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
[Don Johnson]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.
Without having any data in front of me, I would have to say “yes.” I do not know if it is, as you propose, because of the hermeneutical philosophy of dispensationalism. I would actually love to hear a further clarification of this thought and why you would say that. This is probably not the forum to do so. That would make a very interesting conversation at another time. Right now I am too tired to remember where I am. I also wonder how much of it is because those who hold to a more covenantal hermeneutic felt unwelcome in many of the camps within the “movement” of fundamentalism. I do wonder how many exist under the banner of today’s conservative evangelicalism who really would go under the banner of historical fundamentalism. In other words, if they were doing the same things 50 years ago that they are doing today they would have still been considered fundamentalists.
Andrew Henderson
A couple of decades ago, I attended a World Congress of Fundamentalists in London England. One of the speakers gave a history of Fundamentalism, and included Dispensationalism as one of the leading characteristics. A number of delegates were not amused, to put it mildly. Almost nobody present from Great Britain or mainland Europe was a Dispensationalist, with the exception of American Missionaries. I can testify that these delegates were highly offended. It seemed to them that Fundamentalism was being defined so as to exclude them. That is not what you want to do at a Fundamentalist Conference, especially when it was located in London for the express purpose of involving European Fundamentalists in the movement.
As an American who grew up in Dispensationalist Fundamentalism, I did not take offense the same way my European friends did. I understood the landscape, and chalked it up to unfortunate provincialism. It does, however, illustrate an important point. The American speaker defined Fundamentalism from an American perspective, and a fairly narrow one at that. He did not intend to define non-dispensationalist Fundamentalists out of the movement, but that was the result. He was guilty of insensitivity to many godly men who stood courageously for truth and opposed error, some at great personal sacrifice. From his American perspective, the speaker was not far off the mark. From a wider perspective, he missed it badly and created unnecessary barriers that ran counter to the purpose of the conference.
I hope the readers of SI will try to understand this issue from the perspective of those who are Fundamentalist in their convictions, but not Dispensationalists. On the one hand, I hear some of you lamenting the departure of too many young Fundamentalists towards Conservative Evangelicalism. “Why would they want to do so? How can we bring them back? How can we keep others from doing the same?” On the other hand, you want to defend your right to enshrine Dispensationalism as a fundamental of the faith. I agree you have the right to do so, at least in those organizations such as the FBFI which represent Independent Fundamental Baptists, which probably make up a majority of present day Fundamentalism in America. But is this wise? The FBFI has a nearly 100 year history. Dispensationalism was not in their original doctrinal statement. It was inserted later. Perhaps some could be forgiven for wondering if somebody hijacked the original organization for partisan purposes. Please think this through carefully. If a young Fundamentalist comes to believe that Reformed/Covenant Theology is correct, where is he supposed to go? If you insist that he doesn’t belong with you, please don’t blame him if he goes elsewhere. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t draw the circle tighter than its original historical dimensions, thereby excluding some who formerly were included, and then cry “fowl” if those you have excluded are now outside the circle. What do you want? A Fundamentalism that is inclusive of those who have historically practiced its tenants, or a smaller Fundamentalism that excludes many who were formerly included?
G. N. Barkman
[Don Johnson]
- 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.
Don,
I think part of the point for many men, and part of what Kevin is emphasizing, is that the issues don’t go away because the apologies don’t actually come. I don’t think we can really declare they are a waste of time, since we don’t usually see them. For me, personally, the tipping point with the FBFI was the Sweatt incident. It is just one example of fundamentalists weakly attempting to sweep conflict under the rug and “get past them.” Dissidens said something regarding that particular incident that I think fits this discussion in general, “My salient objection, then and now, to the notion that some indiscretions of the past should be forgotten is simple: they are not yet in the past. They are the stuff of today’s business. It is fundamentalism’s culture.” There are so many issues like this, that just pile up and fester because they are never actually dealt with. MacArthur is a perfect example. Of course the circle of repentance should be as big as the circle of offense. When wouldn’t you counsel this within your church body? When wouldn’t this be a biblical principle? But, here we are, as you say more than two decades removed and the defenses are still being put up.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
For those of you who have heard me say things like this before, I’m sorry. I find it’s legitimate to repeat myself because I’m wanting to say some things for those who have not been here earlier…….back when I said much more than I say these days.
