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.
It appears that you will only be satisfied with 100% agreement with your views. That is unlikely to happen, as I am sure you are aware. If you are so dead set against reading my views with charity, then don’t read them at all. It will help you keep your spirit in better shape, most likely.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]It appears that you will only be satisfied with 100% agreement with your views. That is unlikely to happen, as I am sure you are aware. If you are so dead set against reading my views with charity, then don’t read them at all. It will help you keep your spirit in better shape, most likely.
“Thou art the pot, I am but the kettle” :)
I wish you well, Don. I really do.
Mark Mincy
[Kevin T. Bauder] 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.
I’m going to be a little more pointed, and yet try to be gracious as well because there is a considerable amount of personal frustration with the FBFI that is bleeding over into this thread. From what I’m hearing and seeing of the FBFI, it seems to me that they are oblivious to the kinds of questions and concerns that are being voiced by people like me or people in the org that are unhappy or unsatisfied with the attitude and ideas espoused by the FBFI. This is exactly why I was so floored at Mark Minnick’s response to the Sweatt mess back in 2009.
Yes, I know that it seems like I’m pulling in disparate threads to weave a tapestry…but how many times does this kind of stuff have to happen before it becomes a pattern and problem at the FBFI instead of just a bunch of isolated incidents that we ignore? I was stunned at the complete non-answer that the FBFI posted in response to that mess. Why can’t they seem to figure this out?
I don’t get this. When I was in college and grad school, the FBFI had it’s act together and was a solid org that I wanted to join. Now it seems to be falling apart and I’m frankly alarmed at some of what’s going on in 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
There is no question that many will reject outright any criticism simply because it is criticism. Their sensibilities are too delicate to be confronted (see #208). They will screech and blast at others repeatedly. To them, truth is treated as something to be considered if it is palatable. The FBF is a fellowship. People are posturing for power within a fellowship. That should tell you all you need to know about its worth.
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.
Kevin,
Your question has to do with the overall opinion and disposition of the FBFI board toward the changes we have seen in fundamental seminaries and colleges as well as the aberrant segments of fundamentalism. Kevin Schaal is our current chairman. I find him a knowledgeable and fair minded man. I have known Kevin for 28 years. He is a grad from BJU, Calvary Seminary, and has a D. Min. from IBS (Sproul’s seminary). He and I would favor strongly keeping up our ecclesiastical fences between mainline fundamentalists and the conservative evangelicals, yet recognize their helpful contributions to defending the gospel and fighting certain kinds of error. Personally, I don’t attend or endorse conferences in the evangelical world. I believe I have a stewardship of influence (Mark Minnick’s terminology) over my own staff and many young men in the ministry who observe what I do. I would not have brought in Bruce Ware to speak on Open Theism to impressionable undergrad students. Bruce is a continuationist and a progressive creationist. Would I use some of his writings on the subject of Open Theism with my class? Yes. It is easy to qualify one’s use of a resource. I would not have brought in Holland to speak to my undergrad students in chapel. Holland is reasonably solid theologically, but clearly crosses the orthopathy line at his RESOLVED conference. I wouldn’t advertise at the Desiring God conference either. Piper, for all his good points, is a strong advocate of continuationism and positively interviews people like Rick Warren and Mark Driscoll giving credence to their ministries and philosophies. I certainty wouldn’t take a large segment of my student body to hear a Big Daddy Weave concert or tacitly endorse the CCM world that is filled with theological and ethical problems. My educated guess is that most of the men on the board would be in basic agreement with what I have just written. I thought that your interaction with Dever along with Doran was helpful to clarify our view of church government over against his view. Nor did I object to Minnick being interviewed by Dever regarding questions of where Fundamentalists stood on separation.
Where there is disagreement regards our disposition toward the aberrant segments of Fundamentalism. I have already stated my opposition to the KJVO, easy-believism, anti-intellectual, externally eccentric elements in Fundamentalism. There are some men who are tolerant of those elements. Such toleration is not defensible in my estimation. When good men resign the FBFI board over the toleration of those elements, it makes our job more difficult. We need to hear their voices of theological accuracy and fair-minded judgment. The FBFI board is in better condition today than it was before. We have had our problems internally and have dealt with them honestly. We are a fellowship, not a denomination, and we must resist acting as if we were a denomination. Where we have done wrong (and we have), we as godly men should honestly repent. Nevertheless, overall we are a group of sincere separatists who have signed a very strong doctrinal statement and endeavor to stand against the theological, cultural, and philosophical compromise that appears as a tsunami to engulf biblical Christianity.
Pastor Mike Harding
Don and Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. While I appreciate your replies, I think that I must have failed to communicate clearly what I was asking.
Don, by no means do I want you to speak for the board of the FBFI or to become its voice. We both understand that Dr. Vaughn has that job (though we can both remember one incident in the recent past in which another official assumed the responsibility).
Mike, I largely agree with your assessment of the current condition of Fundamentalism, especially as expressed in the first paragraph. I’m sure there are some small wrinkles of difference, but we both understand that there are times and places in which important aspects of the faith must not be de-emphasized, even for the sake of the gospel. Having said that, as helpful as your evaluation was, it really wasn’t what I was looking for.
I had previously asked Don for his recommendation of what he thought I ought to do. Then I asked for his assessment of how the world would be different and better if I were to follow his advice. He gave pretty clear answers to those questions.
Now I am asking each of you to give me your best guess as to the response that the various parties within the FBFI (both the board and the larger constituency) might make to his advice? What percentage do you think is likely to say, “Yes! Don nailed it, and that’s exactly what Bauder needs to do!”
What percentage is likely to say, “Don has some good points, but to make this advice workable it’s going to have to have something added or taken away.”
