An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum
Dear Brother Ketchum,
Over the past couple of months my attention has been directed to several of your writings, some of which mention me. While I do not make a practice of responding to unsolicited criticisms, two factors have influenced me to write to you. The first is the fact that we have labored together in the same corner of the Lord’s vineyard and have come to know each other well enough to speak frankly. The second is that, while I know you to be an honorable man who would never willingly misrepresent a brother, your recent writings have contained a sufficient number of misunderstandings that I have heard people question your credibility. So I am writing to you simply to set the record straight, I hope in a way that is charitable.
One of your concerns is that you believe you have been ridiculed, particularly within the Minnesota Baptist Association. You state, “I have talked to a few men in the leadership of the Minnesota Baptist Association of churches regarding these issues. My comments were received with a smirk of derision and ridicule.” Since the only board member of the Minnesota Baptist Association whom you mention by name is me, people are likely to infer that I have ridiculed you, or perhaps that I have encouraged others to ridicule your pronouncements.
Actually, I don’t recall having heard you ridiculed, either in public or private, by any board member or pastor of the Minnesota Baptist Association. Personally, I respect you too much to subject you to mockery. I have witnessed God’s grace in your life. I have watched you face severe trials with equanimity, treat opponents tactfully, and persevere both in faith and in ministry. While we disagree about some issues, I believe that you are a man of honor and a man of God. If I heard someone attack your character, I would want to be one of your defenders.
As you know, however, defending a man’s character is easier than defending his every pronouncement. For example, you recently complained that someone ridiculed your article on the Hegelian dialectic. Yet your description of Hegelian dialectic contains little that would be recognized by anyone who had perused a serious book about Hegel, let alone read Hegel himself. Consequently, I find that you have left me with no answer for those people who wish to ridicule it.
The same may be said of your remarks about John MacArthur. You state, “John MacArthur is a hyper-Calvinist, believes in Lordship salvation, Presbyterian polity, uses CCM and Christian-rock in his church ministries, and is undoubtedly a New Evangelical.” Some of your allegations are certainly true: for example, John MacArthur does believe in Lordship salvation. Some are beyond my knowledge: I really do not know whether MacArthur uses CCM or “Christian-rock” in his church ministries, though I know of many fundamentalists who do. (The only rock concert to which I’ve ever taken my wife—inadvertently—was a chapel service in one of the King-James-friendly Bible colleges). Some of your observations are simply not accurate. MacArthur’s polity is not so much Presbyterian as it is Plymouth Brethren. No historic definition of hyper-Calvinism can imaginably be applied to MacArthur. Only the most pejorative standards would classify him as a New Evangelical. When people ridicule you for making such accusations, it becomes very difficult to defend you.
As I recently glanced through your writings, I discovered that I myself had been similarly misinterpreted. For example, you stated that I have “regularly criticized people for criticizing Reform [sic] Theology, especially Reformed Soteriology. Under [Bauder’s] paradigm, anyone believing that Reformed Soteriology is unscriptural, and is [sic] willing to say that publicly, is outside of his acceptable Fundamentalism.” Well, there is a grain of truth here. I have on a couple of occasions said that we do not need to fight about Calvinism. But the fact is that I myself believe that some tenets of Reformed thought are unscriptural, and I am willing to say so publicly. For example, I do not believe in Limited Atonement as it is traditionally defined. I have actually written about some of the areas in which I differ with Reformed theology, and I see no particular problem in allowing others to express their disagreements as well. The question is not whether we may disagree, but how. The kind of disagreement that would label John MacArthur as a hyper-Calvinist is clearly not helpful. It is the kind of thing that invites ridicule. Though I disapprove of aspects of MacArthur’s soteriology, disagreement does not deliver me from the obligation to represent him fairly.
The same can be said of the following sentence:
When professed fundamentalists such as Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Douglas McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, and Dr. Dave Doran begin to defend men like Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever, C.J. Maheney [sic], and Rick Holland (to name a few), it becomes very apparent that there has been a considerable change in direction regarding the practice of militant separation.
