An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum

NickImage

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?

[node:bio/kevin-t-bauder body]

25473 reads

There are 281 Comments

Susan R's picture

"Incessant scolding" pretty much nails it. In my experience, scolding involves a high degree of emotionalism and a significant amount of hyperbole (often seen in the use of terms like "always" and "never"). I believe we have devalued the work of the Holy Spirit when we employ such tactics and engage in behavior modification by coercion instead of exposition of Scripture and consistent discipleship. We have also devalued truth when we feel we must strive to keep the 'scarlet letter' of evangelicalism and hyper-Calvinism on the chests of those with whom we disagree, even when those methods and means are dishonest and unethical.

If they are so far off base, it shouldn't be difficult to provide verifiable evidence that these men, such as "Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, and Rick Holland" are indefensible. So bring out the evidence for folks of good conscience to examine and come to their own conclusions.

 

Joel Tetreau's picture

You know, I don't ever recall taking a "letter-writing" class in seminary. This is/was outstanding. For the readership's sake let me add, "I'm very sure Kevin would have rather gone to the dentist than to have written this note." Those in leadership, hate this kind of public "stuff." No, we "really - really" hate this kind of thing. I promise you Kevin stays busy. I'm very sure he didn't say, "oh goody - I get to tangle with Dr. Ketchum in public! You know - we MBA types - just love public confrontation!" However, from time to time because of details outside of your control, and the real demands one has as a leader, occasionally one has to do this kind of thing.

I appreciate "big time" Kevin your willingness to do what you did here. This was not fun but for sake of fundamentalists who need to see a right response to even legitimate differences there may yet be between themselves and conservative evangelicals, your note serves as a great model. My personal counter to the charge that because certain of our Type B friends are defending the motives or our Type C friends doesn't mean they've given up militant separation. It simply means they've read the rest of the Bible that speak to the issue of how a believer relates to another believer, even though there may be differences. Susan once again hits the nail right on the head when she notes that if our Type C friends have violated the Scriptures - show us how. Frankly in my view, men like Dr. Ketchum who accuse leaders like MacArthur of being "newevangelical" actually are guilty of causing schism in the body and as such need to be confronted of their heresy. The reality is MacArthur has separated from far more disobedient brothers than most of us even know! When he separates from the main of evangelicalism (which he's done allot of) it counts!

A quick counter here to Dr. Ketchum - my brother - to accuse John MacArthur of not being militant is just weird. (I'm not publicly accusing you of being "weird" but rather your accusation as being "weird"). Lance you need fly to Phoenix and come with us one year to Shepherd's conference and actually hear Mac in person - and then you can tell us he's not militant! If you look up the definition of "militant" in the newest Webster's dictionary - they actually have a picture of John MacArthur attached to the term.

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;

Mike Harding's picture

Kevin,

 

Thank you for your letter, not that I have any interest in the MBA.  Nevertheless, how we approach the individuals mentioned in your letter is critical.  I have often said that these men are not a monolithic group.  They are very much individualistic with various strengths and weaknesses among them.  It is clear to me that some are overly scrutinized while those with acceptable labels are often given a pass.  I believe in labels.  They are important.  Nevertheless, labels do not trump substance.  Some with good labels and little substance are essentially ignored, while others without such labels yet with good substance are overly criticized, misrepresented, and in some cases outright slandered.

 

Fundamentalism is ripe for the harvest with the heterodoxy of King James Onlyism, Keswick Arminianism, Easy Believism, and Eccentric Externalism.  I have my own serious concerns about reductionism, lack of discernment, and naivety regarding the world among the young, restless, and reformed.  As as pastor I endeavor to maintain proper ecclesiastical fences.  On the other hand, regarding works by conservative evangelical authors, my disposition has always been to eat the fish and throw out the bones.  Some fundamentalists throw out the fish and others eat the bones.  Your letter indicated to me the biblically wise position.  Thank you again for your letter.

Pastor Mike Harding

Larry's picture

I wonder if those who respond to Kevin will be as gracious and kind to Kevin as Kevin was to Lance?

