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,



*—see 2 Thessalonians 3:11.

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?



Like you, I am more interested in just working through the questions than in debating. That’s why I’m taking so long (and spending so many words) on them. It may very well be that the interaction will underline some inconsistency in my own thought, and I’ll have to make adjustments. If so, it won’t be the first time.

Now, if you’d used three power tools and a firearm, that would have been a red-letter day.


Mark Dever was my former pastor, Ken Endean my uncle, and Stephen Jones my dad’s boss, so I thoroughly enjoyed the comments section here, Dr. Bauder. They all “get it” of course. They get it differently based on past experience and context, but I do think God is doing something to unite certain people around certain truths. I think a great part of that is the incredible collapse of the culture. We find out what’s really important in political and social times like this.

Dr. Bauder, can I ask what encourages you most about the conservative evangelical movement? Is there any part of it in emphasis, tone or spirit that jumps out at you as more healthy than fundamentalism in a surprising way?

So these are a few “random thoughts” and “observation” that come from both from my interaction with what’s happening here in AZ and what I see in my regional ministry with “IBL West”. Over the years of writing and interacting with this topic of the fundamentalists-conservative evangelical collaboration (The ABC thing and what Bixby calls the emergent movement) - I think around the country at least 4 things have happened especially from those who are some-what connected to what is loosely called “Young Fundamentalism

1. First, many of us who grew up with a certain view of “no-connection” with anything outside of self-proclaimed fundamentalism have rejected that. Within the more seminary-trained, non-KJV only wing, the majority of us don’t buy it. The result of that is that we are fundamental in idea but we simply do not work hard at ministering only with a certain type of ministry that calls itself by a certain “tag.” I’ve said this before. We studied Greek, Hebrew, Theology, Church History, Exegesis and Hermeneutics, then we applied those disciplines to questions like “is it exegetically plausible that we should have complete separation from guys like Mac - treating them as if they were guilty of Billy Graham kind of ecumenism?” or “Do the Scriptures give any evidence that certain fundamentalist sub-culture convictions on a variety of topics are consistent with the text?”

2. Second, many of us have had to think through where we stand within what I call the Type B/Type C coalition. For me and others while we have more in common with the Mac-Dever-Johnson kind of guys than we do with the Type A KJV preferred, “Greenville-music-only” kind of ministry; many of us are still more comfortable with the philosophy and approach to ministry represented by Doran-Bauder-Jordan-Davey-Olson-Horn (yes there are minor differences between those guys but they basically take very similar stands). BTW - a major reason I still lean towards the B side of the isle is that in my opinion my dear friends in the C side are still too enamored by contemporary culture. That’s a broad statement and maybe unfair - but it’s my view. I would say that this area is one of the ways “we” help “them.” We are slow to adapt to culture - they are too quick - in my view. (Of course I still use my Daytimer so one should take my view of this with more than a grain of salt!)

3. Third, many of us have determined to continue to have contact with a variety of “kinds” (even “camps” - a term I really don’t like) of ministries - but at the end of the day I still prefer a modified version of fundamentalism that is exegetically & theologically careful, historically aware, not harsh but is open to having a certain kind of co-ministry with certain kinds of evangelicals……on certain kinds of occasions. I still say last year’s heart conference with the B guys (which I’m missing right now!) had better preaching than even what I get every year at Shepherds - and what we get at Shepherds is fantastic!

4. In my view - when the “B” guys have “face to face” interaction with the “C” guys - man, our guys hold there own. They do more than that - they often carry the day. I would pay whatever and fly anywhere if we could line up the “B guys” with Mac, Dever, Mohler, RC Sproul, Piper and CJ and let them do exactly what they did in Lansdale. Having said that I appreciate what Kevin is saying about how we gain much from some of these dear cons evangelical brothers. There is no question that both sides do help each other (at least in my view).

It still remains my hope that the B and C worlds will continue to mix - I think for the strength of God’s work. A fifth point here might be that the B and C worlds do mix “big time” in the trenches. That is we pastors in churches here and there all over the country - we are usually quick to meet for coffee and prayer and even an occasional joint ministry project with a dear Southern Baptist Brother, a Community Church Pastor or the Evangelical Free guy down the road that graduated from TEDS……and we still show up at the FBF or GARBC meeting with our more militant friends. I don’t think this will end anytime soon.

