Lance Ketchum on "Authentic Fundamentalism," Hyper-Fundamentalism, Hyper-Calvinism, and "Young Fundamentalists"

It is hard to understand how Ketchum can make statements like, “When independent, fundamental Baptists (I.F.B.) practice separation, most churches that are interdenominational are excluded by that separation without other considerations. This practice has certainly always included all those believing in paedobaptism and those holding to any sacramental views of salvation. Therefore, independent, fundamental Baptists would not cooperate with fundamental Presbyterians and Congregationalists without consideration of any other doctrines to which they might agree” (underline added) when the very first fundamentalists were, indeed, a mixed denominational lot comprised mostly of Baptists and Presbyterians.

The problem with prefixes and adjectives & “fundamentalism”

Off the top of my head:

• Hyper-Fundamentalism (comment: but there is no “Sub-Fundamentalism” of which I am aware!)
• Young Fundamentalism (or ist) (I can’t recollect seeing this one, but if there is a “young-fundamentalism” I suppose there must be an “old-F”. Complicating this is that you have young men fresh out of HAC who are “Old Time” Religioners and old gray-headed bald guys who are “young at heart” (or so they claim!))
• Old-Time Fundamentalism (guess there is an “old”)
• Authentic Fundamentalism
• Moderate Fundamentalism (generally means they compromise!)
• Militant Fundamentalism - key verse is Jude 3
• Pseudo-Fundamentalism (The opposite of the “Authentic”)
• Baptist-Fundamentalism
• Nondenominational Fundamentalism
• FINO = Fundamentalism in Name Only
• KJV-Fundamentalism
• Hard-shelled Fundamentlism (probably aways used in a disparaging / derisive way - who wants to call oneself “hard-shelled”?!
• imperial Fundamentalism (the guy who has the mega-church with the CDS, the college and the seminary)

In my view, the term “Fundamentalism” (which is a really great idea and has served its purposes!), which has in the last decade become associated with suicide bombers and other crazies, has ceased to mean anything at all. At least anything valuable in the market place of ideas.

It seems that every Fundamentalist looks at the other kinds and says in essence “You are not a true Fundamentalist”

–— My coming out (I’ve done this before … and this is not an Anderson Cooper coming out!) –––-

It’s not that I:

• Reject the term Fundamentalist
• Reject the idea (already said that it’s a good idea!)
• It’s just that where I live (and I don’t mean Plymouth), I would never use the term of myself. The Lances, etc can say (not that they even know who I am) “Peet is not a Fundamentalist”.
• I’m OK with that
• Want to know what I believe … see the doctrinal statement … know where I worship and serve … and know how I live (which is far from perfect!)

Rejecting the label and the label makers

By the way … still happy with these labels: Calvinist, Baptist, Republican

Ketchum states: “I only use the King James Bible in my preaching and I believe God has preserved His inspired Words in the Received Text. However, such a belief has never been an exclusion from historic independent Baptist fundamentalism. In fact, in most part, it has been a tenet of historic independent Baptist fundamentalism. For the most part of history since A.D. 1611, it has been a basic tenet of historic Protestantism. It was never any different until the Anglo-Catholic influence of such men as Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort came on the textual scene…”

And the compiler and “textual critic” of the Received Text was Erasmus - a Roman Catholic monk!

The above is just one example of many fallacies in the article. The sad truth about articles like this is that they exemplify the mentality that drives folks like myself away from “fundamentalism”. Even sadder is the fact that this mentality (I believe) has driven many people away from the church altogether. There is no honor (eternal or temporal) in stubborn belligerence.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

It is hard to understand how Ketchum can make statements like, “When independent, fundamental Baptists (I.F.B.) practice separation, most churches that are interdenominational are excluded by that separation without other considerations. This practice has certainly always included all those believing in paedobaptism and those holding to any sacramental views of salvation. Therefore, independent, fundamental Baptists would not cooperate with fundamental Presbyterians and Congregationalists without consideration of any other doctrines to which they might agree” (underline added) when the very first fundamentalists were, indeed, a mixed denominational lot comprised mostly of Baptists and Presbyterians.

You missed the distinction he wishes to draw between Interdenominational Fundamentalism (which includes your “very first fundamentalists”) and Independant Baptist Fundamentalists which can by definition only include Baptists.

He’s auguring for a narrow and strict latter over and against the former.

