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.
- 808 views
There is a certain degree of revisionism in what Kevin Bauder and others are saying here. Although, I would probably share many of the underlying pre-suppositions as Bauder on what constitutes acceptable music, I must take issue with his statement:
(Having said that, I do not think that music is a matter that decides whether you’re a Fundamentalist. I’m not sure that Fundamentalism has ever had a unified or consistent view on music. So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian. I don’t see a contradiction here. Christianity is, after all, more than Fundamentalism.)
The World Congress of Fundamentalists have passed resolutions on what is acceptable music. On November 12-19, 1980 held in Manila and Singapore the WCF passed the following resolution in respect of music,
The World Congress of Fundamentalists rejects the sensual trends of the religious music today because it contradicts and nullifies the spiritual emphasis of the preaching and teaching ministries of the church. We oppose the superficial and carnal fruit produced by this music in the lives of both those who perform it and those who are exposed to it. We oppose all such music that incorrectly places the emphasis upon the physical instead of the spiritual and that has roots in the world instead of the Bible.
In respect of the KJVO position, there were historic positions established. The annual Congress on Fundamentalism held at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, on October 22-29, 1978 passed the following resolution signed by FBF President Dr Rod Bell, Dr Gilbert Stenholm of BJU, Dr. Arno Weniger, Jnr. of Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Dr Ian Paisley, and Dr Bob Jones Jr.,
That we recommend the use and distribution of only the King James Version of the Bible in English and only those foreign language versions and translations which have been faithfully translated by those committed to the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scripture.
The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF) used to stand unequivocally against all Bible versions produced by liberals. In their 1984 Resolutions adopted at Maranantha Bible College on June 12-14, 1984 they state,
We condemn paraphrases such as The Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man and the products of unbelieving and liberal scholarship such as the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible. We deplore the rash of new versions which add to or delete from the Word of God, such as the New International Version, with special reference to those so-called “revisions” which by footnote additions undermine the text. We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version, providentially preserved by God in the English-speaking world.
While these statements are not the full-blooded KJVO positions one sees today in places like PCC they are indicative that fundamentalism was held together by a pro-KJVO bias. It is not accurate to portray historic separatist fundamentalism as operating on a laissez-faire attitude to issues relating to acceptable music and translations.
My Blog: www.oldfaith.wordpress.com
Church Sermons: Cornerstone Sermon Audio
While these statements are not the full-blooded KJVO positions one sees today in places like PCC they are indicative that fundamentalism was held together by a pro-KJVO bias. It is not accurate to portray historic separatist fundamentalism as operating on a laissez-faire attitude to issues relating to acceptable music and translations.
The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the FBF is most or all of Historical Fundamentalism rather than a slice of Historic Fundamentalism. During the the late 1970’s and 1980’s the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches were over 1500 churches strong (I think they are about 1200 today) and I believe as was the Independent Fundamental Churches of America. Many within these associations might have preferred the KJV at the time, but most were against a KJVO position.
[PSFerguson]The World Congress of Fundamentalists have passed resolutions on what is acceptable music…
The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF) used to stand unequivocally against all Bible versions produced by liberals…
Unfortunately, history has shown that some of the key people who made up the World Congress of Fundamentalists were many times grandstanding while ignoring “sin in the camp”, so to speak. Furthermore, I believe the statement you quote from the FBF resolution (“…We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version…”) represents a mindset that has ultimately caused significant division and confusion in many churches. While I know there were many well-intentioned people involved in these organizations, an honest and thorough examination of the history results in facts which are certainly no cause for uniform celebration or emulation.
Mark Mincy
[Joel Shaffer]While these statements are not the full-blooded KJVO positions one sees today in places like PCC they are indicative that fundamentalism was held together by a pro-KJVO bias. It is not accurate to portray historic separatist fundamentalism as operating on a laissez-faire attitude to issues relating to acceptable music and translations.
The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the FBF is most or all of Historical Fundamentalism rather than a slice of Historic Fundamentalism. During the the late 1970’s and 1980’s the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches were over 1500 churches strong (I think they are about 1200 today) and I believe as was the Independent Fundamental Churches of America. Many within these associations might have preferred the KJV at the time, but most were against a KJVO position.