You seem to think that it is unacceptable to defend men when they are falsely accused. Well, I am willing to defend these men from slanders against their character or false statements of their views, in the same way that I am willing to defend you. Nevertheless, at a great many points I have challenged their views: in some cases over miraculous gifts, in other cases over church polity, in yet others over contemporary methodologies. I have attempted to persuade them that fellowship and separation involve more than simple adherence to the gospel (some of them already understand this to varying degrees). I think that I can defend their character while disagreeing with some of their theology, just as I do with you.
If you scold a child for everything, then she will pay no attention when you scold her for the thing that matters. Something like this has happened with the incessant fundamentalist scolding of conservative evangelicals. If you want to open the way for competent fundamentalists to articulate our differences with conservative evangelicals, your best approach is to expose and reprove fundamentalist periergazomenous* whose only spiritual gift appears to be censoriousness.
“But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you…though we are speaking this way” (Heb. 6:9, NASB). You are an honorable man, and that is why I have felt comfortable offering both clarification and exhortation. I trust that you take my words in the charitable spirit in which they are intended.
With affection,
Kevin
Notes
*—see 2 Thessalonians 3:11.
Untitled
Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)
Thy Name, O Christ, as incense streaming forth
Sweetens our names before God’s Holy Face;
Luring us from the south and from the north
Unto the sacred place.
In Thee God’s promise is Amen and Yea.
What are Thou to us? Prize of every lot,
Shepherd and Door, our Life and Truth and Way:—
Nay, Lord, what art Thou not?
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 808 views
As always, I am amazed at certain people who throw rocks at people constantly from their blogs but complain about “pejorative language” when someone throws a pebble back.
Amazing…
During Jesus’ earthly ministry two institutions among the Jews operated almost exclusively of each other: the synagogue and the Temple. the Temple’s *shadows* (see Hebrews) were fulfilled for the most part during Christ’s first advent. The local church’s functions were patterned after the synagogue and consisted of bible reading, teaching, encouragements, Lord’s Supper observance, and others. Paul and the other Apostles were the wise master builders who established the practice.
Meeting together as a local church is primarily to represent God: “let everything you do be with God’s ability.” the local church is not like the Temple where presentations were made which signified various things. Church ministry is not about performances or presenting something to God rather it is representing Him: Consider the Lord’s supper as proclaiming Christ’s death until he comes back. The Christian shows his appropriation of Christ’s sacrifice to himself and so the observance speaks (to do this slovenly in a drunken state would ruin the witness for Christ and so the Corinthians were severely judged).
I said all of this to challenge the idea that Christian meeting together is primarily concerned with performances or presentations. It is not. Rather local churches function primarily to build up the Body of Christ.
Music without lyrics is amoral, it cannot be “right or wrong.”
[Kevin T. Bauder]I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ…
So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian.
Kevin
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Don,
Let me ask you a question. In an ideal world (by your understanding of ideal), what would you want Kevin Bauder to do? Other than drop off the face of the earth, how could he best invest his time and gifts?
This is not a trick question. I’ve given you my reasons for doing what I do.
Now, tell me what you think I should do.
Kevin
So one quick comment - I love the interaction here fueled by Kevin’s thinking. I would hate for that to be shoved over by this thought. At some point in time it would be good to do a separate thread on Kevin’s statement:
“I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ….So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian.”
Two or Three quick responses that might be reserved for a future thread:
1. If you can’t prove it from Scripture (and Kevin, you can’t) it is not legitimate to equate one’s approach to music to the importance of a Fundamental of the Faith.
2. If the statement is consistent then a failure in music (as a failure in the Virgin Birth) cannot make you a bad Christian. If you miss the Virgin Birth, you miss salvation, which means you aren’t a bad Christian, you are a non-Christian. One can hardly say if you miss “music” you miss salvation. (I’m sure this was not the aim - but in my view this is a reverse implication if Kevin’s view goes full circle).
3. The only way this might be true is when one’s music is so “anti-God” and/or so “anti-Gospel” that it would make impossible the understanding of God or the reception of the gospel. (The overwhelming amount of CCM music that is being used by serious-minded evangelicals and theologically responsible fundamentalist are using gospel-centered music that clearly get’s the gospel across. To equate what they do in music with missing the virgin birth is a “stretch” to say the very least - come on guys! You have to do better than this.)