What percentage do you think will be saying “I sure hope that Bauder ignores Johnson’s advice, because we need him to be doing approximately what he’s doing now?”
Is this more clear?
Neither one of you can speak for the FBFI. But you both have some sense of who the major players are and how my acceptance of Don’s advice would be likely to affect the give-and-take within the organization.
Kevin
Jay,
I understand your frustration. Here’s what I would have you consider. There are good men in a variety of groups out there. Just be who God wants you to be. What’s hard is that some men who you love will look at you and you think they are saying, “shame on you Jay.” Actually a few might…..but most of them have been were you are and have had to work through these same kinds of issues - and have come to a conclusion as to where they will stand. While we think they (or even the majority of them) are “judgmental” of we who are not as conservative - the reality is most of them are not judgmental. Most of them are frankly gracious and loving. We’ve allowed a few excessively militant men to color our view of the whole group - and that’s not fair.
If a certain group does something you struggle with (like the FBFI) - we really need to just keep our eyes on the Lord and the mission that he’s given us. Believe me bro - you and I are not going to change “them” (whoever that is). All you can do is to be faithful with the mission God has given you and appreciate the brothers you can walk with to whatever degree you can walk. If someone is “doing” separation in such a way as to violate the Scriptures and/or to grieve the Spirit of God - it means we in some cases we will make an appeal and then re-evaluate how connected we can continue to be with those brothers based in part to how they respond to the appeal. In my view - the majority of the differences between the implication of separation is for the most part an “application” issue. We simply disagree with “how” (and that impacts “who”/”when” we might separate from another brother) one goes about separation. So (except for those that are clearly over the edge) with most brothers who are working hard not to be schismatic and yet on the other hand are wanting to pursue holiness (resulting in separation)….I think at the end of the day even if some are “more” or “less” separatistic than we think they ought to be - I don’t think this guy is our enemy. I think he’s trying to honor God with a clear conscience. At some level we ought to have some kind of a encouragement relationship.
So then how do I flesh that out for me personally? That means for me I will continue to reach out to men in a variety of contacts. We are “independent” but we line up fairly close to the approach taken by the GARBC and/or the IFCA. So then obviously it’s easy for us to reach out to men and ministries in that group or with that mind-set. The balanced men in the FBFI are to the right of me - but I grew up in that tent and love those men and frankly find that fellowship with many of them is natural. So as I can - I do. Equally, it’s easy for me to reach to the left of me and enjoy connection with brothers who would be where MacArthur and Dever would be on a variety of issues. I happen to find fellowship with those men equally natural! So with all of these other groups, there are points of disagreement, but with all of these men there is great agreement. In the main I try to focus on agreement. They have to answer to God just as I do. Remember for koinonia to be killed all together - it has to be more than they are “different” - they have to be clearly “disobedient.” (Jay - I know you know all of this - just seems worth repeating).
Jay - I’ll end with where I started. Just be clear on what you believe, who you are and enjoy being there! No matter what view you take, you’ll have some opposition. Like piranha in the amazon……it just comes with the territory! When you do that, you’ll be amazed at how many like-minded friends you’ll bump into!
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I’ve got to get out the door and make five visits, so my answer will have to be delayed.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Kevin,
What should you do? First of all, keep writing! Your lengthy posts and current articles are helpful to us. You are an articulate and thoughtful fundamentalist. Our fundamentalist movement, though very fractured, needs well-spoken, articulate, educated, and theologically accurate spokesmen to help navigate the theological, cultural, and philosophical issues that are inundating the average fundamental pastor. Second, please attend our fundamentalist meetings when feasible. This will help good men to get to know you as I do. Third, let some of our brethren who are considering crossing over to the Evangelical world know that the grass may not be nearly as green as it looks. I will not mention any names at this point. Fourth, be careful to maintain clear ecclesiastical fences between healthy fundamentalism and the evangelical world. In my opinion, the good and reasonable men in the FBFI will be open to your constructive criticism. If we are not, then shame on us.
Pastor Mike Harding
While most of the world may not care, it’s probably worth pointing out for the SI readership that my Nick of Time essays from last Friday, tomorrow, and next Friday were not prepared with an eye for the conversation that is going on here. Last week’s was a response to an immediate situation. This week’s and next week’s have been in the making for months—I pursued some of the research and roughed out the ideas back in October and November. The only thing that’s changed is that I had hoped to wait another week before publishing this week’s essay. But I ended up withdrawing the one that I wanted to go with because … well, just because.
Kevin
[Kevin T. Bauder] What percentage do you think is likely to say, “Yes! Don nailed it, and that’s exactly what Bauder needs to do!”What percentage is likely to say, “Don has some good points, but to make this advice workable it’s going to have to have something added or taken away.”
What percentage do you think will be saying “I sure hope that Bauder ignores Johnson’s advice, because we need him to be doing approximately what he’s doing now?”
I’ve been on the board for just the last two years, so I am not sure how accurate my sense of the whole board might be. The wider FBFI constituency would be even harder to evaluate since I am not as well traveled as some would be. However, let me make an effort at a response.
I think virtually no one would choose door number 3, whether they are “pro-Bauder” presently, or “something-else-Bauder”… No one likes to see division, and I get a sense that almost all of the men in the FBFI room are pro-fundamentalism in the post Graham era sense of the word, if that makes sense.
I suspect there might be some who think they could modify my suggestions. Often I am among that number. However, I think most would warmly receive a changed approach something along the lines I suggested.