This continues to be one of “the points” I’ve been trying to make over the last ten years or more. I would say that historic fundamentalism would include men who today would call themselves 1) conservative evangelical, 2) fundamental, 3) Baptist who are Baptist “in belief” and “on the sign” 4) Baptist who are Baptist “in belief” but not “on the sign” 5) Dispensational 6) Reformed.
OK friends - I very much believe that the implications of what Jesus taught and practiced in the Gospels……and the implications of what we see in the early NT church in the epistles means that we can have some level of cooperation with all of the above mentioned #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and those that are a combination of #’s 1-6. I’m not saying if you are a #2 / #3 like FBBC that you have to have the exact same kind of warm fuzzy relationship like a near-by-ministry that is a #1 / #4. I would say that you ought to be able to have some kind of a relationship if indeed the implications I believe are actually legitimate.
One of the reasons I really am against the kind of fundamentalism Don wants…..or Lou wants……or what other very militant Type A’s want - is that too often these guys make certain belief’s/standards/views equal in importance and effectively placed on the same level of importance and authority as the “Deity of Christ,” “Justification by faith alone,” “the atonement,” etc….you know “the real” fundamentals of the faith.
What this continued back and forth between Kevin and Don demonstrate is 1) The Type As owe as much to Kevin Bauder in preserving a responsible remnant to the movement of self-proclaimed fundamentalism as President Obama owes to Bill Clinton for saving his neck in the DNC! 2) OK - I don’t know how else to say this than to draw a picture in your mind. Imagine Type A fundamentalism as a ship - you might call it the “SS FBFI.” It’s sinking. So here’s Kevin - one of the high ranking officers on this ship that is sinking - Captain Kevin here is pointing out where the ship has leaks, encouraging fellow “SS FBFI” types to help stop the leak and then Don - another officer (I’m not sure about his rank) - is yelling at Kevin - “Hey, shut up about the holes!” Kevin asks “why?” Don answers, “Well other sailors might not want to get on board if they know we’re sinking!” Poor Kevin keeps on trying to explain to Don, “Yes but this ship was made to float on top of the water - it was never designed for a total submersion.”
Meanwhile I and a whole fleet of “Type B” canoe’s (and Type C yachts) are trying to pick up the survivors - At the same time Don is yelling at Kevin - He’s yelling at the poor guys in the water, “hey - whatever you do don’t get into that little canoe with Tetreau!……You’re better off drowning!” And Don wonders why his ship has fewer and fewer sailors on board! Wowzers!
OK - That’s my attempt at a parable. Later friends!
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 jumped off the leaky boat awhile ago when I realized the captain(s), who had commissioned each other, seemed to have one quest, to keep their boat afloat. I like my canoe.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Andrew Henderson]I do wonder how many exist under the banner of today’s conservative evangelicalism who really would go under the banner of historical fundamentalism. In other words, if they were doing the same things 50 years ago that they are doing today they would have still been considered fundamentalists.
The reason why dispensationalism prevailed amongst most fundamentalists is an important discussion, but it is fine to leave it for another time. Others might be better able to explain it than me, probably KTB would do a fine job.
As to this question, would the CEs doing the same things as today 50 yrs ago be considered fundamentalists…
I don’t think so, because that would be 1963. If you said 60 years ago, then the answer would probably be yes. There was a huge change between 1953 and 1963 and that makes all the difference. You can’t ignore that change, and it wasn’t the fundamentalists who changed.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Joel Tetreau]Poor Kevin keeps on trying to explain to Don, “Yes but this ship was made to float on top of the water - it was never designed for a total submersion.”
