An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum

[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.

[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.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

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]

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.

Well I’m not ready to make the bold prophecies that Jay has proclaimed; I’d just say I don’t see the point of maintaining some sort of movement. It really is like herding cats and, from where I stand at least, the FBFI demonstrates that.

I don’t mean to belabor something minor and internal to the FBFI (nor do I mean to pick on them in particular as I have benefited both directly and indirectly from men in that fellowship), but one of Dr. Bauder’s earlier examples highlights what seems to me to be the fatal flaw of any coalition. A pastor did what was proper (if misguided) in his local church context, but the same act was improper in the fellowship context. The fellowship could always make sure that the annual meetings are held at churches who will let everyone in, but a faction would find it distasteful. And that’s the truth of it. The fellowship is made up of factions of which given ones will eventually push to have their own interests more reflected by fundamentalism, and especially by their particular fellowship—see Dr. Ketchum’s latest.

Strictly speaking it doesn’t have to go that way, but experience tells me it usually does. So what’s to be done? I said in a personal email to someone with whom I was discussing this privately that a good church passes on a “whole” Christianity (including a proper separatism) to the generations of its congregation (I also opined that confessional churches seem to me to have the best chance at having a “whole” Christianity, but that’s probably another subject), and that local churches are the instruments through which fundamentalism will be saved if so be it is saved. Like any other doctrine or principle, if congregations aren’t led in it and buy into it, it won’t survive. But those bodies in which it survives will be properly equipped to decide where and when and with whom they can cooperate without having to consider what other folks in the fellowships will think or say or write.

So despite the benefit I’ve received from the ministry of fellowship individuals, I have no need of what they’ve wrought in their international fraternity. (I’d hasten to add that they need nothing from me as well, so no loss there.) It just seems to me that the fellowships diffuse and distract from the local level work rather than enhancing it. I’m not interested.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Jay] 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

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.

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.

And the point of noting MacArthur’s association with Mahaney is…what exactly? That we can’t say anything nice about the man without pointing out at least one flaw? You prove my point.

A historical note about some large fundamental Baptist gatherings of the post WWII era. In 1963 the first Fundamental Baptist Congress of North America was held at Temple Baptist Church in Detroit, and the second Congress gathered at the Civic Auditorium in Grand Rapids, in early October of 1966. I had been a youth pastor just one month in 1966 when I was privileged to attend the historic meeting in Grand Rapids with about 5,000 others. I also attended two World Congress of Fundamentalist meetings on the Bob Jones campus in 1983 and 1986. My recollection is that the 1966 meeting was larger in attendance than both of the WCF gatherings. I think, although someone might correct me, that the 1983 WCF meeting was the largest in the history of the WCF. The FBC of NA was a very unique phenomenon that has been largely under the radar of current young men who have various fundamentalist backgrounds. It was a very successful coming together of all the major independent (i.e., not aligned with the NBC/ABC or SBC) Baptists. It included leaders from the BBF, GARBC, and Evangelical Baptist of Canada, plus various leading voices from the fundamentalist wing of the Conservative Baptist movement (which included the CBF – now known at the FBFI) and the Southwide Baptist Fellowship (which would include independents from the broad Sword of the Lord readership at that time). Speakers at the two events included (although this is not an exclusive list): Dr. Bob Ketcham, Paul Jackson, Joseph Stowell, John Balyo, Wilbert Welch of the GARBC; G.B. Vick, W.E. Dowell, John Rawlings, A.V. Henderson, Wendell Zimmerman of the BBF; R.V. Clearwaters, G. Archer Weniger, Monroe Parker, Harry Love, Howard Sugden, from the CB orbit; John R. Rice, Lee Roberson, Tom Malone, and a young Jack Hyles, in the Southwide/SOTL orbit, and a number of Canadian men. Regular Baptist Press published hard-backed volumes of the messages and I have copies in my library. A major note was the obvious fraternal relationship at the time that caused all of these very independent men to join together for the advancement of a common cause. The messages included presentations of the gospel, evangelism, important doctrinal distinctives, Baptist polity and warnings about liberalism and ecumenism. These men were different in their style, specific emphases and regional/cultural backgrounds, but they represented a common cause that was readily discernible in that day of what Baptist fundamentalism was all about.

I apologize for my horrible formatting above. My bad — tried to paste from Word and messed up.

