, see the increasing interest in covenant theology in some circles as a problem. We are not trying to define fundamentalism, we are focusing on a problem that we see arising among some fundamentalists.

[Andrew Henderson] the FBFI is speaking about its own little brand of fundamentalism

You speak about that as if that is a problem, as if an organization should NOT promote its own values and beliefs. That’s a little bizarre, don’t you think? I mean, you don’t preach contrary to your own beliefs, do you? Or keep quiet about significant defining points that you hold? Why would you expect others to do the same?

Don,

There’s a difference between an organization being about promoting its values and beliefs and an organization being about an organization. Hence Kevin’s line of questioning over at the main show on the front page of SI. Kevin’s line of questioning is I think in part meant to plumb the depths of your thinking on this very subject. Is Fundamentalism more about a set of good ideas, or about the power and influence of a movement. You would do well to keep going there on that forum.

The problem is with the wording. If it read, “the inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology among Dispensationalists,” I would not quibble. But this wording equates Dispensationalism with Fundamentalism, and Covenant/Reformed theology with ___________ what? Something that is not Fundamentalism.

Covenant/Reformed Theology has been a significant portion of Fundamentalism from the beginning of the movement. When Fundamentalist Conferences, for the purpose of defining and defending Fundamentalism (even Baptist Fundamentalism), exclude from their definition of Fundamentalism those who are not Dispensational, they need not be surprised if separated Fundamentalists who are not Dispensational feel unwelcome. How else could one interpret the description of the upcoming conference about “inroads into Fundamentalism.” One can’t make inroads if one is already present. If one is accused of making inroads, he must be on the outside, trying to gain entrance. Where does that place non-dispensational Fundamentalists? You ask why some are “defecting” from Fundamentalism? Perhaps they have been made to feel unwelcome and have given up. You can only be scolded so often until you seek more compatible company. It is almost certain that in some cases, men who are thought to have “left” Fundamentalism do not consider themselves to have departed. They still believe in the historic principles of Fundamentalism, but they have been “invited out” by fellow Fundamentalists. They have been told that they must be Dispensationalists in order to be considered Fundamentalists. But if their understanding of Scripture does not allow them to do so, where does that leave them? Why are such men leaving? In some cases, its because you have told them to leave, or at least that’s what they hear you saying when they attend your conferences.

Fundamentalism is larger than dispensationalism. To suggest otherwise is incorrect. I have little knowledge of the FBFI, but what I have seen I have little problem with. I do, however, disagree with painting dispensationalism as an exclusive province of fundamentalism.

As for the inroads of covenant theology - I must say something, from the perspective of somebody who is in Seminary right now. There are not enough dispensational scholars writing. 75% of my texts, written by solid, conservative men, are covenant in their theology. It is no wonder why so many men find the theology attractive! There may also be a problem with seminaries not teaching dispensationalism appropriately. My current Pastor, who went to a well-known hard right fundy school that shall remain nameless, told me he was taught little more than, “dispensationalism is good, covenant theology and Calvinism is very bad.” I asked him about dispensationalism before I studied it, and he went to Wikipedia for the answers. I’m not slamming the guy, but perhaps this is more representative of the kind of academics fundamentalist colleges produce than we’d all like to admit. My Pastor is sheepish about his former college, and wishes he had not gone. He is much happier at Maranatha.

If the larger issue at hand is why covenant theology is making inroads, perhaps education is a place to start. I’m sure Don already knows this. My own perspective is quite narrow, so for what it’s worth this is my two cents.

During the 1980’s there was some internal struggle within the GARBC. At one of the “Regular Baptists for Revival” meetings I heard a speaker ( Duane Brown?) give a description of the formation of fellowships that went something like this:

Step 1-A battle is fought and a standard is raised

Step 2-People rally around the standard

Step 3-An organization is formed to defend and maintain the standard

Step 4-Battles are fought to defend the organization and to observers the organization is more visible than the standard

Since comments are closed on the other thread:

Kevin, I will grant you that serious mistakes have been made over the years by fundamentalists. Nolo contendere!

…The example you give, however… when did it happen? The offending statement was in a MacArthur newsletter in 1976, the issue erupted in 1989, it was clarified by MacArthur in a later restatement, published by Phil Johnson on the internet in 2000. (See the Soteriology section of the Wikipedia article on MacArthur - I know, I know, it’s Wikipedia, take it for what it’s worth.)

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article mentions BBN, not fundamentalists as a major player in this conflict. I don’t know if that is an accurate picture or not. But I do know that many fundamentalists “piled on” once the controversy came to light. I don’t excuse the pack mentality with which we went after MacA at that point.

…But you will note that we are talking about something that is almost twenty-five years ago. I remember all the discussion about it during the early days of Sharper Iron. Phil Johnson was involved in some of it, if I recall correctly. During some of that discussion, it was mentioned that Dr. Bob III made some contact with MacArthur to make amends in some way for his part in the issue. I don’t recall if it was a phone call or a letter, or what it was. The issue was an issue between the two of them, apparently it has been settled between them for some time. MacArthur isn’t calling for further action on it, is he? He probably hardly ever thinks about it.

But whenever a list of the egregious fundamentalist lapses is trotted out, this one is often one of the first ones cited.

…What are we supposed to do? Do we need to make an annual apology for a shopping list of past offenses? …Is that what we should do? Or something like it?

…It gets rather tiresome to hear these issues being constantly thrown in one’s face when they are ancient history and, in this case, as far as I know the principals have dealt with it (emphasis added). It isn’t my offense - and it probably isn’t your offense either, so why bring it up?

Now please don’t suppose that by saying all that I mean we should just forget about issues that involve fundamentalists. Things happen and they should be dealt with as they happen. Dr. Vaughn made an error a couple of years ago, there was a hue and cry on the blogs and there was some straight talk in the FBFI board room (emphasis added). Things changed. Issue over. Let’s move on. That is how things should be dealt with.

…There are a few things swirling around right now that may deserve some public comment in the next few months. You could compare speakers lists at upcoming major Baptist meetings and see if some eyebrows should be raised about one or two of them. On both sides of the fence, so to speak. But they are, or are about to become, current controversies.

The time for dealing with the old controversies has pretty well passed. When folks keep bringing them up, I wonder about their spirit. Nobody likes me to use the word “bitter”, but I wonder if someone isn’t bitter about something and is nursing these old offenses like a bad grudge. It isn’t just you that does that.

Don, I appreciate your frustration with this, so let me add one point to try and help you figure out where this is coming from and why it keeps coming up - there seems to be a disconnect in terms of ‘making it right’. You mentioned that BJIII wrote a private letter to John MacArthur assuring him that his position was solid. You also mentioned that ‘there was some straight talk in the FBFI Board room’ (for what I’m presuming was the Sweatt fiasco, but I’m not actually sure).

It is my opinion that a very public offense (two of them actually) necessitates a public apology. BJU attacked MacArthur in a magazine they published and did so without warning (according to Johnson). Sweatt hijacked a FBFI forum to preach ignorance and foolishness to an unsuspecting crowd that had his ‘targets’ in it, and then doubled down when it became a public issue. Yet now because they handled it privately, it’s supposed to be forgotten? We just ignore the damage caused to other brothers?

I had always been taught that the the scope of the offense determines the scope of the apology. If I get angry with my wife and don’t say a word, then I confess it to God and move on. If I get angry with my wife and yell at her and treat her harshly in private, then I need to make it right with her personally. If I blow my top at a Sunday School class and make a fool of myself in front of everyone, then I should apologize to the people present and my wife.

So why is it that if BJU or Sweatt makes a public mistake, they can get off by having a private apology or straight talk in a room where probably 99.999% of attendants will never even hear of that discussion, let alone actually hear it? This isn’t about ‘bitterness’ or ‘revenge’ - it’s about making a very public, very damaging offense right. If BJU can put out a press release apologizing for the racism thing - why not handle matters between brothers biblically as well?

You will guess wrong almost every time, including this one.

Perhaps it would be best to not comment on the other discussion in this forum until complete.

I do recommend to the mods and admins that once the “Panel discussion” finishes over yonder, that they accept questions for the various participants “from the floor”. Perhaps via PMs to admins?

[Don Johnson]

You will guess wrong almost every time, including this one.

I hope you get the gist of the comment even if the guess was wrong. I think it’s especially pertinent since you have been making the same type of argument regarding Mohler and the Manhattan Declaration (an issue where I agree with you for whatever it’s worth).

Don - so noted, but I’d appreciate it if you would comment on my point and not blow it off because I assumed incorrectly.

[Chip Van Emmerik] I hope you get the gist of the comment even if the guess was wrong. I think it’s especially pertinent since you have been making the same type of argument regarding Mohler and the Manhattan Declaration (an issue where I agree with you for whatever it’s worth).

I agree with you on this, Chip, and while I’m glad that Mohler has apparently recanted his signature, I wish he’d go public as well and demand that his name be taken off the website/literature or whatever. That, or say something in one of his high-profile fields (blog, Twitter, or whatever). What’s good for the goose and all that ;)

As for submitting questions via PMs to mods for the closed discussion forum - that is a GREAT idea. Good suggestion, David O.

1. 
   
   I don’t think apologies for someone else’s errors of the past are all that helpful. Here in Canada our government has made apologies to natives, to Japanese war internments, etc. It never ends the story. The next step is a demand for cash. In the case of fundamentalist apologies for the past it usually doesn’t go to the demand for cash, but does it satisfy? You still get the critics bringing up the same old issues. These apologies are a waste of time.
2. 
   
   On the matter of making the circle of repentance as wide as the circle of offense - perhaps that is so in some cases. The parties themselves will have to make that judgement. In the case of MacArthur and the Joneses, it really should be MacA’s call as to whether he is satisfied with what has been said or done, shouldn’t it? Why is everyone else so zealous to be his champion? Is it really an offense against them? Hardly. Gothard called this one, “Taking up an offense.” It isn’t our business.
3. 
   
   With respect to the Mohler challenge, I am not going after Mohler, but more going after Kevin’s statement that “anyone who thinks Mohler hasn’t repented doesn’t know what he is talking about.” (paraphrase from memory) It isn’t obvious to me that Mohler has thoroughly repented, so I think Kevin’s statement is a little strong on that point. I challenged Kevin on his statement, he responded, I am happy to let the matter drop.
4. 
   
   On the matter of taking questions: I don’t mind taking questions either. I am a little bemused about this 2Kevins/Mike/Don private/public room. It was KTB’s idea, it does allow us to converse without a lot of extraneous comments, but it does seem to go against the democratic nature of blogs and internet forums. Perhaps if mods collected questions we could deal with them as topics for future discussion or as starters for regular threads.

Don,

Thanks for the reply. Sorry it has taken me a few days to get back on to the site. Crazy busy weekend.

I do not have any problem at all with an organization that wants to advance it own values and beliefs as long as they are not attempting to redefine the meaning of fundamentalism. If that is a hill that you all want to defend, more power to you. Just do not denigrate the younger generation for not wanting to defend that hill with you.

So you would readily admit that true fundamentalism is significantly broader than the FBFI, correct? And you would also readily admit that a Covenant/Reformed person can be just as much a fundamentalist as you and the FBFI, right? Am I reading that correctly?

Have a great day.

[Andrew Henderson]

So you would readily admit that true fundamentalism is significantly broader than the FBFI, correct? And you would also readily admit that a Covenant/Reformed person can be just as much a fundamentalist as you and the FBFI, right? Am I reading that correctly?

Hi Andrew, “Yes” to all questions.

As long as we are simply talking about “fundamentalists” or “fundamentalism”, there are men who are willing to do battle royal for the fundamentals in many different groups. Even in Arminian/Holiness groups.

However, at the present time, the majority of fundamentalists are dispensationalist Baptists, wouldn’t you agree? I suspect that is because of the hermeneutical philosophy of dispensationalists.