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
Jim,
What you don’t understand is the Calvinists that the anti-calvinists like all renounced their Calvinism. Or something. So they’re less not OK.
see: http://bit.ly/ViZbzz
EDIT: well I’ve edited this twice to correct my minor dyslexic errors. I hope the coin toss (irony!) came out right and it’s their and not thier. Either/Iether way, you get what I mean.
Don asked:
More broadly than that specific meeting, I wonder if you think your interactions with conservative evangelicals in general are having a positive effect on them, drawing them to a more biblical position?
I cannot speak for Kevin, but although my interactions with conservative evangelicals are not public like Kevin’s are, I must answer, “yes” to the above question.
Another good question was asked:
More broadly than that specific meeting, I wonder if you think your interactions with conservative evangelicals in general are having a positive effect on them, drawing them to a more biblical position? Do you think that these meetings/interactions have had any negative effects on the younger fundamentalists who are watching you?
I actually think Kevin’s interaction is having a positive effect, not just on younger fundamentalists but also on younger conservative evangelicals. I grew up in conservative evangelicalism and left it for fundamentalism because of the compromise I saw, but I have also seen that others who are barely even aware fundamentalism have also seen that the compromise has gone too far and some are looking for answers. If the only view they have of fundamentalism is Jack Hyles etal, then they will not understand the true Biblical separatist position. Bauder is giving them an opportunity to learn more about what we believe.
As ministers, our job is to disciple others- even evangelicals. If we are so separatist that we fear even having a conversation with them (whether public like Bauder has done or privately), then we have missed a discipleship opportunity and a chance for iron to sharpen iron.
[Andrew Henderson]Don, if Mark Dever were in your church and continued doing the same things that he is doing right now, would you practice church discipline on him? Thanks.
Nice attempt to distract from the topic at hand though…
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[JD Miller]I actually think Kevin’s interaction is having a positive effect, not just on younger fundamentalists but also on younger conservative evangelicals. I grew up in conservative evangelicalism and left it for fundamentalism because of the compromise I saw, but I have also seen that others who are barely even aware fundamentalism have also seen that the compromise has gone too far and some are looking for answers. If the only view they have of fundamentalism is Jack Hyles etal, then they will not understand the true Biblical separatist position. Bauder is giving them an opportunity to learn more about what we believe.
Well, I am a product of conservative evangelicalism as well. If Bauder is having such an effect, that is positive. I hope so.
And I would agree that if one’s notion of fundamentalism is only a vague idea based on some acquaintance with Hyles et al, then one would be left with a pretty poor picture, not very attactive.
[JD Miller] As ministers, our job is to disciple others- even evangelicals. If we are so separatist that we fear even having a conversation with them (whether public like Bauder has done or privately), then we have missed a discipleship opportunity and a chance for iron to sharpen iron.
It isn’t the private conversations that cause concern.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Nice attempt to distract from the topic at hand though…
Typical.
Andrew Henderson
[Don Johnson][KTB]…More broadly than that specific meeting, I wonder if you think your interactions with conservative evangelicals in general are having a positive effect on them, drawing them to a more biblical position? Do you think that these meetings/interactions have had any negative effects on the younger fundamentalists who are watching you?I think that these guys are much more aware of their need for a more serious consideration on separation than they new evangelicals did 30 years ago. They are way more serious about it than the mainstream Evangelical is today.
I can speak as a young fundy who is watching and I can speak for many others that I know….we’re moving in a more gospel-centric direction as our framework. We’ve seen where Fundamentalism goes when separation becomes the most important value…even more than the gospel… It leads to the kind of lunacy that is documented every day on stufffundieslike.com
So, whatever influence the Mark Dever types are having on what’s left of sane fundamentalism, a bunch of us young fundamentalists think it’s positive. Whatever little credibility we have left about separation that we can pass to them, will have some effect on the conservative evangelicals, especially when they see the continual erosion of the denominations as a result of loosing the gospel and any sense of separation from all defections from it.
As you know, however, defending a man’s character is easier than defending his every pronouncement. For example, you recently complained that someone ridiculed your article on the Hegelian dialectic. Yet your description of Hegelian dialectic contains little that would be recognized by anyone who had perused a serious book about Hegel, let alone read Hegel himself. Consequently, I find that you have left me with no answer for those people who wish to ridicule it.I must disagree here. Ketchum’s material does, in fact, reflect in principle many of the conclusions drawn in Hegel’s Science of Logic, trans. A. V. Miller, London: Allen and Unwin, 1969.
It appears to me that the conclusions or principles of his system identified in HSL, are simply applied by Ketchum. When he refers to the synthesis of the two extremes, this is classic Hegel.
[Andrew Henderson]Nice attempt to distract from the topic at hand though…Typical.
Don, I have to admit that Andrew has a point, and someone else made the same point earlier (re: Dever’s question about being accepted at the Lansdale conference). Dodging his question just makes you look bad…if you can’t answer the question, then why be snarky back at the questioner? What exactly DOES a person have to do to be accepted into ‘our tribe’?
Someone else asked this - At what point are we “warned enough” that the flood of warnings can stop? I think we all know that not everyone approves of everyone’s everything or every position. We’re all old enough to have figured that out by now. One would think that “conservative evangelicals” are part of Satan’s new world order or are Antichrist’s priests for all the screaming that’s done about them. I seriously think that people who spend so much time worrying about ‘conservative evangelicals’ or ‘fundamentalists’ just need to get out more and stop living in their hermetically sealed spheres.