A further note. The KJV was not an issue at the 1963 & 1966 gatherings mentioned in my previous post. Although Dr. David Otis Fuller of Grand Rapids, and an early proponent of a KJV exclusive position, was on the committee, he did not speak.

My seminary president, Dr. Clearwaters was a strong KJV user, but he often said that the 1901 ASV was the most accurate translation. That was because he was a Greek scholar and felt the 1901 translated verb tenses better. He was vociferously against the RSV and loose paraphrase versions. But it was well known that he read his Greek NT for daily devotions.

[Jay]

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Jay] 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

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.

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.

And the point of noting MacArthur’s association with Mahaney is…what exactly? That we can’t say anything nice about the man without pointing out at least one flaw? You prove my point.

And hey, can’t you say anything nice about fundamentalists without pointing out at least one flaw?

Alex -

I’ll allow you to decide whether Proverbs 26:4 or 26:5 should apply in this instance.

So one side has C. J. Mahaney who, while being a non-cessationist, has produced some very beneficial material. (BTW, while I disagree with some of his position on spiritual gifts, I’ll acknowledge him as a brother in Christ in the same way that some of the old-time fundamentalists co-habited with the old-fashioned pentacostals.)

The other side has Hyles and Schaap and tolerates baseless tirades like Danny Sweatt’s at an FBFI meeting.

People make their choices

[KevinM]

[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.

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.

I’m a long way from being young, but this hit a responsive chord with me as I’m sure it did with others. I remember one of the strong personalities of fundamentalism of the 60’s and 70’s who, after perusing my library, told me that I didn’t have a single book that was worth reading because:

-most of my commentaries were written by Calvinists

-Spurgeon was a cigar-smoking amillenlialist

-the Puritans were non-separatists

-and my Thompson Chain reference Bible was amillenial.

This guy’s library was his Scofield Bible, a well-worn set of Sir Robert Anderson’s works, and Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

I don’t believe in working with apostates in spiritual endeavors and I think that those that do are sinning. I love Mohler’s account of cleaning house at Southern. (Something that I was told could NEVER happen.)

Ron, Spurgeon was solidly premill anyway. He wasn’t a scofieldian, but he was still premill. Among other things, that guy was hopelessly ignorant.

This thread has digressed into many areas so it is hard to keep track on who and what to reply to. A theme that keeps resonating is the criticism of John MacArthur by past and present fundamentalists. While some of the criticism was unjustified, some was fully justified. If I may mention just a few:

(1) Non-Cessationist connections - MacArthur has given validation to men like Piper/CJ Mahaney by so publicly embracing them. It is true that older Fundamentalist leaders such as Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones and Dr Ian Paisley had close friendships with men like George Jeffreys the Elim Pentecostal Movement Founder they did not share platforms or publicly endorse them. For instance, Lloyd Jones was offered the Albert Hall in London to preach to the Elim Conference by Jeffreys but refused. Remember this was the time when the Pentecostal movement was little more than an excitable Wesleyan Holiness church. Things are much worse today in this movement.

(2) Eternal Sonship Issue - MacArthur did endorse a heretical view of this. I realise he later retracted but it made many suspicious of his later pronouncements on the blood of Christ debate.

(3) Ecumencial Connections - MacArthur has maintained a good personal stance that the Roman Catholic Church is a non-Christian institution. However, he has given men like John Piper, who praise Mother Theresa as a pattern of biblical sanctification, validation by his close friendship and public associations. I could also mention Al Mohler and the Manhattan declaration connection.

(4) CCM - MacArthur writes some great things on worship and the majesty of God. Yet he tolerates in his conferences like “Resolved” overt contemporary musical forms. The Amazon genres for his conference music are “rock” and “pop.” (http://www.amazon.com/Resolved-Music-Vol-1/dp/B003O2YNWC/ref=dm_ap_alb1…). MacArthur also believes that his success in Grace Church emanates from the hippy movement wave.

So while there is much to commend MacArthur in his preaching and writings, he should not be immune to scrutiny. It is immature to simply focus on some of the silly criticisms of MacArthur and use that to undermine biblical evaluations of his many other faults. I agree with Rolland McCune’s assessment in “Promise Unfulfilled” (p152-153) that MacArthur’s “practice of ecclesiastical separation is unclear at best” and that he has “a new-evangelical profile.” That may present no problems to many on here, but it does to those who are historic separatist fundamentalists.

