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.
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
Gregory Barkman,
While I’m waiting for Don to respond, let me come back and address a couple of points you have raised.
I think you have asked some highly germane questions, particularly about the juxtaposition between unity and separation. While this is not the place to reproduce the entire history, this same question has been asked from at least the time of the Reformers downwards. Almost universally, the approach to answering it has been to consider unity before thinking about separation—and I believe that approach is correct. We don’t understand why we separate or what we separate from until we understand how unity actually works.
No one has dealt in more detail with this problem than the Princeton theologians. They were forced to address it after the Old School expelled the New School in in 1837. They had to explain how they could separate from a whole body of gospel-affirming brethren—even brethren of the same denomination—yet not become guilty of schism. Their writings are deeply biblical, deeply historical, deeply theological, and even deeply devotional. This is the theory of unity and fellowship that was passed down from Charles Hodge to A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, (but unfortunately not to Cece Winans, Dee Dee Ramone, e. e. cummings, F. F. Bruce, Gigi D’Agostino, or H. H. H., though T. T. Shields eventually picked it up) and eventually J. Gresham Machen. It is the most coherent and thoughtful theory of fellowship and separation that I have seen, and it is especially unique because it does not depend upon the idiosyncrasies of a specifically Presbyterian ecclesiology (though it is, of course, compatible with a Reformed theory of the church). It was the theory of fellowship and separation that many of the first-generation Fundamentalists held, and in which many of the second-generation Fundamentalists were trained (from Carl McIntire to David Otis Fuller to Charles Brokenshire). Of course, not all of them implemented it with equal consistency.
By the way, not all of us are exactly novices on how Fundamentalism started and what it was at the beginning. In fact, a few of us have earned advanced degrees by researching those days.
Oh, incidentally, about Spurgeon’s premillennialism. Probably the best person today to address this question is Kerry Allen. At least I don’t know of anyone who has devoted more time to the study of Spurgeon’s writings and ideas in our generation. Kerry has written quite a bit on the subject, but I’m told that one of the Reformed publishers refused to handle his work unless he took out the clear premillennialism in Spurgeon’s views, because they knew it couldn’t really be his. But I’ll let Kerry speak to that question if he wants to.
Kevin
Kevin,
This sounds fantastic! Oh my word! - is there a “standard” by the Hodge’s or Warfield view that has served as an apologetic to this “approach” used by the Princeton guys? I have all of Warfields works in that series CBD sells. I don’t recall seeing his work on that in there - but of course I could have easily missed it I’m sure. Did Machen write on the topic? Do you recall the name of the apologetic or two for this Princeton “approach?” Wow does that sound juicy!
Joel
Oh yes……Straight Ahead!
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I propose that we all wait for Don to reply substantially to Kevin’s questions and points.
[Kevin T. Bauder]…This is the theory of unity and fellowship that was passed down from Charles Hodge to A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, (but unfortunately not to Cece Winans, Dee Dee Ramone, e. e. cummings, F. F. Bruce, Gigi D’Agostino, or H. H. H., though T. T. Shields eventually picked it up)….
Dude. You were on a roll…you could have made it to ZZ Top…keep going…keep going….
Kevin,
I’m old enough to remember them without the beards.
Jesse,
thx!
straight ahead!
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;
[Kevin T. Bauder]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?
An interesting question. Really makes me put up or shut up, eh? Criticism is easy, counsel is not so easy.
In a nutshell, I have two problems with the approach so far. First, the interaction with evangelicals gets very close to cooperative ministry with men who are in serious error. I think your term for them is “indifferentists”. Perhaps a Dever isn’t totally indifferent, but he remains in the same convention as Rick Warren, for example. So the first problem is one of unwise cooperation. Obviously, you have felt justified in your participation so far, but my recommendation for you or anyone in a position similar to yours is to keep such interaction on a much less formal and less public stage. I’d love to see Dever persuaded about separation and actually see him come out and separate from the many entanglements that surround his ministry. I doubt that persuasion will come from giving him a public platform, if it will ever come at all. It might come if you or someone like you were able to have private interaction with the fundamentalist idea prevailing after due consideration and leadership of the Holy Spirit. (I say that while conceding that any such opportunities are a judgement call and it is easy to criticize from the sidelines.)
In this regard, I don’t mind so much the book writing. The “four views” concept is a means of having a public debate in a neutral setting, so to speak.
Perhaps the bigger problem is the problem of influence. I think that your influence has tended to make the evangelicals not seem so bad and certainly has made fundamentalists seem like abusive demagogues, except for a select few. What would I counsel you to do here? I would counsel you to to speak more forthrightly about why you are so different from the evangelicals and why you can’t go there to join with them.
For example, you mentioned in one of the posts Al Mohler and his repentance concerning the Manhattan Declaration. His repentance comes from one line in one of the four views books you participated in, correct? Does the whole context of that line bear out the sense of repentance you report? I have not read the book, but I have read reports that make it seem that Mohler is still generally favorable to the MD, even in the context of the quote you cite. Furthermore, the MD web page still lists Mohler as a signatory. Do you know if he has made any effort to “de-list” himself? What about Mohler’s own web pages? Do you know if he has made any public statement there saying that it was an error for him to sign the MD? His justification for signing it still appears on his website with no disclaimer or qualifier.
Do you think that young people should attend Southern Seminary in preparation for ministry in fundamentalist churches?