The two most prominent worldwide historic fundamentalist groupings in the Twentieth Century were the World Congress of Fundamentalists (including FBFI) led by Dr Bob Jones Jr and Dr Ian Paisley and the International Council of Christian Churches led by Dr Carl McIntire. Both groupings had a broad base yet undoubtedly had a strongly pro-KJVO/anti-CCM bias. That is undisputed, as is evidenced by the resolutions. GARBC may be significant among Independent Baptists but it is not among historic fundamentalists of all stripes.
Mark Mincy - Your opinion on the merits and motives of those who crafted these resolutions is not the point in hand. I doubt if you really could prove your viewpoint in all cases. However, what I am establishing is a factual historical framework that those in this thread need to face honestly.
My Blog: www.oldfaith.wordpress.com
Church Sermons: Cornerstone Sermon Audio
[PSFerguson]Mark Mincy - Your opinion on the merits and motives of those who crafted these resolutions is not the point in hand. I doubt if you really could prove your viewpoint in all cases. However, what I am establishing is a factual historical framework that those in this thread need to face honestly.
Paul - I’ll not get into a back and forth on this…this will be my last post on this sidebar. But you don’t have to look far to see that my opinion is not the question here. Look at the facts. Look at some of the more influential names from the WCOF back in the day and I believe you will find my prior description to be accurate. Furthermore, look at the havoc that has been wrought in churches by the KJVO position - both here in the US and there in Singapore where you are. Certainly, not all of the blame can be laid at the feet of the organizations you refer to. And as I mentioned earlier, I know there were well-intentioned people in those organizations. But the ultimate fruit of their labors is not something that I can celebrate.
Good night from here. Good day over there :).
Mark Mincy
Don,
Now we’re getting down to the nitty gritty. Let me try to fill in some blanks.
(1) Yes, anywhere means anywhere. If the Mormons seriously invited me to their Tabernacle to defend biblical Christianity (including Fundamentalism), I would go—subject to certain considerations. First, I would have to be free to say whatever I thought was the truth, including that Mormonism is a cult. Second, they should never expect me to recognize them in any way as Christians, or to imply that we were seeking some common ground. Third, they should never expect any return invitation from me, especially not if it would give them an opportunity to present their views. You know, I’d probably even be willing to explain Fundamentalism in front of pagan philosophers in the Areopagus if I had the chance. And it would represent absolutely no compromise of any biblical principle of separation.
(2) On the topic of those who go versus those who stay, let me offer two observations. First, while I think the numerical proportions actually are somewhere near what I’ve stated (I’ve even had to advise FBFI board members to stick with the organization), it really doesn’t matter. If it were the other way around, those who leave would still be misappropriating my words and work. It would be on a par with using grace as an occasion for license. While foreseeable, that response is no reason to stop preaching grace (or to stop preaching against license). By the same token, the misappropriation of my ideas is no reason to stop articulating them.
(3) As for the interchange with Dever, as nearly as I can make out, you’re doing some Monday morning quarterbacking. No problem. It’s a favorite past-time. But it reminds me of what Earl Butz said about the Pope’s declaration on birth control—remember? Oh, being Canadian you might not, but it was big news here in the States. Anyway, I’ll be the first to admit that I may not be the best person to do this work. If you decide to give it a try, I’ll be in the gallery cheering. In the mean while, if you wish, I’ll put you on my short list to help strategize the next engagement (I’m quite serious about that—advice is much more useful beforehand than afterwards).
(4) Now, interdenominational and imperialist institutions. Here are some examples of the kind of schools that I had in mind. Each of them has been a training institution for Baptist Fundamentalists, and each has at some point been either interdenominational, imperialist, or both. You’ll find pastors in Fundamental Baptist churches who learned their stuff in each of these schools.
Moody Bible Institute
Philadelphia School of the Bible
Prairie Bible Institute
Grace Bible College
Calvary Bible College
Baptist Bible Seminary (Ft. Worth)
Detroit Bible College
Tennessee Temple College
Shelton College
Ft. Wayne Bible College
Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music
Northwestern Bible School
Practical Bible Training Institute
Dallas Theological Seminary
Faith Theological Seminary
Piedmont Bible College
Rockmont College
Clearwater Christian College
Pensacola Christian College
Western Bible College
That’s not counting most of the KJVO schools, which have been almost unanimously imperialistic. I’m sure I’ve missed some, though these were uppermost in my thinking. But now we’re all curious. When I said “interdenominational or imperialist,” what was the first school that leaped into your mind?
Some of your other considerations will have to wait until tomorrow, and even then I probably won’t get to them right away. I have Sunday services to plan. But I do think that some of your other responses are definitely worth pursuing.