[Jay]

Alex -

I’ll allow you to decide whether Proverbs 26:4 or 26:5 should apply in this instance.

[Ron Bean]

So one side has C. J. Mahaney who, while being a non-cessationist, has produced some very beneficial material. (BTW, while I disagree with some of his position on spiritual gifts, I’ll acknowledge him as a brother in Christ in the same way that some of the old-time fundamentalists co-habited with the old-fashioned pentacostals.)

The other side has Hyles and Schaap and tolerates baseless tirades like Danny Sweatt’s at an FBFI meeting.

People make their choices

[Barry L.] “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..” I would like to believe that the young fundamentalists are looking to scripture rather than influential men for their stand in the faith; however, I think they are just trading one old passé authoritarian leadership group to a more trendy cerebral authoritarian leadership group to blindly follow. Very few in the generation before them would dare challenge the likes of Jack Hyles or Bob Jones, Jr. and very few of the young fundamentalists today challenge a John MacArthur or Albert Moeller. This is clearly displayed in how the young fundies handle the C.J. Mahaney situation. Sovereign Grace has a child abuse situation, as bad, if not far worse, than Trinity in NH. Sovereign Grace has an “overlord” style leadership only differing from the old guard in that instead having one dictator leading, you have a small politburo. Yet, there are few who challenge Moeller and SBTS and their relationship to SG. Why, because Moeller is probably the most influential man in conservative circles today and it is easier to challenge the older less influential group than the most popular.

I use John Piper as a case in point often and for a reason. He is an exegetical and theological mess. Repeatedly his theological claims are as equally outrageous as his Jack Hyles. This has been demonstrated over and over again and they come from the identical cause of Hyles’ theological ineptness, exegetical malfeasance. But as with Hyles, because Piper meets a certain need, his offenses are ignore and his children highly upset when they are brought out. Of course there are those who feign concern with John Piper like Phil Johnson whose only complaint has been associative issues with Piper, that is platform sharing or transfers of trust and not the large body of failing exegesis and theological propositions. Which make them even more of a concern seeing the feign raising awareness of problems but only the less egregious, thus modeling a continued approval and consumption of Piper’s errant views with discrimination.

Charles Spurgeon’s millennial position is not crystal clear. Peter Masters, present pastor at The Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, Spurgeon’s church, makes a strong case that Spurgeon was amill. I am not totally convinced, but to state dogmatically that Spurgeon was pre-mill requires careful editing of Spurgeon’s statements. (Much like John R. Rice used to edit Spurgeon’s sermons in “The Sword of the Lord” to remove the Calvinist elements. That was not only unethical, but served to mislead many IFB ers as to Spurgeon’s true position. It pays to examine the original sources.)

It seems to me that Spurgeon was undecided regarding his millennial position. At times, he seems to be amill, but at other times pre-mill. He was probably like many today, largely pan-mill! :)

As to Fundamentalists sharing the platform with traditional Pentecostals, I have seen it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears. Traditonal Pentecostals have been part of the historic fundamentalist movement along with virtually every other Christian denomination.

I hear fundamentalists dogmatically pontificating about what they do not know nor understand. Many assume that Fundamentalism is what they have personally experienced and observed. It would be helpful if those who aspire to influence others would prepare themselves by a bit of thoughtful reading in the area of historic Fundamentalism before making their assertions.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Of course there are those who feign concern with John Piper like Phil Johnson whose only complaint has been associative issues with Piper

What makes you say that Phil Johnson’s concern about Piper’s associations was fake? Just because he did not go as far as you would like in his criticisms of John Piper, does not mean that the red flag he rose about Piper’s associations was all pretend. Seems like a really poor choice of words on your part.

I don’t understand the hero worship mentality. There have to be some of us who just don’t care about following the “big name” guys. I don’t care about John MacArthur. I don’t care about John Piper. I don’t care about Al Mohler. They have good points to learn from, and bad areas too shy away from. I love listening to James White, but I don’t believe in limited atonement. Just use some discernment …

Perhaps I’m just hopelessly naive, but I don’t follow a particular “big name” Pastor and I have to believe there are a lot of us who don’t. I think this “guru” worship may be a tad bit overblown, or else I just have my head in the sand. It just isn’t an issue to me.