Straight Ahead!


Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (; Regional Coordinator for IBL West (, Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Dr. Kevin Bauder is not doing anything new that warrants the attacks against him. Some of these writers out there would have us believe that fundamentalists never held some levels of communication and/or fellowship with conservatives outside of their camp. It is just not true. So, don’t be gullible and fall for these writers who try to present what Bauder is doing as some type of surprise of an apocalyptic nature.

Fundamentalist history and Baptist history have always included men who were Calvinistic in their theology. But, now these writers come along and present it as some another type of apocalyptic surprise when it is not.

For me personally, Joel hits it on the head. For many of us, the drift is not to wholesale abandon fundamentalism and to fully embrace evangelical movements. The enamoring is out of the fact that there is another group of people who don’t talk and walk exactly like us, but are serious and intentional about the gospel. What is encouraging for many of us are the interactions. I would personally prefer to see something that fits in the middle between these camps. There is a lot about fundamentalism that the younger generation doesn’t like. There is a lot of old baggage. And that taints that movement. There are also some concerns on the evangelical side that prevents us from just wholesale embracing this movement. I think the interaction is good and healthy for all of the reasons that Dr. Bauder points out. And I would prefer to see more of it. I think there is a lot that movement can teach fundamentalism and there is a lot that fundamentalism can teach evangelicals. I think we sit on a high horse when we think that we are compromising any of the Gospel by talking to these groups. I think we need to start thinking longer term and about value and not get so hung up in “ancient” scare tactics that continue to loom around fundamentalism.

As far as movements and ‘abandoning Fundamentalism’ goes- what is a family supposed to do when all the IFB churches in their area are dysfunctional in some way, or fail to engage with the text and context in their preaching and teaching? Then when that family visits other churches as a last ditch effort to find a local congregation, they find a couple of CE and Reformed churches who take very seriously the gospel, sound doctrine, the fruits of the Spirit as a measure of holy conduct (instead of the usual- pants and movies), and govern their church Biblically? Oh but wait- they are Calvinistic. That is supposed to be the kiss of death, when local IFB preachers are under indictment for sexual crimes, their wives and children are involved in immorality, their trustees and deacons are unethical, and they send out evangelists that have serious legal/criminal issues?

You’ve GOT to be kidding me.

This isn’t just an issue for the big names who go to conferences and publish books and have popular blogs. This is a problem for moms and dads and young people who want to be able to worship in a relatively healthy church that loves and abides by the Word.

Some of us haven’t moved away from Fundamentalism- Fundamentalism left us. The measuring stick should never have become about movements and labels and camps, but a fidelity to Scripture.

I appreciate Dr. Bauder’s approach because it serves as a good example to Joe Sixpack (of Coca-Cola, of course) and Suzy Homemaker in how to handle those tensions and struggles with Biblical interpretation and application we have to face daily, as well as how to deal with our brothers and sisters in Christ.


Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.


Sorry for the delay. I want to take time to get to your last question. Do I think that the effort to converse with conservative evangelicals would be worthwhile going forward, considering the results so far and the possibility of negative influence upon younger Fundamentalists? I suppose that I’ve already answered this question implicitly, but let me deal with it explicitly.

The basic question (is interaction worthwhile) is qualified by two possible objections: the lack of visible results outside Fundamentalism and the possibility of negative effects within Fundamentalism. Let me respond first to the objections, then deal with the question.

One objection is the lack of visible results in terms of seeing conservative evangelicals move closer to Fundamentalism. The problem is that visible results are always a hazardous indicator. For one thing, all results are not visible. How do you measure the number of Christians (whether evangelical or Fundamentalist) who did not engage in further compromise because of your teaching? You would have to know in which compromises they might have engaged.

