An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum

I’ve really appreciated the various responses to Don by Kevin. I would only add a little “addendum” from the shadows of the cacti.

In Kevin’s 5th response to Don - he gives a hypothesis that there are two types of fundamentalists who “converse” with evangelicals:

1. Those who at heart are drawn closer to the evangelical world because they enjoy it as a whole.

2. Those who believe fundamentalism is a great idea that the evangelical world needs.

I would only add one more kind of fundamentalist who would converse with evangelicals

3. Those who find the occasional evangelical brother who believes and loves the exact same kinds of things he believes and so the occasional contact sparks a deep love/relationship or at least a real appreciation for each other.

(I can imagine that in some scenario’s this kind of “conversation” or “relationship” is not sourced in a fascination with the evangelical world at large nor an attempt to convince the evangelical brother of the merits of fundamentalism [as an idea or movement] ). It simply is an organic relationship energized by the Holy Spirit.

A quick thought - for whatever it’s worth.

Straight Ahead!

jt

who in the world is Lance Ketchum and why does his opinion warrant so much of Dr. Bauder’s explaining himself?

Bauder will need to speak to this himself but here’s my hypothesis:

• Lance is somebody. He was a leader in the Minnesota Baptist Association and was the state missionary / representative for a number of years
• That being said you have a “disturbance in the force” in the MBA with his writing about Bauder and Central Seminary
• Additionally Lance’s blog quotes have been picked up maliciously by another (with a wider influence than Lance) to attack Bauder / Central Seminary

Just a couple of corrections and more info:

Lance Ketchum has had a lengthy career in the ministry. He is currently pastor of Shepherd’s Fold Baptist Church in Hutchinson, MN http://www.shepherdsfoldbc.org/.

He was formerly state missionary for the MBA friom 2001-2007. He has been active in evangelism and writing ministries. He maintains a blog at http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/. He is also Executive Committee Chairman of Midwest Independent Baptist Pastor’s Fellowship (MIBPF) (http://mibaptistpastorsfellowship.blogspot.com/). I do not claim to speak for his ministry (though I am still one of his Facebook friends! :) ), but would encourage you to look at his own statements and evaluate them for yourselves.

Thanks Steve,

Lance’s article critical of Bauder is reproduced there:

http://mibaptistpastorsfellowship.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-subtlety-of-…

(Bauder and Central named)

And the Calvinism is heresy quote is reproduced in the 1/28/13 post

Calvinism’s corruption of the doctrine of election and their heresy of Irresistible Grace (Monergism) are radical departures from the teaching of the Word of God and are therefore a corruption of what defines a biblical response to the Gospel. Yet, almost all those promoting Gospel Centrism are Calvinists.

The officers:

http://mibaptistpastorsfellowship.blogspot.com/p/officers.html

With full biographies here:

http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2012/07/annual-preaching-conference…

I wonder if MIBPF is pronounceable: MIB-Piff …. or MI-Bpiff

I find it amazing that this “Dr” Lance could be so far off in his description of MacArthur. I know what some of you are thinking. John MacArthur keeps his views a secret. He doesn’t publish any books, commentaries, or even a study Bible to know what he thinks about texts. You can’t find any of his sermons online. Youtube has even failed to have any of his clips that would be helpful.

No doubt the description was there as red meat to a hopelessly ill-informed mass. It is even more sad that such nonsense is then repeated over again by a more fringe, lounie, and desperate element equally devoid of understanding.

In reality, the younger generation has access to information that cannot be controlled by these “pastors” who think it their job to lord over rather than lead. These “pastors” or rather “butchers” of the sheep are presiding over their own downfall. Who is this “Dr” going to convince about MacArthur who has access to the internet? Those already in line for the slaughter.

I hope this “Dr” continues his work. Those who repeat the nonsense are helping to hasten their own loss of power, the real issue in all this. Look at how desperate they cling to what they are losing. I hope this “Dr” tightens his grip and produces more of this tragedy-comedy.

Does anyone have audio from the Lansdale conference referenced in this thread? I’m especially interested in the 2 panels. Links to those files that I’ve found online (pointing to http://www.advancingthechurch.org/) seem to be out of date.

Kevin,

As I read over your replies, it seems that my list of questions and your answers revolve really around two questions:

1. Should fundamentalists try to engage conservative evangelicals in public fora?
2. Should fundamentalists who engage in such meetings be concerned about the negative influence they might have on the erstwhile fundamentalism of “young fundamentalists”?

A corollary to the second question might be: “Are the actions of avowed fundamentalist leaders contributing to the loss of young men from the ranks of fundamentalism?”

To the first question, you are saying that in order to defend Biblical Christianity you will go “anywhere.”

[Kevin T. Bauder] So, to put it bluntly, I am happy to go anywhere, any time to defend biblical Christianity (including Fundamentalism) for anyone. (from post 46)

By anywhere, any time, would you go to the Mormon Tabernacle like Richard Mouw and Ravi Zacharias did? I realize that Mouw, especially, didn’t appear to be defending Christianity, but… are you seriously saying “anywhere, anytime”?

To the second question and its corollary, you seem to be saying that the risk of negatively influencing young men is worth the potential benefit of participating in these meetings. And, you say:

[Kevin T. Bauder] At the end of the day, for every young man who uses me as his excuse to leave Fundamentalism, ten more find encouragement to stay and to try to build a Fundamentalism worth saving. (post 46)

I suppose the ability to quantify the ratio of men you influence to stay as opposed to excusing leaving is really as difficult to quantify as the actual impact your meetings have on the conservative evangelicals you are interacting with. Perhaps we should mark this observation down to hyperbole?

But let’s get back to the purpose of engaging in these meetings:

[Kevin T. Bauder] Public interchanges are one of the best ways of placing one’s beliefs on display and holding them up for inspection.(post 63)

I can’t comment on all of your interactions in various venues, but I would like to comment on the Lansdale conference. I didn’t attend, but I listened to all the audio that was made available - as I recall, I listened to a lot of it on the way to a regional FBFI meeting. I agree with you that Mark Dever is a very gifted man and has made significant contributions towards a contemporary understanding of Baptist polity.

I don’t recall everything that was said, so what I am offering you is two or three year old impressions. I recall your challenging Dever on the notion of elders as a requirement and also to some extent on the liberalism still existing in SBC colleges at the state level. He vigorously defended the SBC as having rooted out liberalism (or words to that effect) and being completely clear of it. In listening to it, it seemed that a challenge was made about the state level problems, but that Dever was allowed to sweep them away as irrelevant.

My recollection of that may be faulty - but I don’t recall much more vigorous probing of Dever than those two areas. Given that you are unlikely to have a similar opportunity, though, I have to say that I wondered about the wisdom of spending time on the elders issue. It really is a side issue and not a core doctrine, correct? His position is fairly well known and he is unlikely to change it. Why not more probing on his ongoing connections with Mark Driscoll? At the time, Dever’s involvement with Driscoll’s Acts 29 network was a flourishing thing. He does seem to have backed away from it since the Elephant Room debacle, but that happened after your meeting with him.

(Actually, as I am working on this, I found transcripts of some of the sessions, helpfully published by Kevin Mungons. Readers can access them here and here. Kevin reports on the meeting here.)

Further, I wonder if these kinds of meetings are truly helpful at identifying differences sharply. The atmosphere seems much more collegial than ‘sharpening’ - in other words, both “sides” have an opportunity in a friendly atmosphere to let others see, “Hey, none of us are so bad after all.”

That is not to say that I think we should paint Dever (for example) with a black, black brush. He is far from being a false teacher, but he has many associations that make it very difficult for fundamentalists to cooperate with him in Gospel ministry, though I think we can wish him well in his preaching of the Gospel.

I’d also like to address the influence you have on the young men before I close. In post 46, you said:

[Kevin T. Bauder] If a young man is simply looking for an excuse to abandon the Fundamentalist structures in which he was reared, then I can foresee that he will use my words and deeds as part of his excuse to do so.

It is true that such is unavoidable, even if all one is doing is positively proclaiming the fundamentalist position in an environment where a conservative evangelical also has the floor and is able to articulate his positions as well. I concede that there might be some circumstances that would warrant taking the risk of moving the disgruntled to exit stage left.

But I think there is more to the problem that other fundamentalists see with respect to your words in these matters. We do need to be self-critical. It is true that a lot of foolish things have been said and done by fundamentalists in the past. Likely more of the same will come in the future. (And there are foolish evangelicals as well, but I digress…) However, it seems that even in this discussion on SI, you go beyond being merely self-critical of fundamentalism in some of your comments about other fundamentalists. I would point out that these same fundamentalists have in the past given you a platform and encouraged you to participate in their endeavors, but still, you will say things like the following:

[Kevin T. Bauder] One of the problems that we face in Baptist Fundamentalism is the high proportion of ministers who have been trained either in interdenominational or in imperialist institutions (or in both at the same time), and who consequently lack a real grasp of New Testament ecclesiology and church order. (post 36)

I think we know which school you mean. Surely more charitable words could have been used in the description. How do you think the disgruntled react to “imperialist”?

Or this one:

[Kevin T. Bauder] No, I think that young men are leaving more because of what they perceive in Fundamentalism itself, and their perceptions are only enhanced by the fulminations of the periergouzomenōn. (post 46)

What kind of people “fulminate”? It isn’t a good sounding word.

[Kevin T. Bauder] 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. (post 57)

This would be referring to the FBFI meeting in Schaumburg, where you also spoke. Unless I mis-remember, Dr. Vaughn had at one point asked you to participate more actively in the FBFI, isn’t that right? But you chose not to be involved for whatever reason, and of course, that’s totally up to you. But… do you have as much interest in helping the “muckety-mucks” come to a clearer understanding of fundamentalism as you do in engaging the leaders of conservative evangelicalism on the same points? How do terms like “muckety-muck” help you influence misguided FBFI men? You are encouraged by some of the men in the FBFI whom you named, yet you are willing to refer to their cohorts in this way? Will that kind of talk further their efforts within the FBFI?

And back to the younger guys… isn’t that just like red meat to them? Doesn’t it lend itself to confirming their prejudices against fundamentalism in general?

[Kevin T. Bauder] 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? (post 57)

Brother, you say here that you believe bro. Arrowood was within his rights as a local church pastor to decide who could and who could not have a display in his church. If you believe this, why are you bringing it up? If local churches have autonomy, the matter should be left there, correct? Would anyone outside of those asking for the display and those refusing have known about it if you (or others from Central Seminary) hadn’t publicized it? How does the publication of this story influence the younger observers? Should we be promoting and publicizing discord when it is “within his rights” to make the decision?

Last quotation:

[Kevin T. Bauder] 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.

I hope that I am not hammering you this time. I have done so in the past. I hope that I have learned better how to express myself when I disagree with others. I have tried to be careful to keep pejoratives out of this discussion.

I recognize that the blogosphere is full of ranting and raving. There are rants from every side of every issue. And I can see how some young fellows can be turned off by over the top ranting. On the other hand, many will accuse a preacher of ranting when he is simply calling for loyalty to Christ and refusing to compromise with error. That is what they did to those fundamentalists who refused to cooperate with Billy Graham, as you will recall.

I know that this post is personal - but I will point out that I am only responding to what you have said. I am glad to be a part of the FBFI and happy to be known as a Baptist Fundamentalist. I wish that you would be willing to vigorously promote that cause, but I have seen things from your pen that tend to be otherwise. I wish that would change.

Don,

From my perspective as an observer of the blogosphere, there is a serious credibility issue here. In your last post you spend a good bit of time taking Kevin to task for using words like “fulminate”. And yet, in very recent days you publicly called other believers “part of the apostasy” because a guy with Beethoven hair (or for that matter, John Wesley or George Whitefield hair - without the curls, of course ;)) sings songs about Jesus accompanied by piano, acoustic guitar, cello, and light percussion. How does that help the overall conversation?

… why are you bringing [ithis inter-FBFI conflict] up? If local churches have autonomy, the matter should be left there, correct? Would anyone outside of those asking for the display and those refusing have known about it if you (or others from Central Seminary) hadn’t publicized it? How does the publication of this story influence the younger observers?

This is a really fascinating point of intersection between the local bodies (which are de facto affiliated with FBFI by virtue of one or more of their leadership being members) and the FBFI itself. The local body did not take the action. The leadership did. The leadership was perhaps under no real obligation to get advice or consent from the congregation because most (perhaps hardly any) of that body are not members of the FBFI, although the fellowship was taking place at the body’s facility. And, obviously, local shepherds must make decisions (even unilateral ones sometimes) to keep dangerous persons from influencing their flock and this pastor made what he felt was such a call. But on the flip side, that local pastor, by virtue of his membership in the FBFI is in direct affiliation with said dangerous person. What is the local body (or members of other FBFI affiliated local bodies who happen to hear about such goings on) to make of that?

I am glad to be a part of the FBFI and happy to be known as a Baptist Fundamentalist. I wish that you would be willing to vigorously promote that cause …

For those not convinced that fundamentalism itself “is the presentation, in Word and deed, of the life changing grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ. Period, end of story,” (as I once read in a conversation in which both you and I participated) the importance being placed here on a lesser cause as essential to the Great Cause may seem odd.

This comment by Don is revealing to me:

He is far from being a false teacher, but he has many associations that make it very difficult for fundamentalists to cooperate with him in Gospel ministry, though I think we can wish him well in his preaching of the Gospel.

I’m sure Mark Dever would appreciate knowing that he is far from being a false teacher.

The rest of your quote, in my opinion, strikes at the heart of problem with modern, “cultural” fundamentalism. It is a misuse and misunderstanding of biblical separation. Many fundamentalists, again in my opinion, separate over every distinction without qualification. Must we “separate” over modes of baptism? Really? Eschatological differences? Continuationism? Styles of Music and Dress? Translations Used?

And by separation, I don’t mean that there aren’t levels of fellowship that might be more awkward than others. But could I have C.J. Mahaney preach in my church and still be a fundamentalist? Even though we have a disagreement over the sign gifts? Can’t I give instruction to a brother like that to not preach on that subject and still have fellowship and still learn from him and still encourage my people to read his books on Humility and the Cross and Worldliness? Can’t I invite a faithful PCA brother to teach on prayer to my congregation without being labeled a “compromiser” or worse? Even though we have significant disagreement on infant baptism and covenant theology?

I totally “get” that there is more than simply the basic gospel message that affects our fellowship with others. But why can’t we affirm something like Mohler’s “Theological Triage” and not have to “separate” over every little thing? Or is it the case that to all fundamentalists, all areas of difference in subjects like the timing of the return of Christ and modes of baptism and spiritual gifts must rise to the level of essential doctrine? Isn’t there room for charitable disagreement in some of these areas, especially when all concerned are committed to the faithful exposition of scripture? Aren’t there more important things to separate over and false teachers to call out and name, than some of these conservative evangelical brothers? By the way, these brothers, from my experience, exercise church discipline and biblical separation just as regularly as we do, if not more so.

I don’t know this to be absolutely true in all cases, but it seems to me that most of the “resolutions” passed by fundamentalist associations have their bullseyes right on faithful men like we’re discussing. When is the last time that the FBFI or other association passed a resolution against Joel Osteen or the Health and Wealth Gospel promoters or the “I Went to Heaven and Came Back” proponents or the Muslim or Catholic faiths or the New Atheists or the like? We’re shooting at our own family, in my opinion, rather than those who are REALLY attacking the faith. I like what happened at Lansdale. I hope it happens more often, all over fundamentalism. We don’t need to fortify trenches against these guys. They are our brothers.

Okay, my rant’s over.

Why am I getting a ‘if you are not a Fundamentalist Baptist by our definition, you are not serving the Lord in deed and truth’ vibe?

I seriously do not see the problem with acknowledging that others, who view some matters of faith and practice differently, DO love the Lord and are serving Him to the best of their ability and in good conscience?

If they are doing something different that one believes is heresy or borders on heresy, (for instance, I think Driscoll left Earth a loooong time ago) then let’s verify that they are, indeed, engaged in such practices or false doctrine, and examine such under the light of Scripture, and take steps of correction and restoration.

The problem that comes up again and again (from my 40 years of immersion in a couple of camps in IFBism) is the name-calling and tossing around of accusations, as if the pulpit somehow releases those who stand behind it from being accountable for bearing false witness, railing, gossip, and extortion. Or “calling for loyalty to Christ and refusing to compromise with error” with Scriptural support and in a spirit of meekness. As James K and Mark Mincy point out, this damages credibility.

There also seems to be a ‘2 strikes and you’re out’ policy, based on Titus 3:10. Somehow I don’t think that verse means what people want to think it means…

Of course, in IFBism, the laity are not allowed to question the credibility of their ‘leaders’. It’s all ‘sit down and shut up and do what you’re told’. And saints preserve us if you are a woman and you ask even a simple question. Outright hysteria ensues, usually involving words like ‘heifer’ and questions like “Don’t you have some dishes to do?”

All these calls to accountability, and the bottom line is, no one exercises accountability, they just talk about it. A lot. It’s the Clintonization of Christianity.

[Brian McCrorie]

…

The rest of [Don Johnson’s] quote, in my opinion, strikes at the heart of problem with modern, “cultural” fundamentalism. It is a misuse and misunderstanding of biblical separation. Many fundamentalists, again in my opinion, separate over every distinction without qualification. Must we “separate” over modes of baptism? Really? Eschatological differences? Continuationism? Styles of Music and Dress? Translations Used?

And by separation, I don’t mean that there aren’t levels of fellowship that might be more awkward than others. But could I have C.J. Mahaney preach in my church and still be a fundamentalist? Even though we have a disagreement over the sign gifts? Can’t I give instruction to a brother like that to not preach on that subject and still have fellowship and still learn from him and still encourage my people to read his books on Humility and the Cross and Worldliness? Can’t I invite a faithful PCA brother to teach on prayer to my congregation without being labeled a “compromiser” or worse? Even though we have significant disagreement on infant baptism and covenant theology?

…. I like what happened at Lansdale. I hope it happens more often, all over fundamentalism. We don’t need to fortify trenches against these guys. They are our brothers.

Okay, my rant’s over.

Brian:

Thanks for your rant and for injecting sanity into the conversation (aliong with others I hasten to add). In answer to your questions about separation the answer has been “yes” in Fundamentalism as long as I’ve been around. These are not issues I would separate over and for that reason, among others, I would not consider myself or be considered a fundamentalist. In answer to your question about fellowship answer has been “no.” I would gladly have Dever, Jordan, Mohler, Doran, Piper, Bauder, Carson, Olson, etc. in our church (none have been here and are not scheduled :-) ) because I don’t care if they are called conservative evangelical or fundamentalist. Those categories are part of the problem and there is an artificiality and flexibility about them to be bent however one wants to define them, especially those claiming the high ground for limited or distorted perspective on fundamentalism. I would ask if these men are faithful men of God approved by Him and given to the church as gifts holding to sound doctrine in what has constituted biblical Christianity throughout the ages. Of course I know there are those who are as sure of the details of the future, what Bible God blesses, and what music honors God as they are about everything related to the fundamentals of the faith and the gospel and are ready to separate over their correctness. Fine. Let them claim whatever mantle they want.