I would also have you refrain from rehearsing the litany of fundamentalist offenses and excesses whenever you talk about fundamentalism. It is not that we should not be self-critical. But we don’t need to be self-trashical (I know, no such word). The way you talk about fundamentalism reinforces the caricature many disaffected people hold. I simply don’t believe it is an accurate picture of fundamentalism. The errors you mention really did happen, I agree. But that is not all there is to fundamentalism and fundamentalists. For every error you point out, there are faithful fundamentalists laboring outside the spotlight, serving the Lord with integrity and spending their lives building disciples.
Please remember, I am not saying fundamentalists are immune from criticism. But the way the criticism is made has more than one effect, and I would have you encouraging young people to be fundamentalists. That is not because I think fundamentalism as a movement or a label needs to be preserved, but because I believe that fundamentalism is Biblical Christianity.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Kevin T. Bauder]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?
[Don Johnson]In a nutshell, I have two problems with the approach so far….[snip]
Don, you seem to answer the question in reverse, explaining what you want Kevin Bauder to stop doing.
Okay…at one point you give a mild affirmation, “I don’t mind so much the book writing.” (Whew. I was personally worried about that one!) And if I understand the end of your post correctly, you’d like to see Kevin encourage more young people to be fundamentalists. (A person could argue he’s been doing this).
Anything else?
Don,
Why must Fundamentalists “separate” from Dever (whatever that means. It seems to mean have nothing to do with him in any way except to denounce him) because he remains in the same Association as Rick Warren, but Fundamentalists do not have to remove themselves from Fundamentalist associations with those who teach heretical doctrines and practice and/or cover-up gross immorality? In fact, you are calling upon Fundamentalists to not even speak out publicly against such men, lest the cause of Fundamentalism be tarnished. But you will not be satisfied unless Dever speaks out publicly against Warren and removes himself from the same Association.
Isn’t there a huge inconsistency, a double standard at work here?
Perhaps young fundamentalists might be excused for believing that older Fundamentalists are more interested in protecting their institutions than applying Biblical truth.
G. N. Barkman
It strikes me as…odd…that so many fundamentalists have so much to say about Dever’s errors, Piper’s errors, MacArthur’s errors (yes, him again), [Phil] Johnson’s errors, Bauder’s errors, and Mahaney’s errors that there’s no one that they can actually give a endorsement of.
I mean, there’s got to be someone out there that us younger guys can look to, right? Someone outside the people that tell us that everyone (who isn’t our kind of fundamentalist) is wrong? I haven’t seen it yet in the roughly fifteen years that I’ve travelled in “our circles”. I’d love to be proven wrong on that.
FWIW, the ‘erring’ guys that I mentioned above seem to have no problem telling people who is good and worth reading. They were even praising the Puritans a long time ago, which now seem to be the new fad among our circles!
@KevinM, I think Bauder has only done one book, so that probably wasn’t common enough to be a threat to us. Yet. Don’t worry though, someone will probably start a blog warning us of his apostasy if he does another, or maybe he’ll earn an FBFI resolution of his very own. ;)
"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
Don,
We are friends and serve together in the FBFI. My evaluation of Kevin’s admonitions to us is that he is endeavoring to help us. His rhetoric is to the point, humorous, logical, and candid. Men such as Kevin are good for fundamentalism. Almost twelve years ago I said publicly at the national FBFI meeting that fundamentalism wasn’t certain as to what the gospel was nor was it certain as to what the Bible was; other than that we were in great shape. I quoted Dr. McCune and said that fundamentalism is bleeding on these issues; let it bleed. King James Onlyism and rampant easy believism characterize a large segment of fundamentalism. You see elements of it in Ketchum’s blog. Those elements are heterodox. The FBFI has since addressed both of those issues in their resolutions. The FBFI needs to remain militant on the big issues. Dr. Minnick has exhorted us to be harder on ourselves than we are on others. Personally, I keep up my ecclesiastical fences between myself and the evangelical world. However, I know the difference between a departing “brother” (apostasy), a disobedient brother (willful disobedience to the clear dictates of the Word of God), and a disagreeing brother (someone with whom I disagree with enough not to partner with, but nevertheless see a great deal of good in their ministry). When we throw good men like Bauder or Doran under the bus, we are making a horrible mistake. I know these men pretty well (particularly Doran), and I assure you that there is a great deal of truth and ministry that we (myself particularly) can and should emulate. None of us are above evaluation. Nevertheless, maintaining a defensive posture when good men like Doran and Bauder have been admonishing us to be more self-critical than others-critical will not help us be the kind of thoughtful, godly, theologically sound fundamentalists that we ought to be. MacArthur was never heretical on the blood, but some mainline fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heretical on easy believism, but many fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heterodox on inspiration or preservation, but many fundamentalists were and are. Mac certainly had his problems as has been pointed out, but we had much bigger problems. I am strongly favorable in maintaining our ecclesiastical fences between ourselves and the conservative evangelicals. Nevertheless, men like Doran and Bauder are on our side and we need them.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Mike Harding]We are friends and serve together in the FBFI.
This is a great blessing and I’m still holding out hope that we could squeeze a little time in your visit to the northwest for Victoria.
[Mike Harding] Dr. Minnick has exhorted us to be harder on ourselves than we are on others.
I agree, but that is part of what I am doing with Kevin, no?
[Mike Harding] MacArthur was never heretical on the blood, but some mainline fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heretical on easy believism, but many fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heterodox on inspiration or preservation, but many fundamentalists were and are. Mac certainly had his problems as has been pointed out, but we had much bigger problems. I am strongly favorable in maintaining our ecclesiastical fences between ourselves and the conservative evangelicals.