Straight Ahead!
jt
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;
O Alex O,
Let me get this straight. You say that the church is not like a temple, then you cite 1 Corinthians 3, in which Paul declares that he has laid the foundation for the [local] church as a temple. So even though the church is a temple (specifically, a naos), and even though its members constitute a priesthood, it never gathers to present any offering to God? It never worships?
OK, if you say so.
Now, let’s see: you cite 1 Corinthians 3, in which Paul claims to be the wise master architect who is establishing the pattern for the church. You might also have added 1 Timothy 3, in which he states that he is mandating church order. And yet somehow the church is supposed to have got its “functions” (by which I assume you mean its mission, elements of worship, structures, and forms) from the synagogue?
OK, if you say so.
I’m not going to argue with you. Consequently, if you’d like, you may alter my locution. Whatever music you use to speak about God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ.
Of course, that’s not the topic of this thread, and we’re not going to go down that rabbit trail. But surely you must have studied the arguments against your assertion that, ‘Music without lyrics is amoral, it cannot be “right or wrong.”’ At some point (not here, not now) I would be very interested in seeing you defend that proposition. It suspiciously like an affectation of late-20th-century American evangelicalism.
[Kevin T. Bauder]Don,
Let me ask you a question. In an ideal world (by your understanding of ideal), what would you want Kevin Bauder to do? Other than drop off the face of the earth, how could he best invest his time and gifts?
This is not a trick question. I’ve given you my reasons for doing what I do.
Now, tell me what you think I should do.
Kevin
Man, way to go….
Now the glare of the flashlight is squarely in my eyes! I’ll have to think that over and get back to you on it, but a fair challenge.
I do have to get back to the study for tonight, though.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Joel,
Yes, I think that it can be Scripturally demonstrated, to about the same extent that any other practical application can be Scripturally demonstrated (including the practical application of the gospel). Furthermore, you are correctly drawing out the implications of my statement. 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.
Anyone who wishes to trace the elements of my thinking can see my recent essay in The Artistic Theologian on “Why Pastors Should Be Learned in Art and Music.” Or approximately that title.
But as you say, that is not the topic of this thread. I’m not willing to go down that road here. It’s worth noting, however, that this point distinguishes me, not only from most other evangelicals, but also from most Fundamentalists.
Kevin
Don,
I’ll be praying for your specifically as you are in the pulpit tomorrow. Please do the same for me.
Kevin
[Kevin T. Bauder]O Alex O,
Let me get this straight. You say that the church is not like a temple, then you cite 1 Corinthians 3, in which Paul declares that he has laid the foundation for the [local] church as a temple. So even though the church is a temple (specifically, a naos), and even though its members constitute a priesthood, it never gathers to present any offering to God? It never worships?
Of course the local church is a temple and the individual Christian’s body is a temple also. I was speaking of the Temple with a capital T: the second temple which operated according to the Law and its specific presentations.
OK, if you say so.
Now, let’s see: you cite 1 Corinthians 3, in which Paul claims to be the wise master architect who is establishing the pattern for the church. You might also have added 1 Timothy 3, in which he states that he is mandating church order. And yet somehow the church is supposed to have got its “functions” (by which I assume you mean its mission, elements of worship, structures, and forms) from the synagogue?
OK, if you say so.
I see nothing in I Tim. about presenting to God music of a certain kind and not another.
No, the synagogue had Scripture readings, explanations, and encouragements, as I mentioned, similar to what the local church was to do in its meetings.
I’m not going to argue with you. Consequently, if you’d like, you may alter my locution. Whatever music you use to speak about God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ.
I want good words not stricture to a style.
Of course, that’s not the topic of this thread, and we’re not going to go down that rabbit trail. But surely you must have studied the arguments against your assertion that, ‘Music without lyrics is amoral, it cannot be “right or wrong.”’ At some point (not here, not now) I would be very interested in seeing you defend that proposition. It suspiciously like an affectation of late-20th-century American evangelicalism.
God made all things including music. The devil doesn’t have “a music.” You are the one who made the statement, I responded to it.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
I tried to respond to each paragraph, it didn’t do what I expected.
Of course the local church is a temple and the individual Christian’s body is a temple also. I was speaking of the Temple with a capital T: the second temple which operated according to the Law and its specific presentations.