David,

He’s also arguing in the same article that IFB=historic fundamentalism. He claims the interdenominational fundamentalists are some kind of new attempt at compromise. He’s trying to use both sides of the discussion to his advantage.

It seems to me that at least part of Lance’s problems is he uses his own dictionary.

Case in point, he calls MacArthur a hyper-Calvinist. That term has a generally accepted meaning and it is widely known. In addition MacArthur’s positions are widely known. So when people who know what is widely accepted hear Lance’s statement, they rightly look askance at Lance, and doubt his credibility. And they should.

Then Lance gives his own definition of hyper-Calvinism (which amounts to limited atonement). Well, by Lance’s definition, MacArthur is a hyper-Calvinist. The problem is that very few use Lance’s definition. Limited atonement has historically not been considered hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism has typically been tied to duty faith and the universal offer of the gospel.

If Lance had said, “MacArthur is a proponent of limited atonement,” he would probably be correct. But Lance didn’t. He took a widely accepted word, reappropriated it, and then used it.

Here’s come another rub (just guessing here). What Lance means by limited atonement is probably not what most proponents of limited atonement mean. This is why labels are sometimes misleading. They have meaning in the mind of the speaker, and in the mind of the hearer. But if they have different meanings in each, it causes confusion.

It is similar to the other thread where Don Johnson talked about Dever and the “flourishing connection” he had with Acts 29. When people who (at least think they) understand “flourishing connection” and know what Dever’s connection was to Acts 29 (apparently a single lecture on church planting in which Dever began by expressing disagreement over the same issues many fundamentalists have with Acts 29), they question the credibility of the speaker (not just the statement). When I asked Don about this some time ago, he didn’t have much other evidence (in fact, none that I recall, though I could be wrong) of other connection between Dever and Acts 29, flourishing or not. But he had adopted a definition of “flourishing connection” that did not seem to cohere with reality. Now we can disagree with Dever about the propriety of speaking at Acts 29, but should we say things that aren’t true about the connection between them? I am willing to be corrected here if someone can show this “flourishing connection.” I don’t keep up with it, but I have asked before and I have googled it and can’t find it.

In another instance, Lance says that Kevin “equates hyper-fundamentalists to be synonymous with neoevangelicals. So I guess I, and all those that believe like I believe, are now both hyper-fundamentalists and neoevangelicals.”

Well, the problem here is that anyone who read Kevin can see that’s not what Kevin said. In fact, they don’t even have to get Kevin’s article, or go to Central’s site. They can read Lance’s own quotation where Kevin said they “mirror images” or “equal errors.” He did not say they were the same thing, at least so far as I can tell. Perhaps Kevin can clear this up if he thinks it was unclear. But again, the lazy use of language creates problems. And when people see what Kevin said and compare it to what Lance says about what Kevin said, they look askance at Lance and doubt his credibility.

The problem is that when fundamentalists do these kinds of things, other people find out about it. As has been often pointed out, this is no longer the world where you have to take the speaker’s word for it. Google is way to accessible for some fundamentalists to act as they used to. When listeners and readers find out something isn’t true, or is misrepresented, they don’t just reject the instance; they reject both the person who said as untrustworthy, and the movement who perpetuates it.

Fundamentalists, of all people, should have a commitment to the truth and to clear communication of it. When we say things that aren’t true, we risk a lot. Aside from differing about where to draw the lines, a lot of young fundamentalists and ex-fundamentalists are greatly troubled by the what some people say about other people.

Lance (and Don and whoever else) is certainly able to make his views known and to argue for them. But the speaker must embrace the things that come because of poor communication. And he must have an absolute commitment to be truthful, even if he doesn’t help the points he wants to make.

So, Independent, fundamental, Baptists separate from historic Protestantism but cite historic Protestantism in defense of being KJV only. hmmm

I made this point at the site, but lest it doesn’t get approved:

In the same breath, [Dr. Bauder] equates hyper-fundamentalists to be synonymous with neoevangelicals. So I guess I, and all those that believe like I believe, are now both hyper-fundamentalists and neoevangelicals. That is his right.

This is a misrepresentation of the paragraphs quoted from Dr. Bauder. He is not saying that both groups are the same, but that the errors they represent are equally serious.

I did not grow up a Christian. I came to Christ shortly before joining the military, and grew up in KJVO fundamentalism while in the service. I am profoundly grateful for the godly Pastor I had. He was anti-Calvinistic and doggedly KJVO - but he was gentle and kind about his views. I have since moved away from that branch of fundamentalism, because the rhetoric I saw, and see Dr. Ketchum advocating, is simply not historic fundamentalism.