I would also like to echo Mike’s suggestions, especially if you could get out to more meetings and get to know the men who support the FBFI’s efforts and values. I realize that isn’t always feasible, given the cost of travel. But it would do you and us good if we could see you more often.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Joel Tetreau]…Just be clear on what you believe, who you are and enjoy being there! No matter what view you take, you’ll have some opposition. Like piranha in the amazon……it just comes with the territory! When you do that, you’ll be amazed at how many like-minded friends you’ll bump into!
Thought I’d comment on this one, Joel. I agree with your advice in this post, just snipped it for brevity. Our applications differ, but ultimately, we don’t answer to men, we answer to God for the positions we take. We need to develop a scripturally informed conscience about separation and fellowship, then minister accordingly within our spheres of influence.
No matter where you finally come down, there will be those who misunderstand you or oppose you. But they aren’t our masters and we can’t please everybody. We need to look to the Lord and discern how he would have us serve.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I recently read, “Where everyone thinks alike, nobody thinks much.” The herd instinct is deeply ingrained in human nature, and is found in groups of every description, so this is not a criticism aimed at Fundamentalists alone. It is an observation about a weakness in human nature that we all need to recognize and resist. Nevertheless, it is one of the traits observed in Fundamentalism that some find disappointing.
I well remember the John MacArthur “blood of Christ” controversy. A few Fundamentalist leaders accused MacArthur of heresy because he said the the word “blood” in reference to salvation was a metonym for the death of Christ, a literary device where a part stands for the whole. “All hands on deck” is a commonly understood metonym. Nearly all Fundamentalists jumped on the “MacArthur is a heretic” bandwagon, following the herd rather than thinking through the issue. Most who examined this carefully came to the conclusion that MacArthur was correct, but I don’t think I ever heard an apology from those who accused him of heresy.
Both Joel and Don are spot on. Each of us needs to be his “own man.” We will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ individually, not in a group of fellow Fundamentalists. We will each be judged by our handling of Truth, not how closely we toed the fundamentalist line. That requires a willingness to listen, learn, think, and stand upon our own two feet, regardless of what others may think. I believe that is exactly what some Young Fundamentalists are doing. It seems that this is what some older Fundamentalists find threatening.
Can we agree that Fundamentalism, at its core, is the belief that God’s Word is Truth, and that each person should stand for truth as he has come to understand it? At the beginning, that meant being willing to separate from the herd mentality of liberals and compromisers, and standing alone upon the Word of God. Today, it may mean standing apart from some of the “official” fundamentalist positions and pronouncements to give greater allegiance to God than to men.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Both Joel and Don are spot on.
You have two guys who are both verbally proclaiming the message: “Being in good physical shape is important, so be careful what you eat and get regular exercise.” The first is 175 lbs. with running shorts on drinking water and eating fruit. The second is 380 lbs. with a Five Guys t-shirt on chugging a beer and eating a Big Mac while he watches “Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives” (which is a great show, by the way). Which one do you believe? The first guy comes off as someone who really believes what he is saying. The second guy just comes off as disingenuous. It takes a lot more than just saying it.
Pastor Barkman, I always appreciate your words. Thanks so much for your posts.
Dr. Bauder, I have been challenged by your words and your willingness to engage with men like pastor Ketchum. After many years of reading the material men like Ketchum write, I tend to just want to ignore and dismiss them. I appreciate your example.
Andrew Henderson
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm
Is there any record of Bob Jones retracting their criticism? I should say - “any documented record”?
By the way … Google “MacArthur Blood” and one will see how there are many IFB types who still attack him for this.
The second is 380 lbs. with a Five Guys t-shirt on chugging a beer and eating a Big Mac while he watches “Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives” (which is a great show, by the way).
Obviously, beer is the problem here.
Everyone knows that T-Shirts are the real problem there. :)
Jim, I’ve never heard a peep from BJU about retracting their slander. BJIII was supposed to have called him and apologized corporately, but I have not heard or seen of any kind of public announcement.
"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
So Kevin asks a brilliant question -
He’s wanting to know from Mike and Don what % of the FBFI believes this or that……
Hey why don’t we do that here at SI?
So a suggestion to the administrators and mod’s is you give like four or five or six different views of what fundamentalism is and how it should be related or inter-related with conservative evangelicals.
You could put “The Bauder View” (and then describe it)
You then could put “The Don View” (and the describe it)
You could come up with “The Matt Olson View” (and then describe it)
Maybe 2 or 3 other approaches. And then let’s take a poll here at SI. That would be fantastic! Just an idea.
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;
Dave Barnhart
Yo Dave,
What controversy? I’m just a loving guy here in AZ just trying to keep everyone happy!
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;
[Joel Tetreau]Well, I think that any time you try to “pigeonhole” fundamentalists as to which group they belong to, there will be a ton of objections as to why you didn’t do it right, or consider certain things, etc.And by presenting some of these differences, even if you don’t try to put everyone into one group or another, I think there will be just as much “heat” from the implied grouping that some will take away from it.I think it would be an interesting discussion, that’s for sure! You always seem to be able to spur those — maybe it’s *because* you are trying to keep everyone happy! :)Yo Dave,
What controversy? I’m just a loving guy here in AZ just trying to keep everyone happy!
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dave Barnhart
I realize that not many are still keeping up with this thread, but here goes any way.
I just read the description of the theme of the upcoming FBFI conference that Don posted and Dr. Bauder seemed to be excited about. In it we read, “This theme is especially appropriate in view of the fuzzy thinking today regarding Christ’s kingdom and the inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology into Fundamentalism.” Inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology into fundamentalism? Historically, have there not always been Covenant/Reformed people in fundamentalism? What in the world do they mean by that statement? What precludes a Covenant/Reformed person from being a fundamentalist?