Kevin
PSFerguson,
Seriously? You’re going to cite the World Congress of Fundamentalists (including the FBF) and the International Council of Christian Churches as the most prominent worldwide Fundamentalist groupings of the Twentieth Century?
The ICCC was badly Hyper-fundamentalist from (at the latest) 1968 onwards, when McIntire literally stole The Associated Missions. He was siphoning money from other ministries, probably including International Christian Relief (which he also stole), in order to bring in delegates who could not even give a clear profession of faith, but who cheerfully cashed in their return tickets to spend on Western vices. If the leadership of the ICCC ever repented and confessed its sin, I never heard about it. On the other hand, the leadership of the Bible Presbyterian Church did eventually repent, confess, and restore fellowship with those whom they had wronged under McIntire’s leadership.
You want a quintessential example of Hyper-fundamentalism? McIntire was it.
The World Congress of Fundamentalists was a bit more balanced, but still an example of cronyism from day one. In its first meeting (Edinburgh, 1976) it adopted a definition of Fundamentalism that specified (among other things) “Exposes and separates from all … compromise with error.” In other words, all error, no matter what, is grounds for exposure and separation. Not only that, but all compromise with error (even if the compromiser does not hold the error) is grounds for exposure and separation. No wonder the leaders of the WCF ended up spending so much of their time exposing and separating from other Fundamentalists. What they defined wasn’t Fundamentalism, it was Everythingism. Again, this was textbook Hyper-fundamentalism.
Any guesses who got to decide exactly what constituted the kind of error that Fundamentalists had to expose and from which they had to separate? Here’s a hint: at its 1986 meeting, the World Congress of Fundamentalists adopted a resolution on the blood of Christ, which stated, “The precious Blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in Heaven.” This is about as close to genuine heresy as a professing Fundamentalist can get, worse even than the KJVO error. Yet if someone (and the hidden target was John MacArthur) didn’t affirm this heretical view, then he was to be exposed and separated from. In fact, anyone who compromised with him was to be exposed and separated from.
So no, appealing to the ICCC and the WCF does not establish anything like a Fundamentalist consensus. Sorry.
Kevin
The two most prominent worldwide historic fundamentalist groupings in the Twentieth Century were the World Congress of Fundamentalists (including FBFI) led by Dr Bob Jones Jr and Dr Ian Paisley and the International Council of Christian Churches led by Dr Carl McIntire. Both groupings had a broad base yet undoubtedly had a strongly pro-KJVO/anti-CCM bias. That is undisputed, as is evidenced by the resolutions. GARBC may be significant among Independent Baptists but it is not among historic fundamentalists of all stripes.
According to an article Carl McIntire and the Fundamentalist Orgins of the Christian Right from the Periodical “Church History,” http://www.readperiodicals.com/201206/2670022431.html The GARBC and the IFCA were in fact members of the American Council of Christian Churches (and I believe the International Council of Christian Churches) a half a century ago, but broke ties with them because of Dr. McIntire’s dictatorship leadership style and increased political involvement (which in their view got in the way of the gospel). Both of these groups at one time were the ACCC’s largest fellowships of churches. They are more than just independent Baptists and independent Bible Churches, but rather historic fundamentalists just as those other groups whom you mentioned. These two groups happen to be both mostly non KJVO and split about using CCM music, but are truly historic fundamentalists. They just happen to be to the left of the groups that you mention on these issues.
Kevin - Yes, I am seriously going to cite the ICCC and the WCF as the most prominent and largest group of historic separatist fundamentalists. What these groupings ended up and how they got to that point is a different argument. The point is that when any reputable Church Historian thought (and still thinks) of representative separatist fundamentalism they thought of the BJU/Paisley/McIntire axis. Both groupings had thousands of member churches and organisations, which spanned the globe and embraced diverse views of eschatology, church polity, soteriology, baptism etc within their ranks. Whatever you may think of their resolutions, they were representative fundamentalism to a large degree.
Please note it was not me who was appealing to a fundamentalist consensus but you. In your writings on this blog you made claims of a lack of consensus within the fundamentalist consensus. I merely pointed out that the two most significant players in the fundamentalist movement of the twentieth century did not fit your model. They had a united consensus on the primacy of the KJV/TR and anti-CCM position. That is an observation that must be noted in the interests of historical accuracy; however uncomfortable that makes you feel.