Joel,
This sounds like the beginnings of a “mode of baptism” discussion, maybe? :)
Just kidding. I enjoyed your parable.
Mark Mincy
[Chip Van Emmerik]I think part of the point for many men, and part of what Kevin is emphasizing, is that the issues don’t go away because the apologies don’t actually come.
On that point I would agree. That is one of the failings of the past, no doubt. What I am arguing for is that the idea is more important than raising a hue and cry about the past. When you constantly raise criticism of these past errors, you simply reinforce the notion that there is nothing left worth saving. That is the message that gets communicated, in spite of how much you might protest that there is a fundamentalism worth saving.
[Chip Van Emmerik] For me, personally, the tipping point with the FBFI was the Sweatt incident. It is just one example of fundamentalists weakly attempting to sweep conflict under the rug and “get past them.”
Well, I am sorry that you think that way. I have not defended what Danny said, but have defended what I think he was trying to say. He said it in a poor way and it did alienate people. However, when we have these meetings we don’t check preacher’s notes before they get up to speak. They are speaking to us, not for us.
Perhaps that is not enough of a distinction for some. But consider this: next week Mike Harding is our keynote speaker for the Northwest FBF. I will do one of the minor sessions (I think I get an 8:30 am slot, will anyone be awake?). No one is going to check Mike’s notes before he speaks. Should they? No one is going to check mine. Should they? We don’t think so. Men are invited to speak who have been a blessing in the past and we think they might have something to say to us. Sometimes they lay an egg. Sometimes those eggs are ostrich sized. I don’t think that will change the policy where we will ask men to submit their notes before we approve their invitation.
[Chip Van Emmerik] MacArthur is a perfect example. Of course the circle of repentance should be as big as the circle of offense. When wouldn’t you counsel this within your church body? When wouldn’t this be a biblical principle? But, here we are, as you say more than two decades removed and the defenses are still being put up.
Well now… that all depends. I am not sure that I see the circle of offense lingo in Scripture, so I am not dogmatic on this point. But having said that, who was really offended in the MacArthur case? Does the circle of offense include everyone who takes offense?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So I mentioned in my last point that historic fundamentalism includes many who today might call themselves 1) conservative evangelical, 2) fundamentalist, 3) Baptist w/ the label, 4) Baptist w/o the label, 5) dispensationalist and 6) Reformed.
Opps I missed another group…….
7) There are many within historic fundamentalism that are not Baptist - like our “militant about the gospel” Presbyterian or Methodist or “other” friends. Wow - major “woops!”
My apologies to the ACCC and other “not-really-baptist-but-for-sure-fundamentalist” thank you very much!
Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - in the words of Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs (1600-1646), “opinionum varietas et opinantium unitas non sunt hasusta” (“variety of opinion and unity of opinion are not incompatible”)
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;
On that point I would agree. That is one of the failings of the past, no doubt. What I am arguing for is that the idea is more important than raising a hue and cry about the past. When you constantly raise criticism of these past errors, you simply reinforce the notion that there is nothing left worth saving. That is the message that gets communicated, in spite of how much you might protest that there is a fundamentalism worth saving.
Don, so this was a failing of the past? And you talked about it as a failing of the past where? And you try to put right the failings of the past where? Your entire effort is to protect the fundamentalism worth saving, not by saying where it’s wrong, but by only saying where it’s right. That kind of protection isn’t protection. It’s a farce of a rear guard action, kind of like Napoleon or Hitler in Russia in the winter. In your effort to protect, my generation sees disconnect.
Fundamentalism need to see less of the “he means well, the old geezer is a bit off his rocker” form of damage control. It needs a positive vision that is willing to hurt the feelings of the old geezers when they are really going crazy (with due deference of course).
A couple of things have been said that probably need to be put in balance.