If historically, Covenant/Reformed people have always been in fundamentalism, then the FBFI is speaking about its own little brand of fundamentalism. It seems to be another indication that they are not trying to protect the ideal of fundamentalism but rather trying to protect their small (and pretty much insignificant) camp within it. And they wonder out loud why in the world the younger to middle generation wants nothing to do with the FBFI. News flash: it does not necessarily mean that they are disgruntled, easily-swayed people who are on the very verge of leaving the faith.
If I am wrong on Covenant/Reformed people historically being in fundamentalism, please steer me straight. I want to be accurate. That is just my understanding.
Andrew Henderson
Will respond to Andrew later
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I want to apologize for something I said in my previous post. I claimed that the FBFI was “pretty much insignificant.” Although there may be those who feel that way and one could possibly argue that the FBFI is not as big as some of its members think, I said it out of frustration. It added absolutely nothing to the discussion. I have friends in the FBF and I appreciate them very much. I do feel like they are a rather small camp within the movement of professing fundamentalists, but I could be wrong there as well. I just do not pay close attention. But I am sorry for the attitude that accompanied those words. It was wrong and I apologize.
The rest of the post stands, I think. That is a genuine question, and I think one that may shine some light on at least one reason that many of the younger generation shies away from organizations like the FBFI.
Andrew Henderson
Andrew, you are absolutely correct, and this is one of the main things has bothered me with the current state of Fundamentalism. As Dr. Bauder has already documented on this thread, the Reformed or Calvinist perspective has always held a significant role in Fundamentalism. Covenant Theology has also been well represented. Although Reformed and Covenant Theologies are not necessarily the same, there is a significant amount of overlap. With Presbyterians, who have been involved in Fundamentalism from the beginning, the two are more likely to be equal, but even there allowance must be made for some exceptions, such as Carl MacIntyre and Donald Grey Barnhouse. However, such men have been systematically squeezed out of Fundamentalist schools, and are often made to feel unwelcome in Fundamentalist fellowships. Then, when such men find places of ministry among Conservative Evangelicals, they are accused of compromise and betrayal. Fundamentalism cannot have it both ways. Either welcome such men into appropriate Fundamentalist organizations, or stop denigrating them when they leave because you told them to.
The Dispensational/Covenant debate is more lopsided than the Arminian/Reformed debate. Calvinists have always been historically represented in Fundamentalism, as earlier posts on this thread have documented. Covenant Theology less so, but has also been present from the beginning until now. T. T. Shields was mentioned earlier by Dr. Bauder, a Baptist Fundamentalist proponent of Covenant Theology. Why should such men be labeled as dangerous to Fundamentalism? Somebody either has not read their Fundamentalist history very carefully, or else is trying to tighten the circle. If you narrow the circle to exclude those who were formerly included, why have those excluded suddenly become compromisers? They didn’t move. You did.
G. N. Barkman
As usual, excellent stuff, Pastor Barkman. I always appreciate and benefit from your words.
Andrew Henderson
Andrew, Calvinists were always part of the fundamentalist movement. However, when the fundamentalists all lost the battles, some of the bigger named Calvinists stayed away from the fundamentalist name. Machen was one. He was a Presbyterian (sadly), and he wanted that to be the identifiable category.
If you have read through this whole thread, you would see that the FBF is little more than a power grab society about who will wield power over churches and dictate who can and can’t say what. One need only to look at Don being afraid of Kevin saying something to persuade the young guys away from the current FBF version of fundamentalism. The very fact that this FBF could even have a guy like Dan Sweatt rant about Calvinism so ignorantly probably sealed the FBF as hopelessly beyond saving more than anything Kevin could/would say.
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.
[Andrew Henderson] I just read the description of the theme of the upcoming FBFI conference that Don posted and Dr. Bauder seemed to be excited about. In it we read, “This theme is especially appropriate in view of the fuzzy thinking today regarding Christ’s kingdom and the inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology into Fundamentalism.” Inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology into fundamentalism? Historically, have there not always been Covenant/Reformed people in fundamentalism? What in the world do they mean by that statement? What precludes a Covenant/Reformed person from being a fundamentalist?
What does it mean? It means that dispensational Baptists, which would include both the FBFI and FBBC, see the increasing interest in covenant theology in some circles as a problem. We are not trying to define fundamentalism, we are focusing on a problem that we see arising among some fundamentalists.
[Andrew Henderson] the FBFI is speaking about its own little brand of fundamentalism
You speak about that as if that is a problem, as if an organization should NOT promote its own values and beliefs. That’s a little bizarre, don’t you think? I mean, you don’t preach contrary to your own beliefs, do you? Or keep quiet about significant defining points that you hold? Why would you expect others to do the same?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
There’s a difference between an organization being about promoting its values and beliefs and an organization being about an organization. Hence Kevin’s line of questioning over at the main show on the front page of SI. Kevin’s line of questioning is I think in part meant to plumb the depths of your thinking on this very subject. Is Fundamentalism more about a set of good ideas, or about the power and influence of a movement. You would do well to keep going there on that forum.
The problem is with the wording. If it read, “the inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology among Dispensationalists,” I would not quibble. But this wording equates Dispensationalism with Fundamentalism, and Covenant/Reformed theology with ___________ what? Something that is not Fundamentalism.