I am very grateful the Lord led me to a balanced fundamentalist Seminary. I have seen others echo these thoughts on the associated thread - but Dr. Ketchum and his brand of fundamentalism will be gone in another generation. I do not say this with malice. They have taken extreme positions on separation from anyone and everyone who is not in the exact place they are. They will continue to be more and more marginalized until they virtually disappear.

I believe I have an outside perspective. I didn’t grow up in a particular “camp” all my life. I choose my Seminary not because my Pastor told me to go to it; I already had a BA and 10 years in the military. I am not a kid. This hyper-fundamentalism (yes, I use the label) is distasteful to young men like myself who are serious about fundamentalism and want to serve the Lord. It will not last, and I don’t particularly think it should.

But when I looked him up on facebook we have 5 mutual friends but then again he had 3,340 friends. The ones we share are Midwest fundamentalist which strikes me are sort of the point. He is the proto-type of my view of the Midwest version of fundamentalism. Does anyone know how many people are represented by the “Midwest Independent Baptist Pastor’s Fellowship”? 600? 1500? 3340? The scope of these fights just, amuse/tire/annoy me. Does it really make any difference? Or it just a tiny squabble in a little corner of the shrinking tent called fundamentalism?

Historic Fundamentalism was interdenominational. That’s a fact. Anyone who reads the history of the movement knows that. Historic Fundamentalism was a coming together of Bible believing Christians from many (perhaps it would not be wrong to say all) denominations to endeavor to preserve the fundamentals of the Christian faith which were being undermined by liberalism. In the beginning, it was primarily a fight within the various denominations for control of the schools, mission organizations, publishing houses, and denominational machinery. When those endeavors failed, “fundamentalists” withdrew into their own churches, and began to organize fundamentalist schools, mission boards, and publishers. Fundamentalists of various stripes would often cooperate in some of these endeavors (such as non-denominational schools), but more often formed their own fundamental denominational organizations. I use the term “denominational” in the doctrinal sense. Many Fundamentalists continued to enjoy fellowship across denominational lines in organizations such as the American Council of Christian Churches, and in attendance at large fundamental Bible conferences, camps, etc.

In the light of this history, what does it mean for IBF types to “separate” from, say, Bible Presbyterian types? If you mean fail to join with them in joint foreign missions endeavors, is that the same as separating from them? Most Baptists are not enthusiastic about sponsoring Presbyterian missionaries, and vice versa. Is that the same as separation?

The terminology is too imprecise. Is separation the same as electing not to become financially involved in a joint ministry endeavor? Or is separation a matter of breaking fellowship because of apostasy? As long as those who claim to be Fundamentalists continue to confuse such issues, thoughtful, Bible-believing Christians who are serious about defending the Faith are going to be leery of identifying themselves as Fundamentalists.

I had to read “In Pursuit of Purity” by David Beale as a text when I studied historic fundamentalism in Seminary. I concur with the post above - Dr. Ketchum’s version of fundamentalism is not historic.

To be honest, the massive thread associated with this post has done nothing but make me sad. I want nothing to do with the inter-fellowship politics of those who are spoiling for the title of “the most fundamental fundamentalist.” It all makes me sick.

I am not calling out anybody in particular - merely the strand of fundamentalism Dr. Ketchum is representative of. I have no idea who the man is. I don’t care who the man is. I only know I want nothing to do with his brand of fundamentalism. He appears to be a man who doesn’t know how to pick his battles.

I don’t know Lance either. If that’s Mid-Western IBF I hope it doesn’t move eastward. As for Central, no display (unless they repent I suppose). Maybe it’s a good things that the lines are being drawn.

“Our next preaching conference will be August 12th and 13th, 2013 at Ravenwood Baptist Church in Chicago, IL. The subject of the preaching will be – The Local Church: the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Dr. Clay Nuttall will be the main speaker. By the way, Central Baptist Theological Seminary will not be allowed to set up a display there either.”

[Steve Davis]

By the way, Central Baptist Theological Seminary will not be allowed to set up a display there either.”

Steve,

If I were Central I would wear that as a badge of honor. I would even think about putting it in my marketing materials.

[Steve Davis] By the way, Central Baptist Theological Seminary will not be allowed to set up a display there either.”

It hurts so good!

Likely that someone enamored with MIB PFIF (or however one would pronounce it) wouldn’t be happy at Central anyway!