I don’t think I brought up MacArthur in this discussion. I have some problems with MacArthur, but far less than with the Southern Baptists.
It isn’t easy navigating these waters because the men we are criticizing here are brothers who do good work in many ways. There are still serious issues between them and us and I think they preclude cooperative ministry. I’d like Kevin to be more forthright in pointing that out and less inflammatory in his criticism of fundamentalism. Criticism is not the problem, but inflammatory rhetoric is a problem. I have a hard time seeing how that is different from the rhetoric of some of the past, the very ones now being criticized. Surely criticism, when warranted, can be offered without rhetoric.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[G. N. Barkman]In fact, you are calling upon Fundamentalists to not even speak out publicly against such men, lest the cause of Fundamentalism be tarnished.
Greg, that is not at all what I am saying. I am not afraid of criticism, we all need it. But we need to criticize in a constructive way.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Jay]I mean, there’s got to be someone out there that us younger guys can look to, right? Someone outside the people that tell us that everyone (who isn’t our kind of fundamentalist) is wrong? I haven’t seen it yet in the roughly fifteen years that I’ve travelled in “our circles”. I’d love to be proven wrong on that.
My first thought on this may seem like I’m being a smart-alec. How about Jesus Christ? Really, is there any other man we should look to? I’m serious about this. Why do we need some man to follow other than Him?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ…
[Jay]
@KevinM, I think Bauder has only done one book, so that probably wasn’t common enough to be a threat to us. Yet. Don’t worry though, someone will probably start a blog warning us of his apostasy if he does another, or maybe he’ll earn an FBFI resolution of his very own. ;)
Actually, as author, editor, or contributor, (and one or two forewords) I think I’ve got a piece of eight nor nine books now. Publishers include:
Zondervan
Regular Baptist Books
Kregel
RAM
Central Seminary press
BMH
Baker Book House
There are a couple more in the works right now, including a history of Baptist Fundamentalism in the North (with Robert Delnay), and a couple more beyond that on the back burner.
Kevin
[Don Johnson][Jay]I mean, there’s got to be someone out there that us younger guys can look to, right? Someone outside the people that tell us that everyone (who isn’t our kind of fundamentalist) is wrong? I haven’t seen it yet in the roughly fifteen years that I’ve travelled in “our circles”. I’d love to be proven wrong on that.
My first thought on this may seem like I’m being a smart-alec. How about Jesus Christ? Really, is there any other man we should look to? I’m serious about this. Why do we need some man to follow other than Him?
I think understand the sentiment of your remarks, Don. We’re living in the age of “celebrity” and hero worship, which can be a very unhealthful preoccupation. But I think Jay’s talking about something legitimate, something actually quite biblical. Paul alludes to it in 2 Tim. 2:2.
On the one hand, the Church (and the church) needs teachers who have the gifts and abilities to take what they’ve learned and communicate those things to others. On the other hand, men who are going to be equipped for the ministry need other men to look to who will teach them (us!) what they’ve learned. Paul doesn’t expect future teachers to bypass Timothy and simply “look to Jesus.” Instead, he expects them to look to Timothy and learn of Jesus and the doctrine. And to continue the thought, if we didn’t need “some man to follow other than [Jesus] ,” I suppose there would be no need for teachers at all, and the work of pastoral ministry would be so much easier — or would it even exist?? We’d simply lead people to faith in Christ, hand them a Bible, and tell them, “OK, now, just keep looking to Jesus and all will be well.”
So, if I’m reading Jay correctly, he’s suggesting that pastors in formation can look outside the “fundy box” and actually learn a great deal from men/teachers whom some within the “box” decry as being “wrong” and unworthy of attention.
[BryanBice]So, if I’m reading Jay correctly, he’s suggesting that pastors in formation can look outside the “fundy box” and actually learn a great deal from men/teachers whom some within the “box” decry as being “wrong” and unworthy of attention.
Let me ask you, though, are fundies really saying “don’t read X teacher” or are they urging caution at points in the ministry that they are aware of? Maybe I’m out of the loop but when people ask me about a writer, I rarely give a blanket endorsement. Most of us have some quirk that might need explanation or caution ahead of time. I suppose if I ever got around to writing a book people might have a few things to say about me before recommending it.
Of the popular CEs, I can only think of one who I would have very strong reservations about, from what I have read of most of them, I’d recommend them with cautions.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So, if I’m reading Jay correctly, he’s suggesting that pastors in formation can look outside the “fundy box” and actually learn a great deal from men/teachers whom some within the “box” decry as being “wrong” and unworthy of attention.
Well, there is that, and I am also concerned about the amount of negative ‘advice’ against writers. Caution is good and has its’ place, but it is interesting to me that that Fundamentalist ‘book recommendations’ are largely 99% along the lines of “That guy is EVIL! Don’t read him!” Is there no one worth reading anymore? Seriously?
Maybe I’m just oversensitive to this, but it seems like we ought to be able to accentuate one or two guys that could actually be helpful rather than pointing out everyone’s problems all the time whenever a new and helpful book is brought up in discussions.
"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
Yes, Don, at least some Fundamentalists warn against reading anyone who is not a Fundamentalist (in their opinion). Several years ago, I attended a meeting of about 40 Fundamental preachers and heard the following during group discussion.
“When I go into a preacher’s study, and see commentaries by John MacArthur on the shelf, I want to gag. Fundamental pastors shouldn’t be reading books by neo-evangelicals.”
It has happened. It still happens. I’m glad you are not one who speaks in such a manner.