Minor, but should be noted: (1) Arno Weniger, Jr was not pres of MBBC in 1978 as stated above (he came later than that) and (2) Mt. Calvary does not have elder rule, though they do have a plurality of elders (those are not the same things).

Btw, kudos KB on stating well so many things in this thread.

To Barry L and partially to Alex G:

I agree with what you are both saying about trading one overlord for another. Too many new guys fear being on the outs if they criticize popular speakers today.

I am reminded of Galatians 1:10: For am I now trying to win the favor of people, or God? Or am I striving to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ.

I do not understand the fascination with Mahaney. What an absolute trainwreck. He wrote a book on humility that was praised by many. This is the same guy who determined that no one was organizing church the right way so he had to start his own movement. Nothing says humility more than no one else getting it right.

To his charismaticism along with Piper’s, I find both disturbing on many levels. If I talk about Piper with people who don’t know about him, I make mention of his strange view of sign gifts.

I also have my disagreements with MacArthur, though they are not at the same level of disagreement with Piper and way less than Mahaney.

With that being said, I am also a baptist. I don’t share pulpits with those who refuse to submit to such basic doctrines as believer baptism by immersion. Fundamentalists were never so small as to be baptist only, but if the Bible truly was their standard, they would have been.

[Andrew Henderson]

[Alex Guggenheim]

Of course there are those who feign concern with John Piper like Phil Johnson whose only complaint has been associative issues with Piper

What makes you say that Phil Johnson’s concern about Piper’s associations was fake? Just because he did not go as far as you would like in his criticisms of John Piper, does not mean that the red flag he rose about Piper’s associations was all pretend. Seems like a really poor choice of words on your part.

[James K] I do not understand the fascination with Mahaney. What an absolute trainwreck. He wrote a book on humility that was praised by many. This is the same guy who determined that no one was organizing church the right way so he had to start his own movement. Nothing says humility more than no one else getting it right.

To his charismaticism along with Piper’s, I find both disturbing on many levels. If I talk about Piper with people who don’t know about him, I make mention of his strange view of sign gifts.

Ditto.

Alex, your complaints about Mahaney miss the mark because I’ve never heard Mahaney on that subject - nor do I have any desire to. I know that he’s got issues, but since I don’t know what he believes, I can say little more than that.

I’ve heard Mahaney speak once or twice (via the sermons at the Resolved 2008 conference), and have never heard nor seen anything from him that would indicate that tongues speaking is normal. I enjoyed and appreciated his sermons because they were exegetically sound and spiritually impacting. I have no idea where Mahaney stands on tongues and don’t especially care. The mess at SGI was addressed (and is still apparently being addressed - I’m not following that), but is immaterial to me because I don’t have any ties or acquaintances in SGI. I do listen to some of the SG music, but even that I’m picky about.

So for you to say that I should shun MacArthur because of some association with Mahaney doesn’t even make sense. How am I supposed to ‘shun’ someone that I’ve heard speak twice or because I own a book that doesn’t even contain his error? I suppose I could burn his book on Worldliness (which also doesn’t touch on tongues or charismaticism, but was a gift and has been VERY helpful to me), but if I’m not in contact with his error - and MacArthur isn’t promoting Mahaney’s error (which he hasn’t that I’ve ever been aware of) - then what exactly is the point of your complaint? That I’m not discerning? I wasn’t aware that I needed you to discern for me between the right and the wrong. Forgive me this wrong!

As for your base slander in post #126 (regarding my “duplicity”; I am not so bold as to demand that I am the only right one on this board) - well, I forgive you for that, but I think any chance that we ever had of productive conversation has now ended.

Drs. Bauder and Doran, I appreciate the substantial investment of time and energy that you have put into this discussion. It’s been an interesting and fruitful discussion.

plurality of elders not elder rule, yes, correct. My mistake. Sorry about that, there is a significant difference.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

Above all, they don’t want to live in the kind of dysfunctional home in which everybody just pretends that old Uncle Louie is normal when he slobbers all over the floor.

I know this came in the midst of a very serious (and very good, btw) stream of thought. But I must confess…I laughed out loud at this. More there than meets the eye, perhaps? But that is pure speculation on my part. Very funny and effective, nonetheless.

[Kevin T. Bauder] And I hope your plumbing problems have been solved by now.