As for the letter that Bauder wrote - I went to church on Sunday. We celebrated our great God’s provision for the last year, re-affirmed the men that are serving as deacons and the ladies that are part of the Servant Council, discussed our plans for the new year, and are looking to re-establish our Missions committee with an eye towards bringing on a new missionary at some point. I had a great time, and I did it without worrying who is ‘of my tribe’. I don’t know about places like Greenville or Minneapolis, but frankly, I’ll take any kind of orthodox brother or sister in Christ I can get out here in the state of New York. I don’t really care about labels out here because I really can’t be choosy about “CE’s” or “Fundys”…there aren’t enough to be choosy with. I suppose that some people have that luxury, and I find it amazing that some even want the ‘privilege’ of rubber stamping the right people’s credentials.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay][Andrew Henderson]Nice attempt to distract from the topic at hand though…Typical.
Don, I have to admit that Andrew has a point, and someone else made the same point earlier (re: Dever’s question about being accepted at the Lansdale conference). Dodging his question just makes you look bad…if you can’t answer the question, then why be snarky back at the questioner? What exactly DOES a person have to do to be accepted into ‘our tribe’?
I hate to defend Don (:D), but this just doesn’t seem fair to me. Don has made it clear where he stands. He would confront someone in his church that maintained the type of ties under discussion, and if that person failed to turn from his way, ultimately, church discipline would ensue. Anyone who’s read much from him should know that. So the question Andy poses doesn’t seem designed so much to elicit unknown information as to put Don in an uncomfortable and (here, anyway) unpopular position of saying “out loud” what most of us already know. It seems to me to be exactly what Don describes it as— an attempt to distract from a discussion of certain principles and the consequences of following them or not by asking a non-hypothetical brother to square off against another non-hypothetical brother in an imaginary and unlikely scenario.
One can disagree with Bauder but …
- He’s a Christian gentleman …. and I mean “gentle” in a Scriptural way
- He is very smart AND
- He is courageous
I appreciate the man!
I walked the main street of a small town (5000) early one morning and passed four independent fundamental Baptist churches that had each separated from the others over issues that were important to them. Each had a struggling bi-vocational pastor and a congregation that was convinced that they were the only good church in town. I struck up a conversation with a gentleman I met and asked him if he attended one of those churches. "No," he said. "They can't get along with each other; how are they ever going to get along with me?"
Dr. Bauder has demonstrated grace and brotherly love to brother Ketcham and has set an example for us in how to deal with a brother with whom we disagree.
If Lance considers those he criticizes apostates, false teachers, and/or unbelievers; he should say so.
If he thinks that Dever, MacArthur, etc are Christians, then they deserve better treatment.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Is brother Bauder’s essay, along with brother Ketchum’s. The subject is not what I might or might not do in a hypothetical and completely improbable situation. As such, Andrew’s question is irrelevant. And while I appreciate Dave’s attempt at my defense, since my practices aren’t the subject, his defense is also irrelevant. But I do appreciate the attempt.
I was critical of the conference at Lansdale when it happened. The most disappointing part of it wasn’t the headliners, though. However, that is now water under the bridge. I wonder is Kevin thinks the same of the conference now as he did before it happened. I also wonder about the other questions I asked earlier. It does seem to me that my questions were on the point of the debate between Kevin and Lance. I am not defending Lance or attacking Kevin. I just wonder about the things I mentioned.
Kevin can reply or not as he chooses. I’ll not be drawn into side trails that have nothing to do with the subject. That’s all.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
While Ketchum may “scold” (funny he gets the less honorable description along with other fundamentalists but when one fundie scolds another for being censorious it is suddenly reproving) but he certainly does not scold for “everything”.
Finally, it seems scolding is fine as long as it is from one fundie to another about being censorious (where is this again on the scale of things that natter since we are talking about scolding for things that matter) but not in reproving CE’s. One may not agree with the reproof but it seems a suggestion is being made to overcompensate for what must be the immature and indiscriminate mind and disposition of CE’s who cannot make elementary distinctions .
I do understand the intent of this letter and find that commendable but I believe it has some good room for rebuttal. I suspect Lance Ketchum will eventually respond. But one last observation which is that while open letter deals with personal reference, some significant portions of Ketchum’ s article were not addressed. Of course this may not have been the intent of this open letter but it does have its effect.
A year or so ago, I got a Facebook request out of the blue from Lance Ketchum. I did not know him or even know who he was but I accepted it. Not long afterward, he posted some statement about ultra-conservative and indefensible statement music and I responded (very politely) in the ensuing debate to point out a problem in his thinking.
Interestingly, he fired back and promptly unfriended me. That did not bother me so much because I did not know him in the first place but I did respond once more on the thread and mention how rapidly I had gone from “friend” to “unfriend.” His response? He unfriended me because he was practicing Facebook separation on me.
So, you can call Lance’s position a separatist or a factionalist if you want but in my mind, I have always considered him a pioneer “Facebook separatist.”
;)
[GregH]I had a FB friend do the same to me. He wrote something provocative; I responded; others engaged my response; I responded some more; he deleted all my responses but none of the others (which made the thread unintelligible) then unfriended me. Fortunately I had saved all my comments in Word, so posted my comments on my own blog!So, you can call Lance’s position a separatist or a factionalist if you want but in my mind, I have always considered him a pioneer “Facebook separatist.”
;)
He refriended me some time later.
p.s. doesn’t the book of Hebrews have something to say about not being able to refriend on FB after one has unfriended on FB!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Discussion