G. N. Barkman
[Don Johnson][BryanBice]So, if I’m reading Jay correctly, he’s suggesting that pastors in formation can look outside the “fundy box” and actually learn a great deal from men/teachers whom some within the “box” decry as being “wrong” and unworthy of attention.
Let me ask you, though, are fundies really saying “don’t read X teacher” or are they urging caution at points in the ministry that they are aware of? Maybe I’m out of the loop but when people ask me about a writer, I rarely give a blanket endorsement. Most of us have some quirk that might need explanation or caution ahead of time. I suppose if I ever got around to writing a book people might have a few things to say about me before recommending it.
Of the popular CEs, I can only think of one who I would have very strong reservations about, from what I have read of most of them, I’d recommend them with cautions.
SOME fundies are saying “don’t read X teacher.” My guess is, based on my albeit limited experience, that most who take this approach come from the “IFBx” end of the fundy spectrum.
Some don’t say “don’t read X teacher,” but they demonize X to such an extent that one is left with the conclusion that he’d better stay away from him at all costs. Quite honestly, from personal experience, John MacArthur was so demonized in the 80s & early 90s by our branch of fundyism that I seriously thought he was a borderline heretic. He was blasted by the fundy leaders I looked up to with as much rancor as they had heaped on Billy Graham in the 60s & 70s. Even as I write, I can still hear the voices in my head! Yet I don’t ever recall anyone saying, “Don’t read MacArthur” — they didn’t need to any more than they needed to say, “Don’t go to a Graham crusade.” [By the way, out of “rebellious curiosity” I got ahold of Mac’s commentary on Hebrews, read the offending passage re. “the blood issue,” and saw with my own two eyes how terribly misrepresented Mac had been! I read more, and discovered I agreed with Mac on just about every issue that my “mentors” had blasted him over. Talk about feeling betrayed!] I’m guessing, but I venture to say this is the kind of thing Jay’s referring to.
Some fundies — the only ones I still give serious attention to — aren’t afraid to recommend books, conferences, materials that will be helpful to me in the work of the ministry and in my growth in Christ. And they do so without feeling like they have to “glue a sticker inside the front cover.”
Grah…editing timer ran out on me :(
Don, maybe it’s just a style thing. When people ask me about stuff, I tend to recommend specific books, not specific authors..so I don’t necessarily feel the need to put a caveat on the author. I just say “__________________ was a great book, so I’d read that first” or something like it.
"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
The irony of this panel discussion at the T4G is quite humorous to me.
http://t4g.org/media/2012/05/celebrity-pastor-indecent-exposure-2/
Speaking of books, I once did an experiment, and interspersed books authored by Swindoll, Ruckman, Warren, Grady, Piper, Colson, Greene, Gipp, and Spurgeon… on my shelves, just to see what would happen.
It was very disappointing. Not even a puff of smoke.
Wow…lots of thoughts flying around here. It is ironic that this thread started as an open letter to Lance Ketchum :). Where’s Lance?? Oh well…I’d like to offer a couple points as to why I and many of the guys I regularly communicate with continue to avoid the “fundamentalist” label.
First, there is a continued inconsistency on the matter of separation. Just one example (of which there are many): There seems to be a growing collaboration between recognized fundamentalists (some of the big-name camps in particular) and West Coast Baptist College/Lancaster Baptist Church. Based upon an email I received from WCBC a couple years ago, all their graduates are required to stand in agreement to a statement that says (in part): “…That the Bible is the fully verbally inspired Word of God, and that God has preserved His Word in the King James Version for the English speaking people…That if at any time, as a graduate of West Coast Baptist College, you disagree with these teachings, or live a life that is contrary to the Word of God and the convictions of this college, you should return your diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.” To my knowledge, this statement still stands. While there is perhaps the slightest bit of wiggle room in that statement, I think we all understand what they mean. And yet I don’t hear any fundamentalists speaking out against WCBC. I do, however, hear fundamentalists railing against Matt Olson and Northland. The inconsistency is clear in my mind. Worse, in this particular example, fundamentalists are silent on the issue of heterodox bibliology while pummeling an orthodox brother (Matt Olson) and institution (Northland).
Second, there is continued confusion on the seriousness of secondary issues. One such issue is…wait for it…the issue of music :). Though I am a musician (and a conservative one, at that), I have no desire to enter a debate about musical styles and preferences. But I simply use it as an example on this point (secondary issues) because it has been referenced in this thread. Both Don (not in this thread, but on his own blog) and Kevin (in post 150) use the word apostasy in the same breath as music. Kevin also stated: “I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ.” I am much less sure what Kevin means by his statements than I am what Don means (because Don explains himself on his blog). I’m not entirely sure what Kevin means (or what specific kinds of music he is talking about) when he says “…Certain kinds of music are so incompatible with the Christian message that their use is blasphemous. They represent an apostasy, not from orthodoxy, but from orthopathy.” Be that as it may…the point I wish to make is that using the word apostasy (however nuanced) when talking about brothers in Christ who simply choose different music styles is a huge leap. If a movement uses the word apostasy to refer to a style of music and yet remains silent on matters of heterodox bibliology, isn’t the inconsistency obvious?
I’ll stop there. But those are 2 of several reasons that I struggle with the fundamentalist movement that I am familiar with. I am thankful for this ongoing discussion. It has been helpful. I pray that we can continue to learn from each other.
Mark Mincy
Don,
I have read through your advice several times. Thank you for putting in the time and thought to write it. While I think you deserve a reply, I want to consider what I intend to say rather more carefully than usual. While you are waiting, however, you might help to crystallize my thoughts if you would answer another question, or (depending on your answer) perhaps two.