First, somebody made reference to the kind of Fundamentalism that Don and Lou want. Please don’t put Don and Lou in the same category. You need to know that I look up to Don. He has been faithful to the ministry that God has given him. Anybody who can pastor the same church for—well, I don’t know how many years, but its been a long time—deserves a little respect. Don has been willing to back up and turn around in some of his methodology, even while he is encouraging me to do the same. One of the reasons that Don and I are talking right now is because I have to take him seriously. I believe that the kind of Fundamentalism that Don wants is, in most important respects, the kind of Fundamentalism that I want. The mere fact that he is willing to enter these forums and to let guys disagree with him is, I think, a clear evidence that he is not of the same mold as some of the Grey Eminences of Fundamentalism Past.
Second, while I am willing to speak frankly about what I perceive as significant faults within institutional Fundamentalism, I don’t want to take anything away from genuine change that has occurred. The FBFI is light years away from being the same institution that it was back druing the 1980s when I was in seminary. It is far more responsible theologically and methodologically. In other words, somebody was already patching holes before I ever came along. In view of that consideration, I can understand why Don might be frustrated with somebody like me who is still pointing to unpatched holes. There’s a reason for the approach that I take, but I certainly do not wish to blind anyone to the fact that positive change is occurring. Whatever its deficiencies (and we all have them), the world is better off with the FBFI than without it.
Or take BJU as another example. Can anyone seriously criticize the direction that the university has take since the late years of III’s administration? Nearly every move that he and Stephen have made since about 1998 (or maybe earlier—I wasn’t paying attention) has beena amove in the right direction. I am more encouraged than I can say by what is happening there.
Third, JOEL—I am NOT an officer on the good ship FBFI. I was out in the water in my little canoe, but I’ve dragged myself on board at the invitation of somebody who wanted help in patching holes. But I’m not about to issue orders to anyone, and that’s what an officer does. I have no desire to be in control of the ship. If we can get a few more holes patched, I’ll go down to the coal room and stoke the engines.
Different kinds of people offer criticisms. Some criticize because they have a vision for how things could be, and they believe that certain problems need to be corrected in order to move on. Others criticize because they are genuinely enemies. Any concession will be met with further demands. These people are implacable and unrelenting. They will not be satisfied with anything less than utter destruction. I am (I hope) the first kind of critic. We think of ourselves as the loyal opposition. But we are in the minority. I can understand why Don and others are concerned that the second kind of critic might find aid and comfort in what I say. That’s where we’re at a bit of an impasse. He says (in effect), “Can’t you tone it down?” while I say, “Why don’t you just fix the problem?” His concern, of course, is that I’ll turn out to be more of the second kind of critic, or will encourage the second kind of critic, and that demand will follow demand interminably.
This is a weird conversation, especially what is going on in that thread that is closed to everyone but those special few.
I reject Don’s perspective completely. His determination to support at all cost the “Dr. Bobs” and other kingpins when they clearly have been very wrong makes me a little ill. I want to run far away.
But on the other hand, I have to agree with Don that Bauder is not handling himself well. For a man that prides himself on writing, he is doing a very clumsy job here. The statements about “last hope for fundamentalism” and “I am equal time” DO sound arrogant. I don’t think he means to sound arrogant, so I have to wonder why he is doing such a poor job expressing himself. And many of his other statements DO sound elitist such as the snide comments about vanity presses.
It is bewildering. Maybe people in academia need to get out in the real world more.
A couple of things have been said that probably need to be put in balance.
First, somebody made reference to the kind of Fundamentalism that Don and Lou want. Please don’t put Don and Lou in the same category. You need to know that I look up to Don. He has been faithful to the ministry that God has given him. Anybody who can pastor the same church for—well, I don’t know how many years, but its been a long time—deserves a little respect. Don has been willing to back up and turn around in some of his methodology, even while he is encouraging me to do the same. He has contributed to (and continues to contribute to) the building up of efforts beyond his local congregation. One of the reasons that Don and I are talking right now is because I have to take him seriously. I believe that the kind of Fundamentalism that Don wants is, in most important respects, the kind of Fundamentalism that I want. The mere fact that he is willing to enter these forums and to let guys disagree with him is, I think, a clear evidence that he is not of the same mold as some of the Grey Eminences of Fundamentalism Past.