Incidentally, your claim of “everythingism” is unfair against the WCF. As a group they clearly understood that “Exposes and separates from all … compromise with error” did not apply to issues relating to personal distinctives such as baptism. For they were made up of churches and organisations that reflected the whole spectrum of biblical Christianity on those matters. So, clearly the WCF’s understanding of separation was much more nuanced than what your portray as they included amillennialists, wesleyans, and paedobaptists in their ranks.
I wish that so many contemporary fundamentalists did not define everyone to the right of them as “hyper-fundamentalist.” That is not an honourable way to review historical events and persons. If you have changed from the historic positions Kevin, then just say that you have shifted towards the centre of the spectrum and you reject the past consensus on these issues.
My Blog: www.oldfaith.wordpress.com
Church Sermons: Cornerstone Sermon Audio
[Kevin T. Bauder](1) Yes, anywhere means anywhere.
Fair enough, just want to be sure what you are saying. I take your point with respect to the Areopagus. Under those parameters I would have no problem with that either.
[Kevin T. Bauder](2) On the topic of those who go versus those who stay,…
I’ve nothing to add on this point.
[Kevin T. Bauder](3) As for the interchange with Dever, as nearly as I can make out, you’re doing some Monday morning quarterbacking.
Granted, and I am certainly not looking for a place on a platform. My point is related to the reaction that the disgruntled made to this conference. I don’t think the differences are being painted as starkly as you might think. It is very easy for young fellows (and others) to come away from these meetings with the notion that there is nothing to be concerned with in cooperation with Dever or 9marks, for example. Yet he is not where you are, you are not where he is, and there are good and sufficient reasons for both of you to limit the kinds of cooperation you would be willing to engage in. I suspect you would be more strict about limiting cooperation than he would be, but still significant differences exist.
Those who are on the outside looking in are left wondering what the fuss is about and why we are distinct and different. After all, even you can only find (seemingly) differences on peripheral issues like elders. We have fundamentalists who have a form of elder rule in their churches (Mark Minnick for example). Its a peripheral issue, so why are we distinct and different from Dever.
No one knows. See some of the comments from others on this thread. They don’t get the significant difference that some of Dever’s associations make for cooperative ministry. And that’s not to say we condemn him as an unbeliever, far from it. But I doubt very much that you would engage in a cooperative ministry with him, even though you might be willing to appear at a conference like Lansdale.
[Kevin T. Bauder](4) Now, interdenominational and imperialist institutions. Here are some examples of the kind of schools that I had in mind.
Perhaps I should get you to define what you mean by “imperialist” then. I offered it as an example of pejorative words you tend to use when discussing other fundamentalists. Perhaps you don’t see them as such, but I can guarantee you that they are perceived as such by those with whom you ought to be friends, men who are not KJO, not hyper-fundamentalist at all.
I offer those comments for your consideration, my point is that I don’t think the way you discuss these things helps fundamentalism - it promotes the antagonism that you see displayed in this thread towards fine fundamentalist ministries and leaders.
Well, that’s all for now. I don’t think we need to rehash these points, I’ll see what you have to say when you have time for the rest of it, and may respond to that. I, too, have much to do for the weekend… including finishing a little plumbing job in our church building. What looked like a simple job is turning into a four day nightmare. If only I had more than a quarter of a clue about plumbing!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Kevin T. Bauder]I seem to recall that [Pickering] was the one who moved Emanuel in Toledo toward the NIV, though I may be mistaken. Kevin Mungons could confirm or deny. At any rate, I get a chuckle every time I see Pickering being appropriated by some KJVO type.
[snip]
In practice, I was sometimes uncomfortable with the breadth of Pickering’s associations at some levels. But that, too, is rather a quibble. The difference between us is negligible.
Wrapping up a few stray threads. Yes, Kevin Bauder is correct here.
The NIV New Testament was released when Pickering was president of Baptist Bible College; soon after this he began using it and recommending it in the classroom. He became pastor of Emmanuel Baptist (Toledo) in 1978, the same year the full NIV was released. During the summer of 1979 he preached a sermon, “Questions and Answers about Bible Translations.” It was an unusual moment for him—a topical sermon rather than expository. And I recall him reading the full manuscript from the pulpit (he usually preached without notes). The sermon was later printed as a booklet by Emmanuel, then Central Seminary, then Baptist World Mission.
Somewhere in my files I have some early promotional material from Zondervan, citing Pickering’s use of the new translation with his congregation (and also citing Don Tyler, another GARBC leader who was an early adopter).