As I expressed previously, I’m not necessarily looking for John Piper or Mark Dever to throw up their hands and say, “Woe is me! I’ve been so wrong all along!” What I am looking to do is, first, to stake out an “epistemological space” within which Fundamentalism is a viable option; second, to persuade evangelicals, incrementally and by sustained interaction, that a genuine separatism (not only separatism over the gospel, but also a carefully-articulated secondary separation) is most faithful to the biblical teaching of church unity and purity; and third (and perhaps most importantly) to provide a clear rationale for younger leaders to embrace the idea of Fundamentalism instead of simply abandoning it for whatever version of evangelicalism.

The second objection is that conversation with conservative evangelicals presents a hazardous example for younger Fundamentalists. I have already conceded that certain hazards do exist and that an unintended effect of these conversations may be to provide the excuse to leave Fundamentalism. In response, these are the factors that I consider. First, those who think that they can discover such an excuse in anything I’ve said are already disposed to leave Fundamentalism—in other words, I provide only the occasion, not the cause. Second, this number is much smaller than the number of those who will find in my teaching a rationale for embracing a full-orbed Fundamentalism. Third, to the extent that they do embrace a full-orbed Fundamentalism, they may be tempted to distance themselves from Fundamentalist institutions that send out an uncertain sound—or, worse yet, that send out a clear sound that is certainly wrong.

There is a difference, however, between abandoning institutions and abandoning Fundamentalism. The institutions are suffering right now, and what they are suffering from is not merely a problem of perception and image. Some Fundamentalist institutions need to exhibit genuine repentance and to initiate genuine change. The best way to make Fundamentalism attractive is not to throw mud at conservative evangelicals, but to clean the mud off of Fundamentalists. While I am merely an external observer, it seems to me that Bob Jones University is providing a healthy pattern for how that kind of change might occur.

You want to know who is most responsible for young men leaving Fundamentalist institutions? I’ll give an example. When the FBFI met in Schaumburg, we had a number of young leaders from Minnesota who attended. They went with the best of intentions, but they left completely perplexed. On the one hand, they heard some very good, doctrinal, expository preaching (Minnick and Hartog, for example). On the other hand, they heard a couple of rants and a panel discussion in which several speakers demonstrated that they had virtually no idea of what worldliness was. When one of these young pastors approached a muckety-muck FBFI official with questions about this discrepancy, he was simply told that it was none of his business.

That episode was followed by Rick Arrowood’s refusal (based, I believe, on bad information and false perceptions) to allow Central Seminary space for a display at the FBFI conference. He was within his rights as a pastor to decide who could appear in his church—no problem there. But what happens to the second F in FBFI when this sort of thing occurs? That one decision probably did more to blacken the name of the FBFI than almost anything that has occurred in the past decade. Is it any surprise that I cannot persuade Minnesota pastors to take any interest in the FBFI?

That’s just one illustration. The fact is that every time some blogger hammers Doran or Jordan, every time some preacher rails against them in a sermon, or every time some fellowship passes a resolution against them, these objectors convince another contingent of young leaders that Fundamentalism isn’t worth wasting time on. I’m not talking here about those who raise reasonable questions, as yours have been to me. Every one of us should value the sharpening effect of thoughtful interlocutors. I’m talking about the (funda)Mentalist types who, like Patrick Jane, seem to possess some uncanny ability to read minds and to tell you what Olson or Davey are really thinking or trying to do. The only problem is that they almost always get it wrong.

By the way, I’m also regularly targeted by these types. Personally, I love it! They can’t hurt me (or Doran, or Jordan, etc.), but they give me loads of free publicity. They help me sell more books than my publishers do. Furthermore, because their attacks are so clearly out-of-bounds, they gain sympathy for me that I could get in no other way. At the personal level, I’m actually grateful for their opposition. I don’t ever have to dignify them with a reply, but I come out the winner. The problem is that Fundamentalism comes out the loser, because too many people assume that they represent what Fundamentalism really is. For that reason, I grieve over the damage they do.

Let me put it this way. You want to help? Then spend less time worrying about me, and more time challenging … no, I’m not going to give them the satisfaction. Just spend more time challenging the periergouzomenous. They know who they are, and so do you.