I’ll ask the first question in a few different ways, but I see it as all one question. This question presumes that I am disposed to take your advice.
What do you intend to see accomplished if I take your advice? What will changes will occur in evangelicalism and in Fundamentalism? How do you think the change in my approach will affect and be received by younger Fundamentalists, both those that are committed to the idea of Fundamentalism and those that are wavering between Fundamentalism and some version of evangelicalism? How do you think the change will affect and be received by the leadership of the FBFI? Of other Fundamentalist organizations?
Again, these are meant as serious questions and not as debating points.
Kevin
Mark,
You and I sound very similar - across the board. While I am also conservative on music I also was uneasy with the statements you noted.
Let me defend Kevin and guys like him (Harding and the Beehtoven Group). Harding and I studied together at DBTS both in M.Div and Th.M studies. Kevin helped me through my doctorate at Central. I know and love (and trust) these good men. They will (and have) as quickly fought the good fight against the un-orthodox bibliology of hyper-fundamentalism (KJV only) as anyone. Both Kevin and Mike will separate from anyone and I mean anyone on the areas of Scripture. If you are out of line - and you violate a healthy fundamentalism in the area of Bibliology - it doesn’t matter to them. They have no time for politics which is why I love these guys. There are some who I call “Type A” guys who do play the kind of politics you are calling out - but it’s not these guys.
On Kevin’s statement about music and the virgin birth - I’m sure he will clarify the statement when he can. Right now the poor guys is having 192 different conversations over at least three different threads all at the same time. He’s probably not slept in 4 days. He’s probably in a trance speaking his ancestry’s German language! I’m sure he’ll come back and explain his thoughts. You have to remember when Kevin speaks you have to understand the context. Sometimes he speaks as a pastor….sometimes as an educator…..sometimes as a historian…..some times as a philosopher. So Kevin might be saying “even though a different brother can use a certain kind of music and even though there might be a surface presentation of truth - the style or approach or whatever about the music in implication undermine the gospel (intrinsically) just as a wrong view of the virgin birth does (extrinsically).” I think that’s some of what he means….however only God knows what is in Kevin’s mind so I’ll let him explain himself…..but my guess is that’s at least part of what he means.
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;
Mark,
Please do not hold Fundamentalism accountable for my views on music. I readily admit that I do not take a very Fundamentalistic position on music. On the contrary, I take a conservative position.
I judge that there is no qualitative difference between what was done by Doane, Sankey, Bliss, or Rodeheaver, and what has been done by Bill Gaither, Larry Norman, REZ, Petra, or Stryper (you can tell that my limited exposure to CCM is badly out of date). In holding this view I acknowledge myself to be idiosyncratic (at best!) from a Fundamentalist perspective.
This is the point at which I am least Fundamentalistic. Nevertheless, my views do not make me more like evangelicals than like Fundamentalists. They simply make me more conservative—which puts me on the opposite side of Fundamentalism from virtually all evangelicals. I know of few places within either Fundamentalism or evangelicalism where my understanding of music would be welcomed.
By now, I’m pretty sure that even my friends are cringing. Sorry.
Fundamentalism has always been committed to the idea that the music (and other manifestations) of popular culture should be appropriated for use in worship and religious service. Whether it’s Rodeheaver (in the Victorian-Edwardian era), Wyrtzen (in the Jazz age), Peterson (who brought show tunes to church), Hamilton (whose work is just goofy), or the rock-rap-techno-glam-grunge-Indie-metal-Goth-funk-punk crowd, it all comes out to about the same thing, none of it good. Some Fundamentalists just want to stop with their version of popular music.
So am I actually a hyper-Fundamentalist? Believe me, I’ve asked myself this question. But I don’t think so, for the simple reason that I do not hold up my views on music as a standard by which to judge anyone’s standing as a Fundamentalist, nor do I seek to enforce my views upon anyone else. As I said to Lance Ketchum, the only rock concert to which I’ve ever taken my wife was a chapel service in one of the KJV-exclusive colleges. I’d have avoided it if I’d known, but I don’t question the institution’s bona fides as a representative of Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism has had no consensus on the question of music. As nearly as I can tell, even if you are a head banger, you can still be a good Fundamentalist. Plenty of them are. If that’s all that’s keeping you away, it shouldn’t.
Kevin
[Joel Tetreau]He’s probably in a trance speaking his ancestry’s German language!
Only you, Tetreau! Only you could think of such a thing :).
It’s getting late for us east coasters, but let me just clarify one thing. I’m not trying to call anyone out - particularly men like Mike Harding (who I know reasonably well and have much respect for) and Kevin Bauder (who I do not know personally, but have much respect for based upon what I know of him). I’m just trying to be a part of what I believe to be a very important conversation. And I’m searching for some answers to lingering questions in my mind. Hopefully, I can do that and do it with the right spirit. You’ll notice I have a whopping 11 posts to my name (maybe this will make 12)! That’s because I normally avoid these types of forums for fear of communicating poorly or being misunderstood. Anyhow, I know you weren’t implying any of that, necessarily, but just wanted to clarify my purpose for being here.
Thanks for your thoughts, friend!