During his later pastorate at Fourth Baptist, Pickering preached from the King James, believing that this choice was a better fit for the Minneapolis congregation. But his sermons were peppered with clarifying remarks (“This phrase could be better understood as…”) followed by a quote straight from the NIV.
Can I add one more observation about Pastor Pickering? His book on Biblical Separation is still the classic work on the subject—but not the final word! I view it like I view Alva J. McClain’s Greatness of the Kingdom. Whether or not a person embraces his ideas, all who follow after him will need to interact with his position. Yes, Central still buys a boatload of Biblical Separation, so does every other college and seminary in our orbit. (And yes, publishers love it when a book stays in print for 30 years!)
But we really must move past our “What Would Ernie Do” mentality! He was an articulate spokesman who addressed the dominant issues of his era. We must do the same in ours. If Pastor Pickering were alive today, he would not quote himself, he would quote Scripture. (Maybe from the NIV!)
(By the way, those of us who worked with him called him Pastor Pickering. Old friends and former colleagues called him Ernie.)
And Kevin Bauder is right about Pickering’s associations, which raised eyebrows in some corners of Fundamentalism, though he “wrote the book” on separation. More about that later, I guess.
As a member of the resolutions committee at the FBFI, note that we have passed umpteen resolutions against all forms of King James Onlyism. It is heterodoxy, plain and simple. We respect those who hold the King James preferred position as well as those who use other well-done formally equivalent translations such as NKJV, NASB, and ESV. Most of our members are either majority text or eclectic text such as myself, Minnick, et. al.
Concerning CCM (the wedding of pop/rock styles with Christian words for worship) the FBFI has consistently opposed it to this day. The two issues are not remotely identical.
Pastor Mike Harding
[James K] I find it amazing that this “Dr” Lance could be so far off in his description of MacArthur. I know what some of you are thinking. John MacArthur keeps his views a secret. He doesn’t publish any books, commentaries, or even a study Bible to know what he thinks about texts. You can’t find any of his sermons online. Youtube has even failed to have any of his clips that would be helpful.No doubt the description was there as red meat to a hopelessly ill-informed mass. It is even more sad that such nonsense is then repeated over again by a more fringe, loonie, and desperate element equally devoid of understanding.
In reality, the younger generation has access to information that cannot be controlled by these “pastors” who think it their job to lord over rather than lead. These “pastors” or rather “butchers” of the sheep are presiding over their own downfall. Who is this “Dr” going to convince about MacArthur who has access to the internet? Those already in line for the slaughter.
I hope this “Dr” continues his work. Those who repeat the nonsense are helping to hasten their own loss of power, the real issue in all this. Look at how desperate they cling to what they are losing. I hope this “Dr” tightens his grip and produces more of this tragedy-comedy.
There are a couple of threads going on here, but I wanted to respond to one in particular - someone mentioned being ‘betrayed’ by younger Fundamentalists. Let me take a deep breath here and wade into the waters…
Public Fundamentalism, by and large, is characterized by wingnuts and whackos, and that’s why a lot of us don’t want to associate with it. I could give names, but let’s be honest - the ‘sane’ fundamentalists (Minnick, Bauder, Vaughn, etc) are more often than not run right out of the spotlight by the crazy groups that the ‘sane’ fundamentalists either deny the presence of or gloss over as ‘not true fundamentalists’. It would help if the sane fundamentalists wouldn’t give credence and acceptance to the whackos by, say, teaching on music at FBC Hammond or sharing a conference stage with them. Then the rhetorical guns open up on the ‘sane’ fundamentalists because they dared fellowship with someone like MacArthur and TMS grads or Dever at Calvary, and us younger guys (the ones that are ‘betraying’ fundamentalism) are looking around noticing that A. We don’t really want to be associated with those whackos and B. Our ‘teachers’ are no better at separation and may be worse, simply because their lines of demarcation seem to extend to the limits of their patience and personality, not on Scripture. So we see oases (is that a word?) of sanity - and head there. If Fundamentalists want their future, then they have GOT to understand this.
Instead, we see idiocy like Dr. Ketcham or Sweatt’s anti-Calvinist harangues (and I’m NO Calvin lover) written off as “misspeaking” or simply glossed over. Do you really think that the Do Right groups are really focused on the perceived crimes of whatever group they target? No - they’re angry about the inconsistency of ‘Christians’. It’s similar to the younger guys like myself - we’re sick of the theological inconsistencies, although most of us aren’t going to raze the buildings, salt the earth, and dance on the founders’ graves after we’re done.