Do I think that continued conversation with conservative evangelicals is worth pursuing? I’ll get to that question later.


I am a regular reader of sharper iron who doesn’t log in and post, but I feel compelled to comment on this topic because I am one of the young fundamentalist that has been affected by Dr. Bauder and Dr. Dorn. I am 31 years old and the pastor of a small church (about 140-150 Sunday morning attendance), in which I also grew up, that is a member of the GARBC and has a fundamentalist background. We are located about an hour from Cedarville University and a significant portion of our church members have graduated from Cedarville, so as Cedarville has become more broadly evangelical our church was influenced in that direction. I personally have an undergraduate degree from Cedarville and a master’s degree from Liberty. I say all that just explain how I am very much a young church leader who grew up out of a fundamentalist background and was advancing fully into conservative evangelicalism.

The one thing that stopped my progress in that direction was the discovery of the ministries of men like Dr. Bauder through his articles on here and Dr. Doran through his messages on sermon audio. Listening to and reading these men was honestly the first time I saw that the choice wasn’t between going all in with the T4G crowed or going all in with the Pensacola, HAC, KJV only, easy believism, anti-Calvinistic crowed. When the choices are between those two groups it is a no-brainer to with the conservative evangelicals. When I encountered Dr. Bauder and Dr. Doran I realized that those where not that only two choices, but there was a third option, a fundamentalism worth saving. That there are fundamentalist who are sound expository preachers, who are Calvinistic, who are thoughtful about translation issues, and though they point out disagreements they don’t treat godly men like MacArthur and even John Piper as the enemy.

Five years ago when I became a senior pastor I would have identified myself as conservative evangelical and rejected the label of fundamentalist. Now I describe myself as being on the boarder of conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism, right between John MacArthur and Mark Dever on one side and Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder and the like on the other side and my current movement is more toward fundamentalist side.


I had to laugh at that one. You know, we Canadians just don’t get the American fascination. That’s not to say there aren’t gun owners and users here, but most of us don’t possess them. I think I might have shot a firearm maybe twice in my life. Can’t recall any more than that.

But I digress. I will work on a reply… copied out your original article, my first set of questions and your replies. At 10 pt Arial single spaced it works out to 6.5 pages so far. But first I am preparing a Bible study on Isa 32 for tonight. Will get back to you later on all that, and it sounds like you have at least one more reply coming my way so I may wait till that arrives before starting another round (if you have time for more).

Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

A few months ago, I attended my first annual conference of the ACCC (American Council of Christian Churches). Registered delegates included Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Bible Churches, and I don’t know what else. I found Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Calvinism, Arminianism, Pre-mill, A-mill, etc., represented. But all were united in the defense of the historic Christian faith, and all enjoyed wonderful Christian fellowship together. Nobody denounced anyone because of the differences listed above. There was an implicit understanding that Fundamentalism has always embraced these variations. This is what the Fundamentalist movement was like in the early years. What happened?

G. N. Barkman

[G. N. Barkman]

A few months ago, I attended my first annual conference of the ACCC (American Council of Christian Churches). Registered delegates included Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Bible Churches, and I don’t know what else. I found Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Calvinism, Arminianism, Pre-mill, A-mill, etc., represented. But all were united in the defense of the historic Christian faith, and all enjoyed wonderful Christian fellowship together. Nobody denounced anyone because of the differences listed above. There was an implicit understanding that Fundamentalism has always embraced these variations. This is what the Fundamentalist movement was like in the early years. What happened?

About what happened:

  • Egos
  • Personalities
  • Machiavellian politics
  • Stupidity

Thank you for the prompt about the ACCC. I had forgotten about them. I think you’re right when you say that they are not on the radar of the younger generation.

It’s a great group. The only problem I found was that their fellowship philosophy was not passed on to the local level in some of their churches. For instance, one church that hosted an ACCC meeting and has had brother Colas preach for them is very anti-calvinistic. Another church that is represented is strongly opposed to anything that is not Calvinistic while also being intolerant of fundamentalists who aren’t Baptists.

“When we all get to heaven!”