Mark Mincy
I appreciate Kevin’s candid assessment of the FBFI and his efforts with the brethren. Twenty-seven years ago I was in the FBF and even had the opportunity to preach at one of their area meetings. (Where, BTW, I was scolded for quoting Thomas Manton.) When the MacArthur/Blood thing came up, I actually wrote a letter (remember those things?) to JM asking him about it. He wrote back and explained himself to my satisfaction, although I had to look up the word metonym in my dictionary. I took my letter to the next FBF fellowship I attended and was told I was being manipulated and to look out for JM and others. I began to realize that as a member of the FBF I was insignificant and that decisions, resolutions, and direction were in the hands of the few in leadership and membership meant little.
Today I could probably be labeled an old young fundamentalist and I’m happy with that. I serve in a great church where my fundamentalist convictions aren’t compromised and I’m not experiencing the sometimes petty bickering over things of little consequence.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron,
On behalf of Type B fundamentalist everywhere - not only are we presenting you with a free “Type B fundamentalist” T-shirt, “Type B - we’re just a group of friends” coffee mug (left over from the first standpoint conference back when we were just a group of friends) but Ron based on your great attitude, priceless experience dealing with Type A’s - we have determined that you my friend - you will be the head of our “Type B” resolutions committee. However - in order to be one of us, you will have to be “cool.” Yes that’s a major challenge for many of us. So in order to help with your image we shall give you a “tag” …. a “title” ….. a “nickname.”
You are hear knighted “Ronny-B!” (Hear-Hear!). This not only makes you “cool” - this makes you - wait for it………”Super Cool!” :)
Of course this makes you one of the “old-guys” in the young fundamentalist group - which is a delight! At 44 I’m always one of the “old” young guys or one of the “young” old guys. You tip the scales my man! Outstanding!
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;
[Kevin T. Bauder]Fundamentalism has always been committed to the idea that the music (and other manifestations) of popular culture should be appropriated for use in worship and religious service. Whether it’s Rodeheaver (in the Victorian-Edwardian era), Wyrtzen (in the Jazz age), Peterson (who brought show tunes to church), Hamilton (whose work is just goofy), or the rock-rap-techno-glam-grunge-Indie-metal-Goth-funk-punk crowd, it all comes out to about the same thing, none of it good. Some Fundamentalists just want to stop with their version of popular music.
Oh dear. This is certain to draw the ire of some (many?). But I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, you are one of very few willing to say such things publicly. It is acknowledgments such as this that I believe should guide us in our dealings with others on issues of a secondary nature. This is where the disconnect is for me with fundamentalism. I am not looking for consensus on the issue of music (or other controversial issues for that matter), because I don’t think it is possible or necessary (though certainly we should graciously challenge each other to be as God-honoring as we can be in these areas). So that is not what is keeping me away. What is keeping me away is that in my estimation most fundamentalists ignore the facts that you lay out in your post and live in blissful ignorance - thinking that there is and always has been consensus on issues like music. Therefore, when someone steps out of line with the “consensus” they are an immediate candidate for scorn, secondary separation, or public flogging. So, if I had to summarize what is keeping me away it would be one word: credibility (of which I earlier gave a couple examples).
Mark Mincy
Don,
Let me ask the same question in yet other words.
If I follow your advice, in detail as you give it, how will the world be different? In what ways do you imagine that it will be better, and in what ways do you imagine that it will be worse?
Kevin
[Kevin T. Bauder] What do you intend to see accomplished if I take your advice? What will changes will occur in evangelicalism and in Fundamentalism? How do you think the change in my approach will affect and be received by younger Fundamentalists, both those that are committed to the idea of Fundamentalism and those that are wavering between Fundamentalism and some version of evangelicalism? How do you think the change will affect and be received by the leadership of the FBFI? Of other Fundamentalist organizations?
As I see it there are roughly four groups that you influence. 1) There are evangelicals who are open/interested in fundamentalism and dissatisfied to disgusted with the evangelical left. 2) There are those from a fundamentalist background who are actively pursuing an evangelical identification/connection. 3) There are those who are dissatisfied with fundamentalism for various reasons and are wondering whether the evangelicals offer a better alternative. 4) There are convinced fundamentalists who are not hyper fundamentalists but are dismayed at the changes being seen in groups 2 and 3.
Of course, there are individuals who don’t fit exactly into any of the four groups – I am pointing at characteristics on a spectrum of ideas.
If you modify your approach along the lines I advocate there could be some changes in the way these groups respond to you. I could see those in group 2, the fundies pursuing an evangelical identification, simply tuning you out. However, I don’t think that would be true of the other groups. Those who are committed fundamentalists would be more willing to hear what you have to say. I can’t speak for the whole of the FBFI, for example, but if you appeared less as an antagonist and more as an ally, it is my opinion that you would get a better hearing amongst them.
I am not omniscient, so there may be other ramifications that I haven’t considered. As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thank you for your magnanimity. I am someone now. Your recognition has given me the motivation to award myself an honorary doctorate.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Don Johnson] I can’t speak for the whole of the FBFI, for example, but if you appeared less as an antagonist and more as an ally, it is my opinion that you would get a better hearing amongst them.I am not omniscient, so there may be other ramifications that I haven’t considered. As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.
My personal perception is that FINALLY someone has decided to vacuum their own living room instead of complaining about the soda cans and popcorn on the floor of the folks next door.
When you clean your own house, you have the credibility to offer advice about how to clean someone else’s.
IFBism has lost much of its credibility over the last few years. Someone made the point earlier that no longer can our leaders make pronouncements that have to be taken at face value. Most folks own or have access to tech that allows them to verify statements made from the pulpit, and it has been discovered that much of what has been taken for granted as God’s honest truth in the last few decades were disingenuous, exaggerations, manipulations, and outright falsehoods.