[Kevin T. Bauder] The substance of your remaining exhortations seems to be that I don’t show sufficient—what?—deference? respect? reverence? when addressing some present-day Fundamentalist institutions and leaders.

[Kevin T. Bauder] You point out that some of these have “given me a platform” and “encouraged [me] to participate in their endeavors.” The implication is that, by asking me to speak from the platform, these unnamed individuals are forever sealing my lips against any criticism (especially disrespectful criticism) of their institutions or leaders. Am I understanding you correctly?

[Kevin T. Bauder] The other is that I think that ideas are more important than structures—in fact, I am willing to sacrifice structures to ideas. Clearly articulated thought is more persuasive than political maneuvering and posturing. We can never build a Fundamentalism worth saving by using our structures to keep (or force) people out, which is what the FBF had tried to do for decades. We can build a vibrant Fundamentalism only on the basis of persuasive and biblical thinking. What I wanted to do—and what I still want to do—is to articulate ideas. I knew, however, that my ideas were going to be unpalatable to at least some of the old guard of the FBFI, and for my part, I thought that they were part of the problem that needed to be fixed.

[Kevin T. Bauder] Sometimes slobs don’t like being called slobs. There is a solution to that. Let them stop being slobs. Let them clean up their space in my house. [b] Or let them move out.[/b] But don’t expect me to live in filth.

[Kevin T. Bauder] People like me are the last and best hope for Old Fundamentalist institutions like the FBFI.

[Kevin T. Bauder] Can the FBFI house be cleaned up? Are you even willing to try? I’ll do one more post in which I say what I think needs to be done.
… And Don, I do appreciate your interaction.

Why are we more concerned about separation than unity, when the Bible teaches both?

Why have we become experts on separation, even to the nth degree, but such amateurs about Biblical unity?

Why are we more concerned about the splinter in our CE brother’s eye, than the beam in our own?

Why is it OK to learn from the books of dead men, whose position on everything is not exactly the same as ours, but cannot do so from living men, unless they believe what we do on every point, and identify with our camp?

Why are we such experts on what Fundamentalism is and should be today, and such novices on how Fundamentalism started and what it was in the beginning?

How did we become so skilled at policing the ministries of CE’s, and so inept at policing our own?

When did dogmatism replace Bible knowledge as the test of fidelity?

[G. N. Barkman] As to Fundamentalists sharing the platform with traditional Pentecostals, I have seen it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears. Traditonal Pentecostals have been part of the historic fundamentalist movement along with virtually every other Christian denomination.

I hear fundamentalists dogmatically pontificating about what they do not know nor understand. Many assume that Fundamentalism is what they have personally experienced and observed. It would be helpful if those who aspire to influence others would prepare themselves by a bit of thoughtful reading in the area of historic Fundamentalism before making their assertions.

Greg, you’ve brought up similar points several times. I don’t think anyone is denying that there are fundamentalists who are something other than Baptists. But various types of fundamentalists normally have put their efforts into largely denominationalistic efforts. The “broad based” fundamentalist meetings have long since fallen by the wayside.

Baptist fundamentalists tend to promote Baptist fundamentalist ideas. They don’t particularly care about promoting the Presbyterian or Pentecostal fundamentalist ideas. To some extent, Baptists will look on those other ideas as not worthy of promotion, while at the same time wishing the fundamentalists in those other groups well in their fundamentalist endeavours.

In other words, I am glad for any success a Pentecostal fundamentalist might have within his own group, but I am going to resist his distinctive ideas from showing up in my circles.

Don,

I agree with your post above (#142), but there have been several posts on this thread that apparently do not. My purpose is to encourage Fundamentalists to not shoot the “separation gun” at everyone who does not dot every “i” the way they do. I am appealing for a recognition that Fundamentalism has historically included all denominational positions. Do I agree with them all? Of course not. That would be absurd! Do I denounce everyone who does not agree with me, and declare that no one can be a Fundamentalist who believes this or that? That is also absurd! It betrays ignorance of the history of Fundamentalism. If one wants to be known as a defender of Fundamentalism, he ought to become knowledgeable about the subject he purports to defend.

But I thought of another question to add to my post above (#141) that was prompted by your previous response to Kevin Bauder. Why is it honorable to use pejorative language to denounce transgressions of those outside our “camp,” but not when addressing failures within our camp?

I trust God will give you a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow.