Covenant/Reformed Theology has been a significant portion of Fundamentalism from the beginning of the movement. When Fundamentalist Conferences, for the purpose of defining and defending Fundamentalism (even Baptist Fundamentalism), exclude from their definition of Fundamentalism those who are not Dispensational, they need not be surprised if separated Fundamentalists who are not Dispensational feel unwelcome. How else could one interpret the description of the upcoming conference about “inroads into Fundamentalism.” One can’t make inroads if one is already present. If one is accused of making inroads, he must be on the outside, trying to gain entrance. Where does that place non-dispensational Fundamentalists? You ask why some are “defecting” from Fundamentalism? Perhaps they have been made to feel unwelcome and have given up. You can only be scolded so often until you seek more compatible company. It is almost certain that in some cases, men who are thought to have “left” Fundamentalism do not consider themselves to have departed. They still believe in the historic principles of Fundamentalism, but they have been “invited out” by fellow Fundamentalists. They have been told that they must be Dispensationalists in order to be considered Fundamentalists. But if their understanding of Scripture does not allow them to do so, where does that leave them? Why are such men leaving? In some cases, its because you have told them to leave, or at least that’s what they hear you saying when they attend your conferences.
G. N. Barkman
Fundamentalism is larger than dispensationalism. To suggest otherwise is incorrect. I have little knowledge of the FBFI, but what I have seen I have little problem with. I do, however, disagree with painting dispensationalism as an exclusive province of fundamentalism.
As for the inroads of covenant theology - I must say something, from the perspective of somebody who is in Seminary right now. There are not enough dispensational scholars writing. 75% of my texts, written by solid, conservative men, are covenant in their theology. It is no wonder why so many men find the theology attractive! There may also be a problem with seminaries not teaching dispensationalism appropriately. My current Pastor, who went to a well-known hard right fundy school that shall remain nameless, told me he was taught little more than, “dispensationalism is good, covenant theology and Calvinism is very bad.” I asked him about dispensationalism before I studied it, and he went to Wikipedia for the answers. I’m not slamming the guy, but perhaps this is more representative of the kind of academics fundamentalist colleges produce than we’d all like to admit. My Pastor is sheepish about his former college, and wishes he had not gone. He is much happier at Maranatha.
If the larger issue at hand is why covenant theology is making inroads, perhaps education is a place to start. I’m sure Don already knows this. My own perspective is quite narrow, so for what it’s worth this is my two cents.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
During the 1980’s there was some internal struggle within the GARBC. At one of the “Regular Baptists for Revival” meetings I heard a speaker ( Duane Brown?) give a description of the formation of fellowships that went something like this:
Step 1-A battle is fought and a standard is raised
Step 2-People rally around the standard
Step 3-An organization is formed to defend and maintain the standard
Step 4-Battles are fought to defend the organization and to observers the organization is more visible than the standard
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Since comments are closed on the other thread:
Kevin, I will grant you that serious mistakes have been made over the years by fundamentalists. Nolo contendere!
…The example you give, however… when did it happen? The offending statement was in a MacArthur newsletter in 1976, the issue erupted in 1989, it was clarified by MacArthur in a later restatement, published by Phil Johnson on the internet in 2000. (See the Soteriology section of the Wikipedia article on MacArthur - I know, I know, it’s Wikipedia, take it for what it’s worth.)
Interestingly, the Wikipedia article mentions BBN, not fundamentalists as a major player in this conflict. I don’t know if that is an accurate picture or not. But I do know that many fundamentalists “piled on” once the controversy came to light. I don’t excuse the pack mentality with which we went after MacA at that point.
…But you will note that we are talking about something that is almost twenty-five years ago. I remember all the discussion about it during the early days of Sharper Iron. Phil Johnson was involved in some of it, if I recall correctly. During some of that discussion, it was mentioned that Dr. Bob III made some contact with MacArthur to make amends in some way for his part in the issue. I don’t recall if it was a phone call or a letter, or what it was. The issue was an issue between the two of them, apparently it has been settled between them for some time. MacArthur isn’t calling for further action on it, is he? He probably hardly ever thinks about it.
But whenever a list of the egregious fundamentalist lapses is trotted out, this one is often one of the first ones cited.
…What are we supposed to do? Do we need to make an annual apology for a shopping list of past offenses? …Is that what we should do? Or something like it?
…It gets rather tiresome to hear these issues being constantly thrown in one’s face when they are ancient history and, in this case, as far as I know the principals have dealt with it (emphasis added). It isn’t my offense - and it probably isn’t your offense either, so why bring it up?
Now please don’t suppose that by saying all that I mean we should just forget about issues that involve fundamentalists. Things happen and they should be dealt with as they happen. Dr. Vaughn made an error a couple of years ago, there was a hue and cry on the blogs and there was some straight talk in the FBFI board room (emphasis added). Things changed. Issue over. Let’s move on. That is how things should be dealt with.
…There are a few things swirling around right now that may deserve some public comment in the next few months. You could compare speakers lists at upcoming major Baptist meetings and see if some eyebrows should be raised about one or two of them. On both sides of the fence, so to speak. But they are, or are about to become, current controversies.
The time for dealing with the old controversies has pretty well passed. When folks keep bringing them up, I wonder about their spirit. Nobody likes me to use the word “bitter”, but I wonder if someone isn’t bitter about something and is nursing these old offenses like a bad grudge. It isn’t just you that does that.
Don, I appreciate your frustration with this, so let me add one point to try and help you figure out where this is coming from and why it keeps coming up - there seems to be a disconnect in terms of ‘making it right’. You mentioned that BJIII wrote a private letter to John MacArthur assuring him that his position was solid. You also mentioned that ‘there was some straight talk in the FBFI Board room’ (for what I’m presuming was the Sweatt fiasco, but I’m not actually sure).
It is my opinion that a very public offense (two of them actually) necessitates a public apology. BJU attacked MacArthur in a magazine they published and did so without warning (according to Johnson). Sweatt hijacked a FBFI forum to preach ignorance and foolishness to an unsuspecting crowd that had his ‘targets’ in it, and then doubled down when it became a public issue. Yet now because they handled it privately, it’s supposed to be forgotten? We just ignore the damage caused to other brothers?