Credibility will be returned when the bar is set high and pastors/leaders rise to meet it.
The analogy that comes to mind is that the best marketing focuses on what my product or service can offer the customer. How will it meet your needs? Why is the best choice for meeting those needs? I don’t have to spend time running down other products and services in order to accomplish this. I don’t need talking bananas or chicks in bikinis or other hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye tricks (unless I am trying to deceive someone).
So IFBism needs to show why it is the best system for the advancement of Biblical faith and practice. Stop pointing fingers at the guy down the street and tell me what Fundies are doing to fulfill God’s mandates for the church and the individual Christian, and how best to fix and maintain our own house.
I think that some object to the Fundamentalist doctrine of separation, at least as it is often understood and practiced. Many, who agree that the Bible teaches separation, do not believe it requires, or even allows, the degrees of separation that many Fundamentalists practice. Too often, it seems to boil down to cutting off all fellowship from anyone who disagrees with me about anything, along with denouncing such Christians as heretics, compromisers, or, worst of all, evangelicals.
Along with questionable doctrine there are even more questionable attitudes. Too many Fundamentalists seem to believe that the mark of spirituality is the degree of approbation I heap upon others with whom I disagree. The louder I denounce, and the meaner I act, the higher my rank among fellow Fundamentalists.
To some observers, it appears that Fundamentalism simply seeks to provide doctrinal justification for what would otherwise be recognized as a very un-Christlike spirit, a cloak for ugly carnal behavior. But when this behavior is called into question, many Fundamentalists simply circle the wagons, and accuse the questioner of practicing un-Christlike behavior toward themselves. Fundamentalists, it would seem, are immune from criticism for their behavior toward anyone deemed to be “outside the camp,” but woe to the one who dares criticize someone, especially a leader, within “approved” Fundamentalist circles.
Brethren, until we can understand this problem, and humbly repent before God and change, serious-minded Christians who endeavor to develop Christ-likeness will depart from Fundamentalist institutions and churches. Until we are willing to receive constructive, Biblical criticism, and examine it honestly before God, Fundamentalism will continue its path toward self-destruction.
G. N. Barkman
[Don Johnson] As I see it there are roughly four groups that you influence.1) There are evangelicals who are open/interested in fundamentalism and dissatisfied to disgusted with the evangelical left.
2) There are those from a fundamentalist background who are actively pursuing an evangelical identification/connection.
3) There are those who are dissatisfied with fundamentalism for various reasons and are wondering whether the evangelicals offer a better alternative.
4) There are convinced fundamentalists who are not hyper fundamentalists but are dismayed at the changes being seen in groups 2 and 3.
Of course, there are individuals who don’t fit exactly into any of the four groups – I am pointing at characteristics on a spectrum of ideas.
If you modify your approach along the lines I advocate there could be some changes in the way these groups respond to you. I could see those in group 2, the fundies pursuing an evangelical identification, simply tuning you out. However, I don’t think that would be true of the other groups. Those who are committed fundamentalists would be more willing to hear what you have to say. I can’t speak for the whole of the FBFI, for example, but if you appeared less as an antagonist and more as an ally, it is my opinion that you would get a better hearing amongst them.
I am not omniscient, so there may be other ramifications that I haven’t considered. As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.
It’s been my experience that most of us dissatisfied with IFB / Fundamentalist ‘movement’ (again, whatever that means anymore - we need to define it!) fall into #3. I know I do. Then there are a few (#5?) who simply have given up on the whole thing and don’t care about labels anymore; they prefer to fellowship with anyone orthodox.
It seems to me that if Fundamentalism can stop being characterized by knee jerk reactions to contemporary issues and start presenting a credible case for who we are, what we believe, and how it works (which includes some of the ‘clean up’ that others have referenced) for what we believe, as Bauder has been trying to do, then the groups will start being more interested in joining or rejoining our ‘movement’. We’ll probably get a few of our own back too - and that’s where admitting our mistakes comes into play.
"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
[Jay]It seems to me that if Fundamentalism can stop being characterized by knee jerk reactions to contemporary issues and start presenting a credible case for who we are, what we believe, and how it works …
Jay, in the post two above yours, Susan said something similar, referring to “positive marketing” or something like that.
I don’t really see a mandate for that.
Instead, I think we are called to faithful ministry for the Lord, building disciples and proclaiming righteousness in our communities. Part of that ministry involves participation in or support of institutions of higher education that will perpetuate the same ideals. Not to bring the discussion from the other thread in here, but we must have schools that perpetuate fundamentalist ministry for fundamentalist churches. Hence, our preoccupation with what is going on in our schools and in the wider circles of fellowship with which we are involved.
We aren’t about empire building, contrary to popular misconceptions.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don - interesting observation. I am ~NOT~ arguing for empire building. I’m arguing for doing all the things that, IMHO, we should have done or been doing all the time. I’ve had enough of the “I am of Cephas” mentality of I Corinthians. I’m just saying that if we do those things, we’ll probably see the rate of people who do leave (or who have already left) slow and maybe reverse. Maybe.
I don’t care if a brother is a ‘conservative evangelical’ or ‘fundamentalist’ and couldn’t care less how many people are in our ‘movement’ - it’s not like I’d be interested in attending the next World Congress of Fundamentalists or something like that.
"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
Historic fundamentalism was noted by its exposure of and separation from theological error.
It seems today there is a fundamentalism whose primary identity is found in its zealous separation from brethren that it determines are in error. By their language and actions, it seems that some of them consider MacArthur, Dever, Piper and Mahaney apostates.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Don,
Let me follow up with what could be two simple and yet loaded questions that illustrate my point - “Why should I want to be a Fundamentalist like you? What exactly does that mean?”