I see nothing in I Tim. about presenting to God music of a certain kind and not another.
No, the synagogue had Scripture readings, explanations, and encouragements, as I mentioned, similar to what the local church was to do in its meetings.
I want good words not stricture to a style.
God made all things including music. The devil doesn’t have “a music.” You are the one who made the statement, I responded to it.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
God may give resources and skills but what we build with those things merely because the ability and materials stem from God is not defacto good. God made the church but there are plenty of crooked churches. Circular reasoning will have you chasing your tail.
Kevin,
I have an idea we can cover all of this later. Just a short response. Frankly it really doesn’t bother me that you and the “Beethoven guys” view music the way you do. I push back only because I fear that others will pick up your views and then use them as a tool to divide more than Heaven would wish. I respect the fact you have the right to interpret Scripture and draw implications to music and worship. There is so much of our theology and even methodology which is fairly close, your views on this while irritating is hardly a fellowship-killer as far as I’m concerned. It’s not your conservative stand that concerns me as much as the effect of brothers being able to minister with other brothers who differ on this. In other words because I do not see this as a “fundamental of the faith,” I have to challenge your position that it should be treated with an equal amount of importance as a “fundamental of the faith.” I know you share my passion that we must protect against unbilical separation and I fear if you guys go unchallenged we could end up with more unbiblical separation - which we have too much of already! If you promise not to share this with anyone else - my personal and frankly even our corporate music is pretty conservative. Almost shockingly so. Frankly the only people that would find our music not conservative enough would be you “Beethoven guys” and then the “Greenville Gang” Type people. Which means we are still pretty conservative! As I say this is a side note - please you and Don and the rest continue the main dance here. I’m cheering you all on here on my Lawn 4000, my cup of cider and of course the warm SI camp fire that is prepared with lots of marshmellows for our after “thread” fellowship where we all hug and reaffirm our very real (even if in some cases “limited”) appreciation for each other!
Well - you all have a great Lord’s day. Excited about another day of worship here at SVBC.
Straight Ahead!
jt
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]…the “Beethoven guys”…
Joel - Just remember, Beethoven’s music is ok, but his hair is not :). Just a little central New York humor…
Mark Mincy
[Andrew K.]I certainly did not and am not arguing the certain sounds are in and of themselves immoral. I do appreciate your acknowledgement of the principle of crookedness and its parallel with junk food, I might go even further and say it is consumable but poisonous in some cases.Yes, but saying something is bad or poorly constructed is a bit different than saying it is morally corrupt or evil, isn’t it? And the music that we might consider “evil” isn’t inherently so (that is, the notes, noises, and arrangements), but is only morally corrupt based on the interpretation based on the author’s intentions and the web of meaning provided by the community from which it arises and to which it belongs.
Music may be poorly constructed, as a house. It may be unhealthy in large doses, like junk food. But is it then immoral? I think there is a confusion of categories here, from the “functional” to the ethical.
If someone could truly convince me that music, apart from lyrics, could communicate “good” or “evil” value I and many others I know would delete all our CCM. The problem is that, for most of us, no compelling Biblical argument has been given. If anyone has one, I would appreciate them sharing.
But to the issue of music’s morality which I agree that in and of itself, it does not have a moral value. However, this is for one obvious reason, music does not exist in and of itself, it exists for affect and effect with humans and other creatures with auditory capacity. So, if we conclude that no formula can be provided regarding music’s moral value in and or itself, therefore we can simply accept all of its forms, we evaluate in a vacuum where the impact of its properties on the listener is absent. Thus, CCM or any music, sacred or entertainment based, is to be evaluated regarding not merely its construction but the impact of that construction which results in observations that certain musical forms consistently elicit base and carnal passions while others steer us toward higher order thinking further resulting in various propositions regarding sound forms with respect to their affects and/or effects.
Which is precisely why it is a valid issue regarding partnering with ministries and transferring trust to them via such partnering.
Godwin’s Law needs a corollary…since any discussion threads for fundamentalists will, inevitably, have Spurgeon, Calvinism, or music introduced eventually, especially as the thread goes on.
Just a little humor to start the week off, guys and gals. :)
"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
Discussion