I had always been taught that the the scope of the offense determines the scope of the apology. If I get angry with my wife and don’t say a word, then I confess it to God and move on. If I get angry with my wife and yell at her and treat her harshly in private, then I need to make it right with her personally. If I blow my top at a Sunday School class and make a fool of myself in front of everyone, then I should apologize to the people present and my wife.
So why is it that if BJU or Sweatt makes a public mistake, they can get off by having a private apology or straight talk in a room where probably 99.999% of attendants will never even hear of that discussion, let alone actually hear it? This isn’t about ‘bitterness’ or ‘revenge’ - it’s about making a very public, very damaging offense right. If BJU can put out a press release apologizing for the racism thing - why not handle matters between brothers biblically as well?
"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
You will guess wrong almost every time, including this one.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Perhaps it would be best to not comment on the other discussion in this forum until complete.
I do recommend to the mods and admins that once the “Panel discussion” finishes over yonder, that they accept questions for the various participants “from the floor”. Perhaps via PMs to admins?
[Don Johnson]Don,You will guess wrong almost every time, including this one.
I hope you get the gist of the comment even if the guess was wrong. I think it’s especially pertinent since you have been making the same type of argument regarding Mohler and the Manhattan Declaration (an issue where I agree with you for whatever it’s worth).
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Don - so noted, but I’d appreciate it if you would comment on my point and not blow it off because I assumed incorrectly.
[Chip Van Emmerik] I hope you get the gist of the comment even if the guess was wrong. I think it’s especially pertinent since you have been making the same type of argument regarding Mohler and the Manhattan Declaration (an issue where I agree with you for whatever it’s worth).
I agree with you on this, Chip, and while I’m glad that Mohler has apparently recanted his signature, I wish he’d go public as well and demand that his name be taken off the website/literature or whatever. That, or say something in one of his high-profile fields (blog, Twitter, or whatever). What’s good for the goose and all that ;)
As for submitting questions via PMs to mods for the closed discussion forum - that is a GREAT idea. Good suggestion, David O.
"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
I don’t think apologies for someone else’s errors of the past are all that helpful. Here in Canada our government has made apologies to natives, to Japanese war internments, etc. It never ends the story. The next step is a demand for cash. In the case of fundamentalist apologies for the past it usually doesn’t go to the demand for cash, but does it satisfy? You still get the critics bringing up the same old issues. These apologies are a waste of time.
On the matter of making the circle of repentance as wide as the circle of offense - perhaps that is so in some cases. The parties themselves will have to make that judgement. In the case of MacArthur and the Joneses, it really should be MacA’s call as to whether he is satisfied with what has been said or done, shouldn’t it? Why is everyone else so zealous to be his champion? Is it really an offense against them? Hardly. Gothard called this one, “Taking up an offense.” It isn’t our business.
With respect to the Mohler challenge, I am not going after Mohler, but more going after Kevin’s statement that “anyone who thinks Mohler hasn’t repented doesn’t know what he is talking about.” (paraphrase from memory) It isn’t obvious to me that Mohler has thoroughly repented, so I think Kevin’s statement is a little strong on that point. I challenged Kevin on his statement, he responded, I am happy to let the matter drop.
On the matter of taking questions: I don’t mind taking questions either. I am a little bemused about this 2Kevins/Mike/Don private/public room. It was KTB’s idea, it does allow us to converse without a lot of extraneous comments, but it does seem to go against the democratic nature of blogs and internet forums. Perhaps if mods collected questions we could deal with them as topics for future discussion or as starters for regular threads.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Thanks for the reply. Sorry it has taken me a few days to get back on to the site. Crazy busy weekend.
I do not have any problem at all with an organization that wants to advance it own values and beliefs as long as they are not attempting to redefine the meaning of fundamentalism. If that is a hill that you all want to defend, more power to you. Just do not denigrate the younger generation for not wanting to defend that hill with you.
So you would readily admit that true fundamentalism is significantly broader than the FBFI, correct? And you would also readily admit that a Covenant/Reformed person can be just as much a fundamentalist as you and the FBFI, right? Am I reading that correctly?
Have a great day.
Andrew Henderson
[Andrew Henderson]So you would readily admit that true fundamentalism is significantly broader than the FBFI, correct? And you would also readily admit that a Covenant/Reformed person can be just as much a fundamentalist as you and the FBFI, right? Am I reading that correctly?
Hi Andrew, “Yes” to all questions.
As long as we are simply talking about “fundamentalists” or “fundamentalism”, there are men who are willing to do battle royal for the fundamentals in many different groups. Even in Arminian/Holiness groups.
However, at the present time, the majority of fundamentalists are dispensationalist Baptists, wouldn’t you agree? I suspect that is because of the hermeneutical philosophy of dispensationalists.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]However, at the present time, the majority of fundamentalists are dispensationalist Baptists, wouldn’t you agree? I suspect that is because of the hermeneutical philosophy of dispensationalists.
Without having any data in front of me, I would have to say “yes.” I do not know if it is, as you propose, because of the hermeneutical philosophy of dispensationalism. I would actually love to hear a further clarification of this thought and why you would say that. This is probably not the forum to do so. That would make a very interesting conversation at another time. Right now I am too tired to remember where I am. I also wonder how much of it is because those who hold to a more covenantal hermeneutic felt unwelcome in many of the camps within the “movement” of fundamentalism. I do wonder how many exist under the banner of today’s conservative evangelicalism who really would go under the banner of historical fundamentalism. In other words, if they were doing the same things 50 years ago that they are doing today they would have still been considered fundamentalists.
Andrew Henderson
A couple of decades ago, I attended a World Congress of Fundamentalists in London England. One of the speakers gave a history of Fundamentalism, and included Dispensationalism as one of the leading characteristics. A number of delegates were not amused, to put it mildly. Almost nobody present from Great Britain or mainland Europe was a Dispensationalist, with the exception of American Missionaries. I can testify that these delegates were highly offended. It seemed to them that Fundamentalism was being defined so as to exclude them. That is not what you want to do at a Fundamentalist Conference, especially when it was located in London for the express purpose of involving European Fundamentalists in the movement.
As an American who grew up in Dispensationalist Fundamentalism, I did not take offense the same way my European friends did. I understood the landscape, and chalked it up to unfortunate provincialism. It does, however, illustrate an important point. The American speaker defined Fundamentalism from an American perspective, and a fairly narrow one at that. He did not intend to define non-dispensationalist Fundamentalists out of the movement, but that was the result. He was guilty of insensitivity to many godly men who stood courageously for truth and opposed error, some at great personal sacrifice. From his American perspective, the speaker was not far off the mark. From a wider perspective, he missed it badly and created unnecessary barriers that ran counter to the purpose of the conference.
I hope the readers of SI will try to understand this issue from the perspective of those who are Fundamentalist in their convictions, but not Dispensationalists. On the one hand, I hear some of you lamenting the departure of too many young Fundamentalists towards Conservative Evangelicalism. “Why would they want to do so? How can we bring them back? How can we keep others from doing the same?” On the other hand, you want to defend your right to enshrine Dispensationalism as a fundamental of the faith. I agree you have the right to do so, at least in those organizations such as the FBFI which represent Independent Fundamental Baptists, which probably make up a majority of present day Fundamentalism in America. But is this wise? The FBFI has a nearly 100 year history. Dispensationalism was not in their original doctrinal statement. It was inserted later. Perhaps some could be forgiven for wondering if somebody hijacked the original organization for partisan purposes. Please think this through carefully. If a young Fundamentalist comes to believe that Reformed/Covenant Theology is correct, where is he supposed to go? If you insist that he doesn’t belong with you, please don’t blame him if he goes elsewhere. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t draw the circle tighter than its original historical dimensions, thereby excluding some who formerly were included, and then cry “fowl” if those you have excluded are now outside the circle. What do you want? A Fundamentalism that is inclusive of those who have historically practiced its tenants, or a smaller Fundamentalism that excludes many who were formerly included?
G. N. Barkman
[Don Johnson]
- I don’t think apologies for someone else’s errors of the past are all that helpful. Here in Canada our government has made apologies to natives, to Japanese war internments, etc. It never ends the story. The next step is a demand for cash. In the case of fundamentalist apologies for the past it usually doesn’t go to the demand for cash, but does it satisfy? You still get the critics bringing up the same old issues. These apologies are a waste of time.
Don,
I think part of the point for many men, and part of what Kevin is emphasizing, is that the issues don’t go away because the apologies don’t actually come. I don’t think we can really declare they are a waste of time, since we don’t usually see them. For me, personally, the tipping point with the FBFI was the Sweatt incident. It is just one example of fundamentalists weakly attempting to sweep conflict under the rug and “get past them.” Dissidens said something regarding that particular incident that I think fits this discussion in general, “My salient objection, then and now, to the notion that some indiscretions of the past should be forgotten is simple: they are not yet in the past. They are the stuff of today’s business. It is fundamentalism’s culture.” There are so many issues like this, that just pile up and fester because they are never actually dealt with. MacArthur is a perfect example. Of course the circle of repentance should be as big as the circle of offense. When wouldn’t you counsel this within your church body? When wouldn’t this be a biblical principle? But, here we are, as you say more than two decades removed and the defenses are still being put up.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
For those of you who have heard me say things like this before, I’m sorry. I find it’s legitimate to repeat myself because I’m wanting to say some things for those who have not been here earlier…….back when I said much more than I say these days.
This continues to be one of “the points” I’ve been trying to make over the last ten years or more. I would say that historic fundamentalism would include men who today would call themselves 1) conservative evangelical, 2) fundamental, 3) Baptist who are Baptist “in belief” and “on the sign” 4) Baptist who are Baptist “in belief” but not “on the sign” 5) Dispensational 6) Reformed.
OK friends - I very much believe that the implications of what Jesus taught and practiced in the Gospels……and the implications of what we see in the early NT church in the epistles means that we can have some level of cooperation with all of the above mentioned #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and those that are a combination of #’s 1-6. I’m not saying if you are a #2 / #3 like FBBC that you have to have the exact same kind of warm fuzzy relationship like a near-by-ministry that is a #1 / #4. I would say that you ought to be able to have some kind of a relationship if indeed the implications I believe are actually legitimate.
One of the reasons I really am against the kind of fundamentalism Don wants…..or Lou wants……or what other very militant Type A’s want - is that too often these guys make certain belief’s/standards/views equal in importance and effectively placed on the same level of importance and authority as the “Deity of Christ,” “Justification by faith alone,” “the atonement,” etc….you know “the real” fundamentals of the faith.