 

TylerR's picture

Then there are those of us who have no idea what this whole issue is even about . . .

It was a gracious letter. I just am not "in the know" on this one 

Tyler Robbins is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

Don Johnson's picture

KTB wrote:
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 suspect that one of these occasions was the Lansdale conference with Dever. I admit to a great deal of curiousity about your reaction to that meeting. Do you think that the meeting had much of an effect on Dever? Did your view of him change after having been involved in the meeting? Are you more hopeful or less hopeful of men like him coming to a better understanding of separation?

More broadly than that specific meeting, I wonder if you think your interactions with conservative evangelicals in general are having a positive effect on them, drawing them to a more biblical position? Do you think that these meetings/interactions have had any negative effects on the younger fundamentalists who are watching you?

Finally, going forward, do you think such efforts to persuade are worth the time and energy, given the results so far and the possible negative influence on less committed fundamentalists who are observing you?

I ask in all sincerity, not without my biases which I am sure are either known or fairly obvious!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Larry's picture

Don, in line with you, I ask this in all sincerity (though with no real bias):

  1. Are you suggesting that Kevin (and others) do these things only if they work (whatever "work" means)?
  2. In your mind, is there ever reason to attempt to make a biblical case with someone when it doesn't work or doesn't appear likely to work?
  3. In your mind, is there any value in participation in a conversation, not because you might convince the other party, but because you might influence those who listen? (In other words, you concerned about young fundamentalists; what about those on the other side who hear Bauder and are challenged to consider something they have never heard; should Bauder speak in hopes of influencing them?*)
  4. How would you determine when to do these things and how would you judge success?
  5. Lastly, do you believe that Kevin should not have written this letter to Lance because it is unlikely to persuade Lance or draw him to better understanding? Or is there value in responding for the sake of those who are listening?

*Anecdote: I remember a friend who left DBTS and went to a evangelical seminary. He told me that the students there were completely unfamiliar with any concept of separation. I wonder if that might be because too many fundamentalists have not been willing, like Kevin, to enter the conversation with grace and truth, with the result that all some people here is one side.

Ron Bean's picture

What does someone like Mark Dever have to do to be accepted by separatist fundamentalists?

(I understand that Dever asked this question in a public forum he had with some fundamentalists and didn't get an answer.)

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

JVDM's picture

Larry, it is obvious Dr. Bauder needs to come up with some New Methods, don't you think?

Jim's picture

Calling monergists heretics doesn't help Lance's cause:

http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2013/01/gospel-centrisms-corruption-of.html

Quote:
Calvinism’s corruption of the doctrine of election and their heresy of Irresistible Grace (Monergism) are radical departures from the teaching of the Word of God and are therefore a corruption of what defines a biblical response to the Gospel.  Yet, almost all those promoting Gospel Centrism are Calvinists.

I'm a monergist and I'm in an M.B.A. church

 

Don Johnson's picture

Larry wrote:

Don, in line with you, I ask this in all sincerity (though with no real bias): ...

You ask interesting questions, but I'd rather wait to see if Dr Bauder wishes to engage  the questions I offer here. He doesn't need to answer publicly if he chooses not to, nor does he have to answer me at all. I just wonder what he thinks on the points I raise.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Andrew Henderson's picture

Larry wrote:

I remember a friend who left DBTS and went to a evangelical seminary. He told me that the students there were completely unfamiliar with any concept of separation. I wonder if that might be because too many fundamentalists have not been willing, like Kevin, to enter the conversation with grace and truth, with the result that all some people here is one side.

 

Hey, pal. Hope you are well. It could also be that the separatism that some fundamentalists proclaim is not nearly as clear from the Scriptures as they think.

 

Don, if Mark Dever were in your church and continued doing the same things that he is doing right now, would you practice church discipline on him? Thanks.

 

 

Andrew Henderson

Mike Harding's picture

Lance Ketchum in his published post by necessary implication condemns the London Baptist Confession, the Second London Baptist Confession, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith which is the most accepted confession of faith among historical, biblical, orthodox, separatist churches in North America. Our own fundamental association of Baptist churches in Michigan openly confesses the NH Confession and requires pastors to sign a statement that they and their churches are in agreement with said document.  Clearly those documents hold to election not based on man or his works but on the infinite and perfect attributes of God.  They trust that the Judge of all the earth will do right.  Secondly, those documents clearly affirm God's effective and effectual call of the repentant sinner to a whole-hearted unreserved trust in the person and work of Christ.  It appears to me that Lance Ketchum is not a true separatist, but rather a factionalist.

Pastor Mike Harding

Ron Bean's picture

Thank you for pointing out the difference between separatism and factionalism.

There is militant separation from apostasy.

There is separation from brethren, following Biblical guidelines, with the goal of gaining and/or restoring our brother.

Sadly there is also militant separation from brethren where seemingly the only goal is maintaining separation.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

DavidO's picture

Jim,

What you don't understand is the Calvinists that the anti-calvinists like all renounced their Calvinism.  Or something.  So they're less not OK. 

see: http://bit.ly/ViZbzz

 

EDIT: well I've edited this twice to correct my minor dyslexic errors.  I hope the coin toss (irony!) came out right and it's their and not thier.  Either/Iether way, you get what I mean. 

JD Miller's picture

Don asked:

More broadly than that specific meeting, I wonder if you think your interactions with conservative evangelicals in general are having a positive effect on them, drawing them to a more biblical position?

I cannot speak for Kevin, but although my interactions with conservative evangelicals are not public like Kevin's are, I must answer, "yes" to the above question.

Another good question was asked:

More broadly than that specific meeting, I wonder if you think your interactions with conservative evangelicals in general are having a positive effect on them, drawing them to a more biblical position? Do you think that these meetings/interactions have had any negative effects on the younger fundamentalists who are watching you?

I actually think Kevin's interaction is having a positive effect, not just on younger fundamentalists but also on younger conservative evangelicals.  I grew up in conservative evangelicalism and left it for fundamentalism because of the compromise I saw, but I have also seen that others who are barely even aware fundamentalism have also seen that the compromise has gone too far and some are looking for answers.  If the only view they have of fundamentalism is Jack Hyles etal, then they will not understand the true Biblical separatist position.  Bauder is giving them an opportunity to learn more about what we believe.

As ministers, our job is to disciple others- even evangelicals.  If we are so separatist that we fear even having a conversation with them (whether public like Bauder has done or privately), then we have missed a discipleship opportunity and a chance for iron to sharpen iron.

Don Johnson's picture

Andrew Henderson wrote:

Don, if Mark Dever were in your church and continued doing the same things that he is doing right now, would you practice church discipline on him? Thanks.

 

Nice attempt to distract from the topic at hand though...

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don Johnson's picture

JD Miller wrote:

I actually think Kevin's interaction is having a positive effect, not just on younger fundamentalists but also on younger conservative evangelicals.  I grew up in conservative evangelicalism and left it for fundamentalism because of the compromise I saw, but I have also seen that others who are barely even aware fundamentalism have also seen that the compromise has gone too far and some are looking for answers.  If the only view they have of fundamentalism is Jack Hyles etal, then they will not understand the true Biblical separatist position.  Bauder is giving them an opportunity to learn more about what we believe.

Well, I am a product of conservative evangelicalism as well. If Bauder is having such an effect, that is positive. I hope so.

And I would agree that if one's notion of fundamentalism is only a vague idea based on some acquaintance with Hyles et al, then one would be left with a pretty poor picture, not very attactive. 

JD Miller wrote:
As ministers, our job is to disciple others- even evangelicals.  If we are so separatist that we fear even having a conversation with them (whether public like Bauder has done or privately), then we have missed a discipleship opportunity and a chance for iron to sharpen iron.

It isn't the private conversations that cause concern.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

JVDM's picture

Just curious if anyone else has noticed that Ketchum's holy trinity of pillars for factionalism, which he accuses Bauder of destroying, is itself Dr. Bauder's brainchild, i.e., "orthopathy." I literally lol'd when I read this:

 

Therefore, the doctrine of separation and purity in sanctification is established upon three pillars:

1. Right doctrine (orthodoxy)
2. Right practice (orthopraxy – how right doctrine fleshes itself out)
3. Right attitudes, emotions, and motivations (orthopathy)

 

And this:

 

"Biblical unity has a trinity of agreement for unity:

1. Right doctrine (orthodoxy)
2. Right practice (orthopraxy)
3. Right purpose (orthopathy)"

 

Talk about arguing on borrowed capital!!

Andrew Henderson's picture

Quote:

 

Nice attempt to distract from the topic at hand though...

 

Typical. 

Andrew Henderson

WilliamD's picture

Don Johnson]</p> <p>[quote=KTB wrote:
...More broadly than that specific meeting, I wonder if you think your interactions with conservative evangelicals in general are having a positive effect on them, drawing them to a more biblical position? Do you think that these meetings/interactions have had any negative effects on the younger fundamentalists who are watching you?

I think that these guys are much more aware of their need for a more serious consideration on separation than they new evangelicals did 30 years ago. They are way more serious about it than the mainstream Evangelical is today. 

I can speak as a young fundy who is watching and I can speak for many others that I know....we're moving in a more gospel-centric direction as our framework. We've seen where Fundamentalism goes when separation becomes the most important value...even more than the gospel... It leads to the kind of lunacy that is documented every day on stufffundieslike.com 

So, whatever influence the Mark Dever types are having on what's left of sane fundamentalism, a bunch of us young fundamentalists think it's positive. Whatever little credibility we have left about separation that we can pass to them, will have some effect on the conservative evangelicals, especially when they see the continual erosion of the denominations as a result of loosing the gospel and any sense of separation from all defections from it. 

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Quote:
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.
I must disagree here. Ketchum's material does, in fact, reflect in principle many of the conclusions drawn in Hegel's Science of Logic, trans. A. V. Miller, London: Allen and Unwin, 1969.

It appears to me that the conclusions or principles of his system identified in HSL, are simply applied by Ketchum. When he refers to the synthesis of the two extremes, this is classic Hegel.

 

Jay's picture

Andrew Henderson wrote:

Quote:
Nice attempt to distract from the topic at hand though...

Typical.

Don, I have to admit that Andrew has a point, and someone else made the same point earlier (re: Dever's question about being accepted at the Lansdale conference).  Dodging his question just makes you look bad...if you can't answer the question, then why be snarky back at the questioner?  What exactly DOES a person have to do to be accepted into 'our tribe'? 

Someone else asked this - At what point are we "warned enough" that the flood of warnings can stop?  I think we all know that not everyone approves of everyone's everything or every position.  We're all old enough to have figured that out by now.  One would think that "conservative evangelicals" are part of Satan's new world order or are Antichrist's priests for all the screaming that's done about them.  I seriously think that people who spend so much time worrying about 'conservative evangelicals' or 'fundamentalists' just need to get out more and stop living in their hermetically sealed spheres.  

As for the letter that Bauder wrote - I went to church on Sunday.  We celebrated our great God's provision for the last year, re-affirmed the men that are serving as deacons and the ladies that are part of the Servant Council, discussed our plans for the new year, and are looking to re-establish our Missions committee with an eye towards bringing on a new missionary at some point.  I had a great time, and I did it without worrying who is 'of my tribe'.  I don't know about places like Greenville or Minneapolis, but frankly, I'll take any kind of orthodox brother or sister in Christ I can get out here in the state of New York.  I don't really care about labels out here because I really can't be choosy about "CE's" or "Fundys"...there aren't enough to be choosy with.  I suppose that some people have that luxury, and I find it amazing that some even want the 'privilege' of rubber stamping the right people's credentials.