Have fun :)
"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
[Don Johnson]As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.
Respectfully, brother Johnson, is that not a problem in and of itself, i.e., that they do not consider the criticism itself, irrespective of the critic who brings it?
This can get dangerously close to the attitude, “You’re one of us, so we’ll listen to what you have to say; as long as you don’t criticize us; because then you’re no longer one of us.”
Dan B, what Don is getting at is if Fundamentalists are compared to King David, they would have stoned Abishai. 2 Sam 16:11.
The whole idea that a person can only offer legitimate and acceptable criticism if he is accepted within the group just smacks of more of the same pride, ignorance, and rebellion to the truth in Christ. People are actually debating how to save fundamentalism. One person has proclaimed himself part of the last who can do it. Others doubt if that same person is even in the movement. Sad and melodramatic.
“You don’t want to sell me any death-sticks. You want to go home and rethink your life.”
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] The whole idea that a person can only offer legitimate and acceptable criticism if he is accepted within the group just smacks of more of the same pride, ignorance, and rebellion to the truth in Christ. People are actually debating how to save fundamentalism. One person has proclaimed himself part of the last who can do it. Others doubt if that same person is even in the movement. Sad and melodramatic.
And to add on to this, one looks at the amount of grief that Bauder is taking from sectors of the Internet and think that he’s advocated the crucifixion of believers.
Well, maybe that is a little bit of an exaggeration.
James - Nice ATC reference, there!
"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
[Don Johnson]As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.
I see what you are saying. Let me rephrase the above:
As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they see them simply as personal attacks and not as constructive criticism.
As an example, the post that follows yours is easily dismissable because the poster regularly uses intemperate language to simply attack his opponents. If there is any substance there, it is obscured by the rhetoric.
I have worked at changing my own language in posting, although it is very easy to slip into sarcasm mode. Throwing verbal bombs will not convince anyone.
And before someone brings up recent postings on my own blog regarding the use of the word apostasy, I, along with bro. Bauder, see the worldly contemporary ‘Christian’ music as part of the apostasy (the falling away). I don’t apologize for that view, I am a fundamentalist after all. But let’s not get into a harangue about music in this thread.
If we expect to persuade, we need to put a guard on our mouths (or keyboards).
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]I see what you are saying. Let me rephrase the above:
As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they see them simply as personal attacks and not as constructive criticism.
As an example, the post that follows yours is easily dismissable because the poster regularly uses intemperate language to simply attack his opponents. If there is any substance there, it is obscured by the rhetoric.
I have worked at changing my own language in posting, although it is very easy to slip into sarcasm mode. Throwing verbal bombs will not convince anyone.
And before someone brings up recent postings on my own blog regarding the use of the word apostasy, I, along with bro. Bauder, see the worldly contemporary ‘Christian’ music as part of the apostasy (the falling away). I don’t apologize for that view, I am a fundamentalist after all. But let’s not get into a harangue about music in this thread.
If we expect to persuade, we need to put a guard on our mouths (or keyboards).
Don,
I must say, and I am really trying to be as gracious as I can, but your last several posts (including your latest response to Kevin) have been decidedly under whelming. You are not winning the battle of ideas. And yet you seem to almost wear that as a badge of honor. Statements like: “I don’t apologize for that view, I am a fundamentalist after all” seem to imply that you aren’t truly interested in dialog at all. I urge you to consider thoughts such as Greg Barkman shared in post #199. Please do so. He communicates very well what I am convinced many people are thinking. When you use words like apostasy (again, however nuanced) to condemn people like Matt Olson it is irresponsible, at best. At worst, it is sinful. I know you’ve said that you published a list of questions for Matt to answer and he did not respond. Why would he? Why should he? Look at how you and some of the people you have cyber association with treat Matt! The astounding thing to me is that you treat heterodox, fringe troublemakers far more graciously than you do Matt! Look, I’m no Matt Olson apologist. I met him one time at a conference but he probably has no idea who I am. So I have no ulterior motive here other than I am simply dumbfounded by your (and other’s) treatment of Matt, especially in light of your (and other’s) silence on far more serious issues that I have noted earlier. I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. And this is where there is a huge disconnect between me (and I believe many others) and your brand of fundamentalism. And if your final word on these types of matters is “I don’t apologize for that view. I am a fundamentalist after all”, then I think many (perhaps even some in the FBFI) are going to ultimately turn and walk away. And sadly, they might just be right to do so.
Mark Mincy
Don,
Thank you for your responses thus far. Before I offer any response, I would like to ask you one further question.
To what extent do you believe that your answers reflect the thinking of the FBFI board and membership as a whole? You’re on the board, right? You’ve been privy to the behind-closed-doors conversations. I’m assuming that you’re in a position to know.
Pastor Harding, if you’re still out there, I would appreciate it if you would also answer this question. I believe that you and Don represent slightly different perspectives. It would be interesting to me to know if the two of you are reading the FBFI in the same way.
My thanks in advance to both of you.
Kevin
The comments I make here are my opinion, the board speaks through Dr. Vaughn and our Polycy and Position statements.
But I will say that this specific question has not been discussed (as far as I can recall) by the board. I have had some correspondence with other preachers since this thread began, one of them a board member. From that correspondence, at least that handful of people appears to agree with me.
But really, does it matter what the board thinks? I think that the kind of thing I am calling for is simply the right thing to do.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion