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
I do think, again, KB is wrong about his Hegel reference with respect to Lance Ketchum’s use, at least in part and that is important in principle.
I believe there is respect to be given to Dr. Bauder’s investment here and his intent to better influence. I believe some of his near theological kin, however, would be warmed to read as colorful “and robust expression which he has given to past fundie icons for flaws in their disposition (bellicose) be given toward those on the CE or NE end whose theological flaws may indeed be equally if not more detrimental than these fundie ghosts of the past. I have in mind John Piper who was strongly issued a clear rebuked by the late John Robbins for his greatly marred theology contained in his novel flagship work “Christian Hedonism” or the very strange rush by Mohler and now Olson to embrace CJ Mahaney and the charismatic sect he built and whose theological background and theological temperament and expression (up until recently where he has been rendered essentially silent by master tutors) reads like the bio of a typically untrained and unqualified though eager charismatic philosopher-king and whose tenure of “apostolic” reign has left an indisputable trail of wrecked lives. Such would probably give confidence to a set of ears nearer to him who are possibly struggling to grant him a hearing seeing such things are not as directly approached as other matters.
But no doubt you, Kevin. Bauder, are very busy and my thoughts are intended as rhetorical and another side to consider regarding ears and gaining a hearing. You can only address so many things with the responsibilities and demands before you, thus it would be unfair to suggest negligence, in fact arrogant. But if time and concern ever permits I believe a worthy group would be interested.
[JVDM]Alex - I’ve read through your post (#80) several times and I believe I speak for most of us here: hunh? Too many wayward punctuation and quotation marks, and too many qualifiers and weaslers for most of what you said to register any meaning for me. I don’t mean any disrespect. It sounds like you are trying to say something interesting, it just isn’t coming through.
So glad it wasn’t just me!
Alex- could you reiterate please? ‘Cause you lost me at the second line. I don’t want to respond to something you didn’t actually say.
[JVDM]A number of choices.1. You could read with greater charity forgiving my “weaslers” and seek to discover through such shortcomings what I did say.2. You could allow yourself to be informed that my more direct approach is often unbearable for some who are easily offended by such and register complaints with mods, thus bothering them and my aim is to avoid that.3. I sought to emulate the tact of Kevin Bauder and though it was executed poorly in your mind but being the better man you realize this and make effort to seek clarity where you are unsure.4. The parts you understood you could decide to respond to with questions or comments.This is just to name a handful. In the meantime among your registered complaint of my form if you are able to develop any questions regarding further clarity I will certainly be happy to answer your specific questions. I sympathize with you in the mean time.Alex - I’ve read through your post (#80) several times and I believe I speak for most of us here: hunh? Too many wayward punctuation and quotation marks, and too many qualifiers and weaslers for most of what you said to register any meaning for me. I don’t mean any disrespect. It sounds like you are trying to say something interesting, it just isn’t coming through.
Alright, my most urgent (if not important) tasks for the day are complete, and I have a bit of time that I can devote to circling back and trying to respond to some of the questions and observations that have been raised. More people than Don have interacted, and they deserve some reply. So I’m going back to the top of the list. Don, I’ll get to your observations eventually (I hope).
So here we go….
Joel, you’ve jumped in several times with characteristic enthusiasm and charisma. I wonder, though, whether we’re as close in position as you seem to think. When it comes to principles, I’m really not very different from Don. In fact, I think that in certain ways, I probably belong with your Formosan Fundamentalists (you know, the ones from Taipei?). I’m just trying to be an honest one.
Alex, about the only thing I can suggest is that you read Hegel and his responsible interpreters. I’ll grant that Hegel does use a three-part formulation (consisting, not of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, but of abstract, negative, and concrete), but that is where his similarity to Dr. Ketchum ends. As it was later articulated (beginning with Chalybäus) the so-called Hegelian dialectic deals with stages of development, not procedures in dialogue. In Hegel, the three-part movement arises out of a contradiction that is implicit in things themselves, and it cannot be arbitrarily applied to any given thesis. Perhaps the best-known instantiation of Hegelian dialectic is Marx’s historical materialism. I just don’t know what else to say, except to encourage you and others to read the literature.
Alex (again), I presume that you recognize the tu quoque fallacy when you see it. It is, among other things, a common resort of bullies when they are challenged. They think that if it’s wrong for them to use force (to bully people), then it’s wrong to use force to stop them. Well, for the record I don’t think it’s wrong to stand up to bullies. C. S. Lewis wrote somewhere about people who scratch like cats, but bleed at a touch. It seems to me that some Fundamentalist champions fit that description with astonishing exactness. They call out their opponents in the most brutal terms, leveling accusations filled with gratuitous insults, half-truths and innuendos, but when anybody mentions that they are bullies (or uses other equally accurate descriptions), they immediately begin to squeal out protests about name-calling. It’s kind of like the wife-beater who charges the arresting officer with police brutality. Don’t expect this argument to get much sympathy from me. Or from anyone else who has watched the periergouzamenous.
G. N. Barkman, you raise a legitimate point. The term Fundamentalist has become a tribal marker for many who claim it. If we want to use it more correctly, we should be asking what ideas it originally described, and how those ideas were worked out to meet the changing situations of the next eighty years. I think that there are good reasons for which conservative evangelicals should not be called Fundamentalists. I think there are even better reasons for which places like Pensacola or Hyles-Anderson should not be. That is why the expression Hyper-fundamentalist is necessary, not as a term of opprobrium, but as an accurate descriptor of what certain ideas represent. By the way, Dr. Ketchum sometimes makes references to Hypo-fundamentalism. I actually agree with him that such a thing exists and that it represents a danger, though I do not always agree with him about who the Hypo-fundamentalists are (he thinks I am one—I respectfully disagree).
Shaynus, I was evidently reared at a different time and a different place in Fundamentalism than you were. I grew up in the more conservative and separatistic wing of the Regular Baptist movement. The principles that I articulate these days are really the very same ones that I learned there. I’m not inventing anything new. And the things that I value in conservative evangelicals, I saw at work among Fundamentslists during my youth. Church health, New Testament polity, and Baptist associationalism? I think I’ve already mentioned names like Ketcham and Jackson. Defense of the faith? I still remember Manfred Kober debating the liberal Louis Valbracht on (I believe) KRNT television. Balanced separatism? David Nettleton exemplified it, and his pamphlet on “A Limited Message or a Limited Fellowship” is still worth reading. Nettleton was a strongly committed Fundamentalist, Baptist, Calvinist(ic) Dispensationalist who could nevertheless have people like Lehman Strauss, Robert Lightner, and Peter Masters on his platform. The older Regular Baptist leaders put more thought and less politics into what they were doing than some other Fundamentalists did. But to give you a straightforward answer, I particularly appreciate the ability of conservative evangelicals to listen courteously and carefully to their opponents (including me) and to understand before they reply. Me? I’m still trying to learn that skill. I don’t always succeed.
Dgszweda, I think that genuine Fundamentalism probably is in the middle between the camps you’re thinking of, if you’re thinking in terms of what I call Hyper-fundamentalism on the Right. Frankly, however, I would hate to see the idea of Fundamentalism modified to allow for several things that many conservative evangelicals seem to be open to. I’ve tried to convince myself that the SBC isn’t that bad, but I don’t see where their problems are any less significant than those of mainstream Fundamentalism—and in many instances their problems are worse. What is more, I am convinced that a fellowship needs a doctrinal test for participation, and the Southern Baptist conservatives refuse even to attempt to implement such a test. As much as I admire Grudem and Piper in some ways (and I genuinely do) any continuation of prophecy or of miraculous gifts is, in my judgment, a very serious error. While I’m willing to converse with them about ideas, there is little public ministry in which we could engage together. Furthermore (and this will be what makes me less palatable to many younger Fundamentalists), I think that all modes of communication are extremely important. Clothing and manners matter, particularly in worship. I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ. Consequently, I am not at all in favor of an “emerging middle.” I don’t intend to emerge with it.
(Having said that, I do not think that music is a matter that decides whether you’re a Fundamentalist. I’m not sure that Fundamentalism has ever had a unified or consistent view on music. So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian. I don’t see a contradiction here. Christianity is, after all, more than Fundamentalism.)
Susan R, sometimes we are forced to make bad choices. There are two ways of looking at it. When we choose the lesser of two evils, we choose less evil. But when we choose the lesser of two evils, we still choose evil. If my choice was between a Hyles church and a non-separatist evangelical church, my solution would be to plant a church. In fact, that’s exactly what my solution was. But I recognize that not everyone is in a position to make that choice. All I can say is that I’d rather see a family member under Dever’s ministry than under Jack Schaap’s, even before Schaap was arrested for his crimes.
BrandonLee, it sounds like you’re going to be facing some choices with your Alma Mater. I can only encourage you to base those choices upon principle. You’ll get plenty of pressure to base them upon party loyalties. Keep asking why you do what you do. That’s what drives me back to both Fundamentalism and conservatism.
G. N. Barkman (again), yes, the ACCC is one of the historic, Fundamentalist organizations. They paid a high price during the 1970s and 1980s for resisting the Hyper-fundamentalism of Carl McIntire and others. They’ve never really recovered. My only (mild) critique would be that I think they’re still trying to make some accommodation to the KJVO crowd. But in general, it is a fine organization with which I am unashamed to identify. I particularly respect the work of Ralph Colas, who has sacrificed significantly for the wellbeing of the ACCC. This organization has always been a good illustration of separation at some levels combined with fellowship at others.
Steve Davis, with friends like you … JUST JOKING! I appreciate the fact that as your position has changed, you have not severed your relationship with some of your old friends. One of these days we’re going to have to talk about our differences. When you say that my “direction is a departure from what the present generation has known (at least back to the 40 years I’ve been around fundamentalism),” I believe you mean it. But I also believe this says something about the rather narrow slice of Fundamentalism in which you spent forty years. As I have insisted elsewhere, I don’t think I’m saying anything now that I wasn’t taught in my separatist, Fundamentalist college and seminary. In fact, I was (and still am) on the far Right of the branch of Fundamentalism in which I was reared. I’ve subsequently spent significant time (years each) in close contact with at least three other versions of Fundamentalism. None of them is correct to think of itself as the center of the Fundamentalist universe, let alone as the whole universe. But even in your version of Fundamentalism there had to be people whose ideals you could admire. I’ll refrain from surnames (this is just between us), but to suggest one: Ralph?
Alex (yet again), have I addressed your concerns? Based on your post no. 80, I sense that you feel some frustration at the time it has taken me to reply. But I’m confused enough by the solecisms that I’m not quite sure. If I’ve neglected to address some important question, please let me know.
Everyone, I apologize for this long post. If I’d broken it up, however, we’d already be past the 100 post limit, and I still would not have responded to Don. Oh, Don—you have my personal invitation to come spend a day with me at the range. Nothing promotes theological discourse like arming the participants. By the time you leave, you’ll be shooting like a buckaroo, and loving it. I can’t wait to put a .45 in your hand.
Kevin
My questions for Dr Bauder
Preface: You are often taken to task by critics that your position is different than your predecessor at Central - Ernest Pickering (as exemplified in BIBLICAL SEPARATION: THE STRUGGLE FOR A PURE CHURCH)
Questions:
- Is Pickering’s book still used as a textbook at Central?
- How closely / divergent is your position on separation to Pickering’s?
- Leap: If Pickering were alive how would he evaluate your position?
Thanks
So Kevin - two points:
1) Really you are so unique you warrant your own personal classification. You really don’t fit clearly into one category in my taxonomy which is both fun and highly irritating all at the same time! :) (Bauder = Type Z fundamentalism!)
2) I’ve kind of feared you’re very close to the”Type A” in the “Tetreau scale” (not that that matters at all to dear folk “out there”). I had you pegged in as an A- until Lansdale. That whole episode brought you into the “Aug-ust” gathering of Type B! (or B+ at least in my mind). But alas - if you must stay with the A guys, I’m happy for the influence you will continue to leverage……espcially with guys like Don. It’s good - but do you really want to hand over a weapon to someone from Canada? I mean would he even know how to use it? (Just kidding Don - I’m sure you could handle a weapon!)
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;
Jim,
Pickering’s book on biblical separation is probably the single best volume that addresses the topic today. Of course we use it at Central Seminary. You can’t find anything better. I’ve given away copies to people who wanted to understand how separation works.
I knew of Pickering for many years in the Regular Baptist movement. I can still remember when he was called “firing Ernie” for turning over a faculty at what is now Clarks Summit (I can’t recall whether it was in Johnson City at the time). I first began to interact with him during the mid-1980s, when he was chair of the GARBC Council of 18. This was after the publication of his book and I actually thought that his separatism was rather less strict than mine. This occasionally placed us in conflict, especially when he was president at Northwest Seminary. I seem to recall that he was the one who moved Emanuel in Toledo toward the NIV, though I may be mistaken. Kevin Mungons could confirm or deny. At any rate, I get a chuckle every time I see Pickering being appropriated by some KJVO type.
Pickering was a member of the faculty during the “golden years” of Central Seminary, about 1960 to around 1967. At that time, the faculty included not only Pickering, but Warren Van Hetloo, Robert Delnay, Robert Myrant, and M. James Hollowood. Those were great years for the seminary: these professors were second to none. I believe that Fred Moritz came through the seminary during that period.
There’s a great story from those years. Pickering had given an exam and the entire class had bombed it. He was offended, and he read the riot act to the students. One of them had been a professional baseball player. In the middle of the verbal spanking, that particular student raised his hand and said, “Dr. Pickering, I may not know much about theology, but I know baseball. In baseball, when the team loses, they don’t fire the players.”
I do have a couple of quibbles with Pickering’s book—but I emphasize that they are only quibbles. First, I think that he labors too hard to find historical precedent for separatism, and ends upon including certain groups that we would actually want to separate from. Second, by emphasizing the “purity” argument as strongly as he does (grounding separation in the holiness of God), he leaves the separatist without a mechanism for those instances when Scripture explicitly disavows separation (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:10). It is not the case that believers are always and everywhere to separate from all sinful things and all sinful people. But why not? I don’t believe that Pickering’s argument provides the answer to this question.
To be clear, I think that the appeal to purity or holiness is appropriate, but it first has to be established on some other base. What I’ve tried to do differently from Pickering is to articulate that base.
As I say, however, this is a quibble. In practice, I was sometimes uncomfortable with the breadth of Pickering’s associations at some levels. But that, too, is rather a quibble. The difference between us is negligible.
How would he respond to my views? We never discussed it. Nevertheless, he kept people on his faculties and boards who were considerably less separatistic than me. That in itself seems to provide an answer.
Kevin
Kevin,
My personal thanks to you for taking a substantial amount of time to help men navigate the theological waters.
Pastor Mike Harding
Everyone,
Don’t we have a 100-post limit per thread? We’re beginning to approach that. Can I request that everybody save at least one post at the end so I can respond to Don? Or maybe two so that he can have the last word?
Kevin
Alex (again), I presume that you recognize the tu quoque fallacy when you see it. It is, among other things, a common resort of bullies when they are challenged. They think that if it’s wrong for them to use force (to bully people), then it’s wrong to use force to stop them. Well, for the record I don’t think it’s wrong to stand up to bullies. C. S. Lewis wrote somewhere about people who scratch like cats, but bleed at a touch. It seems to me that some Fundamentalist champions fit that description with astonishing exactness. They call out their opponents in the most brutal terms, leveling accusations filled with gratuitous insults, half-truths and innuendos, but when anybody mentions that they are bullies (or uses other equally accurate descriptions), they immediately begin to squeal out protests about name-calling. It’s kind of like the wife-beater who charges the arresting officer with police brutality. Don’t expect this argument to get much sympathy from me. Or from anyone else who has watched the periergouzamenous.
I concur strongly and hope you do understand my reference to the real acts of ecclesiastical and personal bullying by past or present Fundamentalists, particularly IFB, is something I not only acknowledge but believe should be challenged with equal or greater force. I do agree that there are those who “bleed at a touch” and easily concede there are IFB who have a record of having modeled this kind of dysfunctional ministry and it behooves everyone who might be involved as a Fundamentalists to point out not only the men but their specific errors and submit corrections while acknowledging where they were correct. And in some cases, disqualifying ministries completely as a source, even with qualifications, such as Jack Hyles. I understand such things are not judgments upon men regarding their standing before God or their heart which only God knows but their work toward the church which is to be vetted. I cheer you on in this.
My hope in bringing those things up was not that their identification, both the person and their poor models not be named (the Fundamentalists) with a robust rebuke and then correction or remedy offered seeing that such did and do bring havoc and injury to our brothers and sisters. But, as I said, if one is going to use part of their time with such things I hope to see an equal effort (not by you, personally, necessarily but by any Fundamentalist who identifies with your approach and general view) in dealing with men and ministries that do not identify as Fundamentalists but touch and interact with them enough that where they are in error such things be treated with the seriousness they need as they do great damage themselves.
Alex, about the only thing I can suggest is that you read Hegel and his responsible interpreters. I’ll grant that Hegel does use a three-part formulation (consisting, not of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, but of abstract, negative, and concrete), but that is where his similarity to Dr. Ketchum ends. As it was later articulated (beginning with Chalybäus) the so-called Hegelian dialectic deals with stages of development, not procedures in dialogue. In Hegel, the three-part movement arises out of a contradiction that is implicit in things themselves, and it cannot be arbitrarily applied to any given thesis. Perhaps the best-known instantiation of Hegelian dialectic is Marx’s historical materialism. I just don’t know what else to say, except to encourage you and others to read the literature.I have read more than a perusing of interpreters of Hegel, thus I have my opinions and am comfortable with them. I will say Hegel is no walk in the park and one can easily get lost because in my view things lose their meaning due to his constant appeal to the abstract. But in principle, whether one uses his terms of substitute terms such as thesis, antithesis and synthesis, some quickly identify its Hegelian construct. As you said, Chalybaus did use those terms but they arguably came from Hegel’s formula. But moving Hegel and Chalybaus aside, the thesis, antithesis and synthesis formula is commonly called the Hegelian Dialectic. Maybe a relative of Hegel’s can get this corrected and change it to the Chalybaus Dialectic.
Thank you for all of your time. Your consideration in responding is greatly acknowledged.
[Kevin T. Bauder]…I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ…
I have to admit…this statement arrested my attention. I promote a very conservative philosophy of corporate worship…probably almost liturgical to some people. But I still struggle with this statement. I know this issue is the quintessential tangent of all tangents, but I wonder if you could point me to some resources where a specific statement such as this is defended from the Scripture?
Edit: Sorry…just saw your cry for help regarding the post limit. Perhaps Aaron will make an exception for this thread?
Mark Mincy
[Kevin T. Bauder] 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.
Kevin
Yup. There’s not much else to say to that, really. Fundamentalism is ‘dying’ because the captains of the ship are running it into icebergs, or too busy shooting at each other to steer the ship in a safer direction. Bauder is right, as usual.
Don, I know you mean well, but Dr. Bauder is right. It’s LONG past time to stop ignoring wingnuts in the IFB camp. “Come out from among them” is EXACTLY what us younger guys want to do.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I’m really torn to a high degree about even getting into this conversation, but am having a hard time staying out.
It seems to me there is a real “generation gap” among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals as well. I’m 50+ and yes, I’m not content to remain a product of my training, nor should we be. There seems to me to some misunderstanding from a historic point of view on some of these issues. I was saved as a secular college student, then God directed me to Pillsbury and Central. This was mid-1980’s through 1992, when I graduated from Central. There was a long shadow cast by Dr. Clearwaters even then (I was in the last class he taught), and the Fundamentalism of that place and time was unique from that of the BBF or Hyles or the GARBC. The term “New Evangelical” really meant Evangelical in the main.
To me, the term “New Evangelical” is being redefined today by a new generation. There really wasn’t a gradation between the spectrum of it. On the other side, Evangelicalism in the main seemed to be hostile to Fundamentalism and the term itself was a term of derision.
We weren’t opposed to thinking. There was some unity and togetherness, though there were definite differences and newer fights against error. The KJVO controversy was just blooming (the Dell Johnson - Letis) video was making the rounds. MacArthur was best known for instituting elder government and urging others to dump congregational rule for it, and the local church was most important. Some even went too far to a “local church only” viewpoint in reaction to the “universal church only” thinking.
Now we have a new generation of “new evangelicalism” when some of the older evangelicalism has moderated and some have not. Most still can’t resist taking an occasional potshot at Fundamentalists occasionally, even though they are becoming more like them in some ways.
The older Fundamentalists today (unfortunately I have to put myself in this category!) really have a feeling of betrayal toward some of the newer Fundamentalists today. The institutions that were built on a different set of convictions are changing. Some change is inevitable and even understandable. Unfortunately, the change is definitely polarizing. It is also a reaction to the world in which we find ourselves. I trust that as you all think about these things, that you are thinking about where you want to be in 20-30 years or more down the road and the accountability you have. We remember the counsel of “taking the long look”, but we are concerned what kind of next generation we are handing things off to. I appreciate Dr. Bauder’s respectful tone, but many Fundamentalists, especially older ones in the Upper Midwest, just don’t come from where he does.
Well, this is a lot of rambling, but I will summarize this way:
1. Isn’t today’s “conservative evangelicalism” yesterday’s “new evangelicalism” somewhat moderated?
2. I do believe that Dr. Bauder is philosophically “right wing”, especially to many of the readers here. I just don’t know that most evangelicals can help themselves from being anti-fundamentalist.
3. I’m not KJVO, but would be more “type A” as far as separatism. Is there going to be a place for folks like that in the future. I’m not convinced there will be.
Moderators Note: We will leave the thread open so long as there is good conversation that is on this topic.
1. Isn’t today’s “conservative evangelicalism” yesterday’s “new evangelicalism” somewhat moderated?
I don’t think so. Conservative Fundamentalism (I’m thinking Al Mohler for example) is picking up the pieces of NE. While it’s not fundamentalism, it’s not 1950’s NE either, and not just in a moderated way. Al Mohler doesn’t wake up every morning wondering how he can moderate New Evangelicalism with fundamentalism.
2. I do believe that Dr. Bauder is philosophically “right wing”, especially to many of the readers here. I just don’t know that most evangelicals can help themselves from being anti-fundamentalist.
How many evangelicals are you friends with? Currently I’m getting to know a former small group leader from Mars Hill Seattle who is coming to our church. As I explain where I’m from and fundamentalist principles, he says “that makes sense.” If fundamentalists truly have a position that’s intellectually honest and supportable, it should fear no dialouge.
Discussion