Kind regards,

Greg Barkman

As always, I am amazed at certain people who throw rocks at people constantly from their blogs but complain about “pejorative language” when someone throws a pebble back.

Amazing…

During Jesus’ earthly ministry two institutions among the Jews operated almost exclusively of each other: the synagogue and the Temple. the Temple’s *shadows* (see Hebrews) were fulfilled for the most part during Christ’s first advent. The local church’s functions were patterned after the synagogue and consisted of bible reading, teaching, encouragements, Lord’s Supper observance, and others. Paul and the other Apostles were the wise master builders who established the practice.

Meeting together as a local church is primarily to represent God: “let everything you do be with God’s ability.” the local church is not like the Temple where presentations were made which signified various things. Church ministry is not about performances or presenting something to God rather it is representing Him: Consider the Lord’s supper as proclaiming Christ’s death until he comes back. The Christian shows his appropriation of Christ’s sacrifice to himself and so the observance speaks (to do this slovenly in a drunken state would ruin the witness for Christ and so the Corinthians were severely judged).

I said all of this to challenge the idea that Christian meeting together is primarily concerned with performances or presentations. It is not. Rather local churches function primarily to build up the Body of Christ.

Music without lyrics is amoral, it cannot be “right or wrong.”

[Kevin T. Bauder]

I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ…

So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian.

Kevin

So one quick comment - I love the interaction here fueled by Kevin’s thinking. I would hate for that to be shoved over by this thought. At some point in time it would be good to do a separate thread on Kevin’s statement:

“I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ….So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian.”

Two or Three quick responses that might be reserved for a future thread:

1. If you can’t prove it from Scripture (and Kevin, you can’t) it is not legitimate to equate one’s approach to music to the importance of a Fundamental of the Faith.

2. If the statement is consistent then a failure in music (as a failure in the Virgin Birth) cannot make you a bad Christian. If you miss the Virgin Birth, you miss salvation, which means you aren’t a bad Christian, you are a non-Christian. One can hardly say if you miss “music” you miss salvation. (I’m sure this was not the aim - but in my view this is a reverse implication if Kevin’s view goes full circle).

3. The only way this might be true is when one’s music is so “anti-God” and/or so “anti-Gospel” that it would make impossible the understanding of God or the reception of the gospel. (The overwhelming amount of CCM music that is being used by serious-minded evangelicals and theologically responsible fundamentalist are using gospel-centered music that clearly get’s the gospel across. To equate what they do in music with missing the virgin birth is a “stretch” to say the very least - come on guys! You have to do better than this.)

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Kevin T. Bauder]

Don,

Let me ask you a question. In an ideal world (by your understanding of ideal), what would you want Kevin Bauder to do? Other than drop off the face of the earth, how could he best invest his time and gifts?

This is not a trick question. I’ve given you my reasons for doing what I do.

Now, tell me what you think I should do.

Kevin

Man, way to go….

Now the glare of the flashlight is squarely in my eyes! I’ll have to think that over and get back to you on it, but a fair challenge.

I do have to get back to the study for tonight, though.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

O Alex O,

Let me get this straight. You say that the church is not like a temple, then you cite 1 Corinthians 3, in which Paul declares that he has laid the foundation for the [local] church as a temple. So even though the church is a temple (specifically, a naos), and even though its members constitute a priesthood, it never gathers to present any offering to God? It never worships?

Of course the local church is a temple and the individual Christian’s body is a temple also. I was speaking of the Temple with a capital T: the second temple which operated according to the Law and its specific presentations.

OK, if you say so.

Now, let’s see: you cite 1 Corinthians 3, in which Paul claims to be the wise master architect who is establishing the pattern for the church. You might also have added 1 Timothy 3, in which he states that he is mandating church order. And yet somehow the church is supposed to have got its “functions” (by which I assume you mean its mission, elements of worship, structures, and forms) from the synagogue?

OK, if you say so.

I see nothing in I Tim. about presenting to God music of a certain kind and not another.

No, the synagogue had Scripture readings, explanations, and encouragements, as I mentioned, similar to what the local church was to do in its meetings.

I’m not going to argue with you. Consequently, if you’d like, you may alter my locution. Whatever music you use to speak about God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ.

I want good words not stricture to a style.