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan


So, at the end of the day, do I think that the efforts to persuade conservative (and other) evangelicals should continue? My short answer is yes, I think the conversation is worthwhile—partly for the sake of those with whom the conversation is conducted, but even more for the sake of those who overhear it. I have two main reasons.

The first reason is, perhaps, obvious. Public interchanges are one of the best ways of placing one’s beliefs on display and holding them up for inspection. Being a Fundamentalist should not be a matter of mere tribalism. It should be a matter of conviction. Where convictions are in play, then reasons must be articulated, limitations must be recognized, qualifications should be offered, nuances should be explained. Christian faith and practice is an intricate thing, rather like a fine timepiece. If you want to know how the watch works, you have to know what each part does and how it connects to the other parts. If your watch is broken, you want somebody with steady hands and a delicate touch to work on it. Too often, Fundamentalist repairmen simply take a sledgehammer to the thing. What we need to do is to display our most important ideas in all their beauty and intricacy so that people can inspect them and see how they work. For that reason, the conversation should continue.

More than that, the conversation is also what highlights the differences between Fundamentalists and other evangelicals. I don’t think that anyone left the Lansdale conference without understanding why and where Doran and I differed with Mark Dever. Of course, they also understood why and where Dever disagreed with us—but they understood it because they heard him say it, not because we made some accusation. While the conversation was, I think, charitable, it was also very pointed.

People who attended my ETS session with Al Mohler now understand at least one major difference between Fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism. That difference involves a particular application of secondary separation to gospel believers who make common cause with gospel deniers. They heard my reasons for thinking that Billy Graham was an indifferentist. They heard Mohler’s reasons for thinking that he was not. That disagreement ought to be pretty plain.

The same is true of a presentation that I did at Beeson Divinity School back in—what?—2001? The good folk at Bob Jones University engineered it so that I had the opportunity to debate the merits of Fundamentalism with Richard Mouw (by no means a conservative evangelical). My presentation later became a chapter in Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail (ed. Timothy George). The fascinating thing was that hardly any of the attendees in the very broadly evangelical audience had ever heard a cogent presentation of Fundamentalism. After my presentation I could hardly find an opportunity to sit down as I was inundated with queries who simply wanted to understand more about how Fundamentalism worked. Through the rest of the conference (Mouw and I went first), virtually every other speaker felt called upon to extemporize a response to my presentation. The difference was clear! Later on, one evangelical pastor said to me, “Please don’t stop talking to us. We desperately need to hear what you’re saying.” He has not become a Fundamentalist, but he is closer to it than he might otherwise have been. [Incidentally, one unintended consequence of this appearance was a public rebuke from Richard John Neuhaus because I had said that I did not think that Roman Catholicism is Christianity.]

At least two kinds of Fundamentalists converse with evangelicals. On the one hand are those who carry on the conversation because, at heart, they are really drawn toward the evangelical world and they would like to get closer to it. On the other hand are those who think that Fundamentalism is a great idea and who want to broadcast it to the evangelical world (which does desperately need to hear what we have to say). These two kinds of Fundamentalist may look the same to the inattentive, but they are as different as tomato juice and Tabasco. You cannot judge one by the flavor of the other.

Look, I lived fifteen years of my life in nearly constant contact with evangelical institutions. Given a choice, I’ll take Fundamentalism any day. I do not choose it because we are better or more virtuous people (we are still sinners), but because Fundamentalism as an idea is closer to biblical truth than other evangelical options. I can grant full recognition and express full appreciation for the genuine contributions of other evangelicals while insisting that Fundamentalism as a position is better and more true. I do not have to be angry with them or to try to besmirch their reputations. But I do believe that I am obligated to make the case for the truth.

What I’ve written is almost certain to provoke a whole host of other questions—probably more than I can answer in a single lifetime. Doubtless it will also provoke some disagreement. Both should be welcome among brethren who respect each other. So the ball’s in your court, and I’ll try to circle back and respond as I’m able.


I know this sounds cyncial…but who in the world is Lance Ketchum and why does his opinion warrant so much of Dr. Bauder’s explaining himself?

As sort of an outsider, he just seems to be a guy with a real outdated website.