What this continued back and forth between Kevin and Don demonstrate is 1) The Type As owe as much to Kevin Bauder in preserving a responsible remnant to the movement of self-proclaimed fundamentalism as President Obama owes to Bill Clinton for saving his neck in the DNC! 2) OK - I don’t know how else to say this than to draw a picture in your mind. Imagine Type A fundamentalism as a ship - you might call it the “SS FBFI.” It’s sinking. So here’s Kevin - one of the high ranking officers on this ship that is sinking - Captain Kevin here is pointing out where the ship has leaks, encouraging fellow “SS FBFI” types to help stop the leak and then Don - another officer (I’m not sure about his rank) - is yelling at Kevin - “Hey, shut up about the holes!” Kevin asks “why?” Don answers, “Well other sailors might not want to get on board if they know we’re sinking!” Poor Kevin keeps on trying to explain to Don, “Yes but this ship was made to float on top of the water - it was never designed for a total submersion.”
Meanwhile I and a whole fleet of “Type B” canoe’s (and Type C yachts) are trying to pick up the survivors - At the same time Don is yelling at Kevin - He’s yelling at the poor guys in the water, “hey - whatever you do don’t get into that little canoe with Tetreau!……You’re better off drowning!” And Don wonders why his ship has fewer and fewer sailors on board! Wowzers!
OK - That’s my attempt at a parable. Later friends!
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I jumped off the leaky boat awhile ago when I realized the captain(s), who had commissioned each other, seemed to have one quest, to keep their boat afloat. I like my canoe.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Andrew Henderson]I do wonder how many exist under the banner of today’s conservative evangelicalism who really would go under the banner of historical fundamentalism. In other words, if they were doing the same things 50 years ago that they are doing today they would have still been considered fundamentalists.
The reason why dispensationalism prevailed amongst most fundamentalists is an important discussion, but it is fine to leave it for another time. Others might be better able to explain it than me, probably KTB would do a fine job.
As to this question, would the CEs doing the same things as today 50 yrs ago be considered fundamentalists…
I don’t think so, because that would be 1963. If you said 60 years ago, then the answer would probably be yes. There was a huge change between 1953 and 1963 and that makes all the difference. You can’t ignore that change, and it wasn’t the fundamentalists who changed.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Joel Tetreau]Poor Kevin keeps on trying to explain to Don, “Yes but this ship was made to float on top of the water - it was never designed for a total submersion.”
Joel,
This sounds like the beginnings of a “mode of baptism” discussion, maybe? :)
Just kidding. I enjoyed your parable.
Mark Mincy
[Chip Van Emmerik]I think part of the point for many men, and part of what Kevin is emphasizing, is that the issues don’t go away because the apologies don’t actually come.
On that point I would agree. That is one of the failings of the past, no doubt. What I am arguing for is that the idea is more important than raising a hue and cry about the past. When you constantly raise criticism of these past errors, you simply reinforce the notion that there is nothing left worth saving. That is the message that gets communicated, in spite of how much you might protest that there is a fundamentalism worth saving.
[Chip Van Emmerik] For me, personally, the tipping point with the FBFI was the Sweatt incident. It is just one example of fundamentalists weakly attempting to sweep conflict under the rug and “get past them.”
Well, I am sorry that you think that way. I have not defended what Danny said, but have defended what I think he was trying to say. He said it in a poor way and it did alienate people. However, when we have these meetings we don’t check preacher’s notes before they get up to speak. They are speaking to us, not for us.
Perhaps that is not enough of a distinction for some. But consider this: next week Mike Harding is our keynote speaker for the Northwest FBF. I will do one of the minor sessions (I think I get an 8:30 am slot, will anyone be awake?). No one is going to check Mike’s notes before he speaks. Should they? No one is going to check mine. Should they? We don’t think so. Men are invited to speak who have been a blessing in the past and we think they might have something to say to us. Sometimes they lay an egg. Sometimes those eggs are ostrich sized. I don’t think that will change the policy where we will ask men to submit their notes before we approve their invitation.
[Chip Van Emmerik] MacArthur is a perfect example. Of course the circle of repentance should be as big as the circle of offense. When wouldn’t you counsel this within your church body? When wouldn’t this be a biblical principle? But, here we are, as you say more than two decades removed and the defenses are still being put up.
Well now… that all depends. I am not sure that I see the circle of offense lingo in Scripture, so I am not dogmatic on this point. But having said that, who was really offended in the MacArthur case? Does the circle of offense include everyone who takes offense?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So I mentioned in my last point that historic fundamentalism includes many who today might call themselves 1) conservative evangelical, 2) fundamentalist, 3) Baptist w/ the label, 4) Baptist w/o the label, 5) dispensationalist and 6) Reformed.
Opps I missed another group…….
7) There are many within historic fundamentalism that are not Baptist - like our “militant about the gospel” Presbyterian or Methodist or “other” friends. Wow - major “woops!”
My apologies to the ACCC and other “not-really-baptist-but-for-sure-fundamentalist” thank you very much!
Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - in the words of Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs (1600-1646), “opinionum varietas et opinantium unitas non sunt hasusta” (“variety of opinion and unity of opinion are not incompatible”)
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
On that point I would agree. That is one of the failings of the past, no doubt. What I am arguing for is that the idea is more important than raising a hue and cry about the past. When you constantly raise criticism of these past errors, you simply reinforce the notion that there is nothing left worth saving. That is the message that gets communicated, in spite of how much you might protest that there is a fundamentalism worth saving.
Don, so this was a failing of the past? And you talked about it as a failing of the past where? And you try to put right the failings of the past where? Your entire effort is to protect the fundamentalism worth saving, not by saying where it’s wrong, but by only saying where it’s right. That kind of protection isn’t protection. It’s a farce of a rear guard action, kind of like Napoleon or Hitler in Russia in the winter. In your effort to protect, my generation sees disconnect.
Fundamentalism need to see less of the “he means well, the old geezer is a bit off his rocker” form of damage control. It needs a positive vision that is willing to hurt the feelings of the old geezers when they are really going crazy (with due deference of course).
Discussion