Second, while I am willing to speak frankly about what I perceive as significant faults within institutional Fundamentalism, I don’t want to take anything away from the genuine change that has occurred. The FBFI is light years away from being the same institution that it was back duringthe 1980s when I was in seminary. It is far more responsible theologically and methodologically. In other words, somebody was already patching holes before I ever came along. In view of that consideration, I can understand why Don might be frustrated with somebody like me who is still pointing to unpatched holes. There’s a reason for the approach that I take, but I certainly do not wish to blind anyone to the fact that positive change is occurring. Whatever the deficiencies of the FBFI (and we all have them), the world is better off with it than without it.
Or take BJU as another example. Can anyone seriously criticize the direction that the university has take since the late years of III’s administration? Nearly every move that he and Stephen have made since about 1998 (or maybe earlier—I wasn’t paying attention) has been a move in the right direction. I am more encouraged than I can say by what is happening there.
Third, JOEL—I am NOT an officer on the good ship FBFI. I was out in the water in my little canoe, but but was asked aboard to help patch holes. I’m not about to issue orders to anyone, and that’s what an officer does. I have no desire to be in control of the ship. If we can get a few more holes patched, I’ll go down to the coal room and stoke the engines.
Different kinds of people offer criticisms. Some criticize because they have a vision for how things could be, and they believe that certain problems need to be corrected in order to move on. Others criticize because they are genuinely enemies. Any concession to them is simply met with further demands. These people are implacable and unrelenting. They will not be satisfied with anything less than utter destruction. I am (I hope) the first kind of critic. But we are in the minority. I can understand why Don and others are concerned that the second kind of critic might find aid and comfort in what I say. That’s where we’re at a bit of an impasse. He says (in effect), “Can’t you tone it down?” while I say, “Why don’t you just fix the problem?” His concern, of course, is that I’ll turn out to be more of the second kind of critic, or will encourage the second kind of critic, and that demand will follow demand interminably.
GregH,
No brag. Just fact.
KTB
Kevin,
First, it is commendable that you defend Don from being lumped in with Lou. You are probably right on that. Don is not radical enough every day to be given the A+ tag in the Tetreau scale - Lou is…..so the correction is helpful, needed, merciful, etc…….bravo!
Second, yes that was unfair to paint you in my parable as an officer on the “SS FBFI.” As one of my friends would say, “mia culpa!”
The deal is I lump you in there because you are so dang hard to “lump!” Everywhere I lump you you complain. I am the master of lumping people and of course being the careful and caring person I am - I want people to be happy where I lump them. I try to be kind and lump you with me…..(and believe me - that is very kind of me) oh no……you could never admit to being a Type B fundamentalist……your more a discerning “Type A.” So then I lump you with the careful men in the FBFI……all three of them! (justing kidding - I’m sure there are more than 3). And now you distance yourself from your commission with the FBFI. You’re not really happy with the GARBC or the IFCA. You reject the bus wing of the BBF……but you also will not go on record saying you are happy with official koinonia with the Type C’s in the Tetreau Taxonomy. You and a few other guys are “BC” - yes it means you are old compared to some - however in this case BC stands for “beyond classification.”
OK so let’s change my parable. As the liberals say “changed parables are the best parables.” So……the “SS FBFI” is taking on water. Those five or six officers that actually know that the ship is in trouble have a little meeting on the poop deck. One officer from Troy says to another officer from Greenville, “Sir….our ship is sinking….who we gona call?” They then decided to call a friendly ally from outside of their own group. So just like a Tom Clancy novel, they parachute Von Baron Bauder to the ship to save the day. Of course when that happens half of the crew yells out “hurray” - the other half of the ship begin to plan - “how can we get rid of this guy.”
Tune in next time for the conclusion……..same bat time……..nevermind.
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;
Discussion