However I do think many of the critics of the oft-cited quadrumvirate (Bauder, Doran, Jordan, Olson) are partly right in their assessment although mostly wrong in their stance, attitude, and obsession with correcting others. I agree with the direction of the aforementioned men. But apart from early, historic, interdenominational fundamentalism, their direction is a departure from what the present generation has known (at least back to the 40 years I’ve been around fundamentalism). That’s a good thing but it is not fundamentalism as most have known it. I think they are walking a tightrope. I personally don’t think there is a fundamentalism worth saving. It had its day. What has value is the defense of the faith, the pursuit of both biblical unity and biblical separation, the urgency to preach Christ crucified, and the minding of one’s business in certain matters in being less concerned about how and with whom someone in another vineyard labors. He has his master and his day of reckoning. Much human judgment parading as wisdom reminds the world that many Christians are needlessly divisive and focused on issues that have little value in the grand scheme of God’s plan of redemption. And I must add that at times in my ministry I’ve been as guilty as anyone. I’m still in repentance and recovery.

Steve Davis

I’ve been sitting here with a bowl of popcorn watching this thread and truly enjoying and appreciating Dr. Bauder’s responses and wishing only that Joel Tetreau would fire up a bonfire and bring over some marshmallows. I truly hadn’t intended to jump in the fray (for a change.)

But as one of those who is likely viewed by many “Fundamentalists” as a new-evangelical and is viewed by ALL of my evangelical friends as “fundamentalist” and who in honesty is probably most comfortable sitting on the immediate left of Joel Tetreau when he is using his “A”, “B” and “C” categories, (And whom, I would note is —at least at the moment — Facebook friends with Lance.) I would say that — and I realize that this is purely anecdotal — it is men like Kevin Bauder who have kept me as closely aligned to fundamentalism as I currently am. Conversely, it is EXACTLY, those who (and I shall name no names here) vocally and continually raise their “purity” and “separation” and other controlling issues to try to keep the independent thinkers on the plantation replete with their innuendo, threats, gracelessness and no small amount of peer and institutional intimidation that have been no small part of my motivation to want to distance myself with at least the reputation of fundamentalism, if not the core doctrines. In the circles in which I have been called to minister over the last 30 years, a failure to engage and interact and debate and challenge and argue with and listen to those who were not of my particular stripe would have largely ended my credibility with and consequentially my ministry to them.

Thank you, Kevin, for interacting with a wide array of learners, scholars and skeptics. You have kept many of us engaged positionally with fundamentalism when dispositionally, we were heading for the exits.

Amen to what has been said by Dan, Susan, Brian, Steve and others of you.

Maybe we should pass our own resolution here at SI - encouraging fundamentalist to leave associations bent on passing resolutions against dear brothers who are committed to the gospel and who are militant, even though they may not be as “isolated” as some of our own Baptist fellowships tend to be.

I’ll be happy to write said resolution.

Of course it will do nothing but tick off the Type A’s but it would be good for those guys to taste a little of their own medicine! (Actually this would probably be a waist of time)

Hey, I keep asking this question - why not do a poll here at SI on this? We could put up like 3 or 4 views of “what is the right relationship between careful fundamentalism and militant evangelicalism.” You could have Don write up his view, then come up with two or three other approaches. I think it would be telling. I’m thinking you could at least come up with 3 views (and I know there are more than these).

Type A+ (these evangelicals probably aren’t even saved because they didn’t come to faith with the KJV - the only time we are with them is to witness to them)

Type A (these evangelicals are disobedient because they are not us - therefore we should not be with them - the only time we are with them is when we are scolding them - or scolding fundamentalists who are with them - which means those fundamentalists probably aren’t even fundamentalists - they are newevangelicals!)

Type B/C (conservative evangelicals who are militant are essentially “us” - even though they might be in a group we are not in - when we are together we enjoy sweet fellowship)

A few thoughts - from the chilly shadows of winter cacti

Straight Ahead!

jt