This entire conversation simply proves the point that Phil Johnson made in 2005:
So why was I never part of the fundamentalist movement? Because it was obvious, even when I first became a Christian in 1971, that fundamentalism—the visible, organized, identifiable movement made up of men and churches who proudly labeled themselves as “fundamentalists”— was seriously dysfunctional…
That was thirty years ago, but even then, the fundamentalist movement was dominated by personality cults, easy-believism, man-centered doctrine, an unbiblical pragmatism in their methodology, a carnal kind of superficiality in their worship, petty bickering at the highest levels of leadership, deliberate antiintellectualism even in their so-called institutions of higher learning, and moral rot almost everywhere you looked in the movement. It seemed clear to me that the fundamentalist movement was doomed.
In fact, by the 1970s, American fundamentalism had already ceased to be a theological movement and had morphed into a cultural phenomenon—a bizarre and ingrown subculture all its own, whose public face more often than not seemed overtly hostile to everyone outside its boundaries. Frankly, I thought that sort of fundamentalism deserved to die. And I knew it eventually would, because the most prominent hallmark of the visible fundamentalist movement was that its leaders loved to fight so much that they would bite and devour one another and proliferate controversies—even among themselves—over issues that no one could ever rationally argue were essential to the truth of the gospel.
To be honest, I’m sick of it. I’m sick of the whole ‘movement’, sick of the politics and the ‘who’s in / who’s out’ gossip and garbage, and I just want to be able to do my job as a believer or as a Christian without watching my back from my ‘friends’. That means that I will endorse and support MacArthur, I’ll encourage people to read Dever, Piper and Sproul and tell them that there’s stuff there that I don’t agree with, and it means that I’ll listen to music that is serious about doctrine (Plead for Me by SGM is the most recent song I’ve heard that I am listening to). And if the ‘fundamentalist movement’ burns down - well, I just can’t bring myself to care anymore…because my life and ministry (whatever that is or becomes) should be built on discipleship and edification, not the Internet rag of the month that slanders ‘brother so and so’ because he dared do something that we don’t recognize as ‘the right thing’. Never mind that ‘the right thing’ isn’t actually qualifiable or definable - it’s just what “Dr. So and So” says is the right thing. So much for ‘Biblical’ and ‘unchanging’ standards.
Fundamentalists, your house is being left to you desolate because you destroyed it and your kids watched the whole thing. You chased us out yourselves when we asked hard questions and were told not to question our elders, you demonized the writers and thinkers that didn’t toe the theological line that you wanted toed (remember Dr. Jaeggli’s now-pulled book on alcohol? That wasn’t even a doctrinal issue!), you blackballed good men and ministries because of politics (MacArthur and the blood) - and we found refuge from people that actually took us in, encouraged us not to bail on Christianity or doctrine altogether, and helped us get our feet back on Christ, the solid rock, which is where they should have been in the first place. So until you understand that, you’ll watch your schools dwindle and close, your conferences get smaller and smaller (and older and older as the young like me flee), and your coffers empty until that day when there is nothing left.
And then, maybe, you’ll understand what you did and why we couldn’t bear to stand there and watch anymore.
"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
[Kevin T. Bauder]I finally connected the dots. No, I was not frustrated. I was hoping to be kind and acknowledging that you have limited time and that I did not expect a response and just offered it for future consideration. Thanks again.Alex (yet again), have I addressed your concerns? Based on your post no. 80, I sense that you feel some frustration at the time it has taken me to reply. But I’m confused enough by the solecisms that I’m not quite sure. If I’ve neglected to address some important question, please let me know.
[Jay]Maybe some are objecting to MacArthur because MacAthur gives credence and acceptance to “whacko” CJ Mahaney. It would help if MacArthur didn’t write books about the error of Charismaticism and then give credence and acceptance to the very thing he devoted an entire book arguing against.Public Fundamentalism, by and large, is characterized by wingnuts and whackos, and that’s why a lot of us don’t want to associate with it…It would help if the sane fundamentalists wouldn’t give credence and acceptance to the whackos by, say, teaching on music at FBC Hammond or sharing a conference stage with them. Then the rhetorical guns open up on the ‘sane’ fundamentalists because they dared fellowship with someone like MacArthur
Just a thought. John has been faithful in many ways but unfaithful in some and here is one of them. But I digress, forgive me.
Discussion