Of course, that’s not the topic of this thread, and we’re not going to go down that rabbit trail. But surely you must have studied the arguments against your assertion that, ‘Music without lyrics is amoral, it cannot be “right or wrong.”’ At some point (not here, not now) I would be very interested in seeing you defend that proposition. It suspiciously like an affectation of late-20th-century American evangelicalism.

God made all things including music. The devil doesn’t have “a music.” You are the one who made the statement, I responded to it.

I tried to respond to each paragraph, it didn’t do what I expected.

Of course the local church is a temple and the individual Christian’s body is a temple also. I was speaking of the Temple with a capital T: the second temple which operated according to the Law and its specific presentations.

I see nothing in I Tim. about presenting to God music of a certain kind and not another.
No, the synagogue had Scripture readings, explanations, and encouragements, as I mentioned, similar to what the local church was to do in its meetings.

I want good words not stricture to a style.

God made all things including music. The devil doesn’t have “a music.” You are the one who made the statement, I responded to it.

Kevin,

I have an idea we can cover all of this later. Just a short response. Frankly it really doesn’t bother me that you and the “Beethoven guys” view music the way you do. I push back only because I fear that others will pick up your views and then use them as a tool to divide more than Heaven would wish. I respect the fact you have the right to interpret Scripture and draw implications to music and worship. There is so much of our theology and even methodology which is fairly close, your views on this while irritating is hardly a fellowship-killer as far as I’m concerned. It’s not your conservative stand that concerns me as much as the effect of brothers being able to minister with other brothers who differ on this. In other words because I do not see this as a “fundamental of the faith,” I have to challenge your position that it should be treated with an equal amount of importance as a “fundamental of the faith.” I know you share my passion that we must protect against unbilical separation and I fear if you guys go unchallenged we could end up with more unbiblical separation - which we have too much of already! If you promise not to share this with anyone else - my personal and frankly even our corporate music is pretty conservative. Almost shockingly so. Frankly the only people that would find our music not conservative enough would be you “Beethoven guys” and then the “Greenville Gang” Type people. Which means we are still pretty conservative! As I say this is a side note - please you and Don and the rest continue the main dance here. I’m cheering you all on here on my Lawn 4000, my cup of cider and of course the warm SI camp fire that is prepared with lots of marshmellows for our after “thread” fellowship where we all hug and reaffirm our very real (even if in some cases “limited”) appreciation for each other!

Well - you all have a great Lord’s day. Excited about another day of worship here at SVBC.

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Joel Tetreau]

…the “Beethoven guys”…

Joel - Just remember, Beethoven’s music is ok, but his hair is not :). Just a little central New York humor…

[Andrew K.]

Yes, but saying something is bad or poorly constructed is a bit different than saying it is morally corrupt or evil, isn’t it? And the music that we might consider “evil” isn’t inherently so (that is, the notes, noises, and arrangements), but is only morally corrupt based on the interpretation based on the author’s intentions and the web of meaning provided by the community from which it arises and to which it belongs.

Music may be poorly constructed, as a house. It may be unhealthy in large doses, like junk food. But is it then immoral? I think there is a confusion of categories here, from the “functional” to the ethical.

If someone could truly convince me that music, apart from lyrics, could communicate “good” or “evil” value I and many others I know would delete all our CCM. The problem is that, for most of us, no compelling Biblical argument has been given. If anyone has one, I would appreciate them sharing.

But to the issue of music’s morality which I agree that in and of itself, it does not have a moral value. However, this is for one obvious reason, music does not exist in and of itself, it exists for affect and effect with humans and other creatures with auditory capacity. So, if we conclude that no formula can be provided regarding music’s moral value in and or itself, therefore we can simply accept all of its forms, we evaluate in a vacuum where the impact of its properties on the listener is absent. Thus, CCM or any music, sacred or entertainment based, is to be evaluated regarding not merely its construction but the impact of that construction which results in observations that certain musical forms consistently elicit base and carnal passions while others steer us toward higher order thinking further resulting in various propositions regarding sound forms with respect to their affects and/or effects.

Which is precisely why it is a valid issue regarding partnering with ministries and transferring trust to them via such partnering.

Godwin’s Law needs a corollary…since any discussion threads for fundamentalists will, inevitably, have Spurgeon, Calvinism, or music introduced eventually, especially as the thread goes on.

Just a little humor to start the week off, guys and gals. :)