"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

DavidO's picture

Jay wrote:

Andrew Henderson wrote:

Quote:
Nice attempt to distract from the topic at hand though...

Typical.

Don, I have to admit that Andrew has a point, and someone else made the same point earlier (re: Dever's question about being accepted at the Lansdale conference).  Dodging his question just makes you look bad...if you can't answer the question, then why be snarky back at the questioner?  What exactly DOES a person have to do to be accepted into 'our tribe'? 

I hate to defend Don (:D), but this just doesn't seem fair to me.  Don has made it clear where he stands.  He would confront someone in his church that maintained the type of ties under discussion, and if that person failed to turn from his way, ultimately, church discipline would ensue.  Anyone who's read much from him should know that.  So the question Andy poses doesn't seem designed so much to elicit unknown information as to put Don in an uncomfortable and (here, anyway) unpopular position of saying "out loud" what most of us already know.  It seems to me to be exactly what Don describes it as-- an attempt to distract from a discussion of certain principles and the consequences of following them or not by asking a non-hypothetical brother to square off against another non-hypothetical brother in an imaginary and unlikely scenario.

Ron Bean's picture

I walked the main street of a small town (<5000) early one morning and passed four independent fundamental Baptist churches that had each separated from the others over issues that were important to them. Each had a struggling bi-vocational pastor and a congregation that was convinced that they were the only good church in town. I struck up a conversation with a gentleman I met and asked him if he attended one of those churches. "No," he said. "They can't get along with each other; how are they ever going to get along with me?"

Dr. Bauder has demonstrated grace and brotherly love to brother Ketcham and has set an example for us in how to deal with a brother with whom we disagree.

If Lance considers those he criticizes apostates, false teachers, and/or unbelievers; he should say so.

If he thinks that Dever, MacArthur, etc are Christians, then they deserve better treatment.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Don Johnson's picture

Is brother Bauder's essay, along with brother Ketchum's. The subject is not what I might or might not do in a hypothetical and completely improbable situation. As such, Andrew's question is irrelevant. And while I appreciate Dave's attempt at my defense, since my practices aren't the subject, his defense is also irrelevant. But I do appreciate the attempt.

I was critical of the conference at Lansdale when it happened. The most disappointing part of it wasn't the headliners, though. However, that is now water under the bridge. I wonder is Kevin thinks the same of the conference now as he did before it happened. I also wonder about the other questions I asked earlier. It does seem to me that my questions were on the point of the debate between Kevin and Lance. I am not defending Lance or attacking Kevin. I just wonder about the things I mentioned.

Kevin can reply or not as he chooses. I'll not be drawn into side trails that have nothing to do with the subject. That's all.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Quote:
If you scold a child for everything, then she will pay no attention when you scold her for the thing that matters....If you want to open the way for competent fundamentalists to articulate differences with conservative evangelicals, your best approach is to expose and reprove fundamentalist "periegazaomenius" whose only gift appears to be censoriousness.
And so fundamentalists are to consider the ears of CE's who cannot distinguish between a sound and "hearing worthy" fundamentalist and one who is aberrant a prize to be had and with shame if not obtained? I hope not. Who are these myopic, prejudicial and stereotyping CE's who need to be so prized.

While Ketchum may "scold" (funny he gets the less honorable description along with other fundamentalists but when one fundie scolds another for being censorious it is suddenly reproving) but he certainly does not scold for "everything".

Finally, it seems scolding is fine as long as it is from one fundie to another about being censorious (where is this again on the scale of things that natter since we are talking about scolding for things that matter) but not in reproving CE's. One may not agree with the reproof but it seems a suggestion is being made to overcompensate for what must be the immature and indiscriminate mind and disposition of CE's who cannot make elementary distinctions .

I do understand the intent of this letter and find that commendable but I believe it has some good room for rebuttal. I suspect Lance Ketchum will eventually respond. But one last observation which is that while open letter deals with personal reference, some significant portions of Ketchum' s article were not addressed. Of course this may not have been the intent of this open letter but it does have its effect.

Pages

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.