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
Well I’m not ready to make the bold prophecies that Jay has proclaimed; I’d just say I don’t see the point of maintaining some sort of movement. It really is like herding cats and, from where I stand at least, the FBFI demonstrates that.
I don’t mean to belabor something minor and internal to the FBFI (nor do I mean to pick on them in particular as I have benefited both directly and indirectly from men in that fellowship), but one of Dr. Bauder’s earlier examples highlights what seems to me to be the fatal flaw of any coalition. A pastor did what was proper (if misguided) in his local church context, but the same act was improper in the fellowship context. The fellowship could always make sure that the annual meetings are held at churches who will let everyone in, but a faction would find it distasteful. And that’s the truth of it. The fellowship is made up of factions of which given ones will eventually push to have their own interests more reflected by fundamentalism, and especially by their particular fellowship—see Dr. Ketchum’s latest.
Strictly speaking it doesn’t have to go that way, but experience tells me it usually does. So what’s to be done? I said in a personal email to someone with whom I was discussing this privately that a good church passes on a “whole” Christianity (including a proper separatism) to the generations of its congregation (I also opined that confessional churches seem to me to have the best chance at having a “whole” Christianity, but that’s probably another subject), and that local churches are the instruments through which fundamentalism will be saved if so be it is saved. Like any other doctrine or principle, if congregations aren’t led in it and buy into it, it won’t survive. But those bodies in which it survives will be properly equipped to decide where and when and with whom they can cooperate without having to consider what other folks in the fellowships will think or say or write.
So despite the benefit I’ve received from the ministry of fellowship individuals, I have no need of what they’ve wrought in their international fraternity. (I’d hasten to add that they need nothing from me as well, so no loss there.) It just seems to me that the fellowships diffuse and distract from the local level work rather than enhancing it. I’m not interested.
[Alex Guggenheim][Jay] Public Fundamentalism, by and large, is characterized by wingnuts and whackos, and that’s why a lot of us don’t want to associate with it…It would help if the sane fundamentalists wouldn’t give credence and acceptance to the whackos by, say, teaching on music at FBC Hammond or sharing a conference stage with them. Then the rhetorical guns open up on the ‘sane’ fundamentalists because they dared fellowship with someone like MacArthurMaybe some are objecting to MacArthur because MacAthur gives credence and acceptance to “whacko” CJ Mahaney. It would help if MacArthur didn’t write books about the error of Charismaticism and then give credence and acceptance to the very thing he devoted an entire book arguing against.Just a thought. John has been faithful in many ways but unfaithful in some and here is one of them. But I digress, forgive me.
And the point of noting MacArthur’s association with Mahaney is…what exactly? That we can’t say anything nice about the man without pointing out at least one flaw? You prove my point.
"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
A historical note about some large fundamental Baptist gatherings of the post WWII era. In 1963 the first Fundamental Baptist Congress of North America was held at Temple Baptist Church in Detroit, and the second Congress gathered at the Civic Auditorium in Grand Rapids, in early October of 1966. I had been a youth pastor just one month in 1966 when I was privileged to attend the historic meeting in Grand Rapids with about 5,000 others. I also attended two World Congress of Fundamentalist meetings on the Bob Jones campus in 1983 and 1986. My recollection is that the 1966 meeting was larger in attendance than both of the WCF gatherings. I think, although someone might correct me, that the 1983 WCF meeting was the largest in the history of the WCF. The FBC of NA was a very unique phenomenon that has been largely under the radar of current young men who have various fundamentalist backgrounds. It was a very successful coming together of all the major independent (i.e., not aligned with the NBC/ABC or SBC) Baptists. It included leaders from the BBF, GARBC, and Evangelical Baptist of Canada, plus various leading voices from the fundamentalist wing of the Conservative Baptist movement (which included the CBF – now known at the FBFI) and the Southwide Baptist Fellowship (which would include independents from the broad Sword of the Lord readership at that time). Speakers at the two events included (although this is not an exclusive list): Dr. Bob Ketcham, Paul Jackson, Joseph Stowell, John Balyo, Wilbert Welch of the GARBC; G.B. Vick, W.E. Dowell, John Rawlings, A.V. Henderson, Wendell Zimmerman of the BBF; R.V. Clearwaters, G. Archer Weniger, Monroe Parker, Harry Love, Howard Sugden, from the CB orbit; John R. Rice, Lee Roberson, Tom Malone, and a young Jack Hyles, in the Southwide/SOTL orbit, and a number of Canadian men. Regular Baptist Press published hard-backed volumes of the messages and I have copies in my library. A major note was the obvious fraternal relationship at the time that caused all of these very independent men to join together for the advancement of a common cause. The messages included presentations of the gospel, evangelism, important doctrinal distinctives, Baptist polity and warnings about liberalism and ecumenism. These men were different in their style, specific emphases and regional/cultural backgrounds, but they represented a common cause that was readily discernible in that day of what Baptist fundamentalism was all about.
Gerry Carlson
I apologize for my horrible formatting above. My bad — tried to paste from Word and messed up.
A further note. The KJV was not an issue at the 1963 & 1966 gatherings mentioned in my previous post. Although Dr. David Otis Fuller of Grand Rapids, and an early proponent of a KJV exclusive position, was on the committee, he did not speak.
My seminary president, Dr. Clearwaters was a strong KJV user, but he often said that the 1901 ASV was the most accurate translation. That was because he was a Greek scholar and felt the 1901 translated verb tenses better. He was vociferously against the RSV and loose paraphrase versions. But it was well known that he read his Greek NT for daily devotions.
Gerry Carlson
[Jay]The point is (why am I not shocked you missed the obvious lol) that while you cry about fundamentalists giving credence and sharing a stage with “wackos”, the same goes for the CE’s like MacArthur who shares a stage and gives credence to “wacko” charismatic apostolic wingnut CJ Mahaney. Thus, this may be the very cause for some fundamentalists criticizing MacArthur who is doing the very thing about which you complain fundamentalists do. But then I just said that and maybe I am hoping the obvious will hit you this time.[Alex Guggenheim][Jay] Public Fundamentalism, by and large, is characterized by wingnuts and whackos, and that’s why a lot of us don’t want to associate with it…It would help if the sane fundamentalists wouldn’t give credence and acceptance to the whackos by, say, teaching on music at FBC Hammond or sharing a conference stage with them. Then the rhetorical guns open up on the ‘sane’ fundamentalists because they dared fellowship with someone like MacArthurMaybe some are objecting to MacArthur because MacAthur gives credence and acceptance to “whacko” CJ Mahaney. It would help if MacArthur didn’t write books about the error of Charismaticism and then give credence and acceptance to the very thing he devoted an entire book arguing against.Just a thought. John has been faithful in many ways but unfaithful in some and here is one of them. But I digress, forgive me.
And the point of noting MacArthur’s association with Mahaney is…what exactly? That we can’t say anything nice about the man without pointing out at least one flaw? You prove my point.
And hey, can’t you say anything nice about fundamentalists without pointing out at least one flaw?
Alex -
I’ll allow you to decide whether Proverbs 26:4 or 26:5 should apply in this instance.
"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
So one side has C. J. Mahaney who, while being a non-cessationist, has produced some very beneficial material. (BTW, while I disagree with some of his position on spiritual gifts, I’ll acknowledge him as a brother in Christ in the same way that some of the old-time fundamentalists co-habited with the old-fashioned pentacostals.)
The other side has Hyles and Schaap and tolerates baseless tirades like Danny Sweatt’s at an FBFI meeting.
People make their choices
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[KevinM]Thanks for sharing this, Kevin. I didn’t know that about Pastor Pickering, probably because while you were listening intently to his 1979 sermon on Bible translations, I was watching flannelgraph Bible story lessons and coloring Bible story pages in the 2s & 3s children’s church. ;)[Kevin T. Bauder]I seem to recall that [Pickering] 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.
[snip]
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.
Wrapping up a few stray threads. Yes, Kevin Bauder is correct here.
The NIV New Testament was released when Pickering was president of Baptist Bible College; soon after this he began using it and recommending it in the classroom. He became pastor of Emmanuel Baptist (Toledo) in 1978, the same year the full NIV was released. During the summer of 1979 he preached a sermon, “Questions and Answers about Bible Translations.” It was an unusual moment for him—a topical sermon rather than expository. And I recall him reading the full manuscript from the pulpit (he usually preached without notes). The sermon was later printed as a booklet by Emmanuel, then Central Seminary, then Baptist World Mission.
Somewhere in my files I have some early promotional material from Zondervan, citing Pickering’s use of the new translation with his congregation (and also citing Don Tyler, another GARBC leader who was an early adopter).
During his later pastorate at Fourth Baptist, Pickering preached from the King James, believing that this choice was a better fit for the Minneapolis congregation. But his sermons were peppered with clarifying remarks (“This phrase could be better understood as…”) followed by a quote straight from the NIV.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Fundamentalists, your house is being left to you desolate because you destroyed it and your kids watched the whole thing. You chased us out yourselves when we asked hard questions and were told not to question our elders, you demonized the writers and thinkers that didn’t toe the theological line that you wanted toed (remember Dr. Jaeggli’s now-pulled book on alcohol? That wasn’t even a doctrinal issue!), you blackballed good men and ministries because of politics (MacArthur and the blood) - and we found refuge from people that actually took us in, encouraged us not to bail on Christianity or doctrine altogether, and helped us get our feet back on Christ, the solid rock, which is where they should have been in the first place. So until you understand that, you’ll watch your schools dwindle and close, your conferences get smaller and smaller (and older and older as the young like me flee), and your coffers empty until that day when there is nothing left.
I’m a long way from being young, but this hit a responsive chord with me as I’m sure it did with others. I remember one of the strong personalities of fundamentalism of the 60’s and 70’s who, after perusing my library, told me that I didn’t have a single book that was worth reading because:
-most of my commentaries were written by Calvinists
-Spurgeon was a cigar-smoking amillenlialist
-the Puritans were non-separatists
-and my Thompson Chain reference Bible was amillenial.
This guy’s library was his Scofield Bible, a well-worn set of Sir Robert Anderson’s works, and Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
I don’t believe in working with apostates in spiritual endeavors and I think that those that do are sinning. I love Mohler’s account of cleaning house at Southern. (Something that I was told could NEVER happen.)
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron, Spurgeon was solidly premill anyway. He wasn’t a scofieldian, but he was still premill. Among other things, that guy was hopelessly ignorant.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
This thread has digressed into many areas so it is hard to keep track on who and what to reply to. A theme that keeps resonating is the criticism of John MacArthur by past and present fundamentalists. While some of the criticism was unjustified, some was fully justified. If I may mention just a few:
(1) Non-Cessationist connections - MacArthur has given validation to men like Piper/CJ Mahaney by so publicly embracing them. It is true that older Fundamentalist leaders such as Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones and Dr Ian Paisley had close friendships with men like George Jeffreys the Elim Pentecostal Movement Founder they did not share platforms or publicly endorse them. For instance, Lloyd Jones was offered the Albert Hall in London to preach to the Elim Conference by Jeffreys but refused. Remember this was the time when the Pentecostal movement was little more than an excitable Wesleyan Holiness church. Things are much worse today in this movement.
(2) Eternal Sonship Issue - MacArthur did endorse a heretical view of this. I realise he later retracted but it made many suspicious of his later pronouncements on the blood of Christ debate.
(3) Ecumencial Connections - MacArthur has maintained a good personal stance that the Roman Catholic Church is a non-Christian institution. However, he has given men like John Piper, who praise Mother Theresa as a pattern of biblical sanctification, validation by his close friendship and public associations. I could also mention Al Mohler and the Manhattan declaration connection.
(4) CCM - MacArthur writes some great things on worship and the majesty of God. Yet he tolerates in his conferences like “Resolved” overt contemporary musical forms. The Amazon genres for his conference music are “rock” and “pop.” (http://www.amazon.com/Resolved-Music-Vol-1/dp/B003O2YNWC/ref=dm_ap_alb1…). MacArthur also believes that his success in Grace Church emanates from the hippy movement wave.
So while there is much to commend MacArthur in his preaching and writings, he should not be immune to scrutiny. It is immature to simply focus on some of the silly criticisms of MacArthur and use that to undermine biblical evaluations of his many other faults. I agree with Rolland McCune’s assessment in “Promise Unfulfilled” (p152-153) that MacArthur’s “practice of ecclesiastical separation is unclear at best” and that he has “a new-evangelical profile.” That may present no problems to many on here, but it does to those who are historic separatist fundamentalists.
My Blog: www.oldfaith.wordpress.com
Church Sermons: Cornerstone Sermon Audio
I would like to believe that the young fundamentalists are looking to scripture rather than influential men for their stand in the faith; however, I think they are just trading one old passé authoritarian leadership group to a more trendy cerebral authoritarian leadership group to blindly follow. Very few in the generation before them would dare challenge the likes of Jack Hyles or Bob Jones, Jr. and very few of the young fundamentalists today challenge a John MacArthur or Albert Moeller. This is clearly displayed in how the young fundies handle the C.J. Mahaney situation. Sovereign Grace has a child abuse situation, as bad, if not far worse, than Trinity in NH. Sovereign Grace has an “overlord” style leadership only differing from the old guard in that instead having one dictator leading, you have a small politburo. Yet, there are few who challenge Moeller and SBTS and their relationship to SG. Why, because Moeller is probably the most influential man in conservative circles today and it is easier to challenge the older less influential group than the most popular.
[Jay]Jay, while you are wrong and duplicitous on this particular matter in my view, I don’t consider you a fool.Alex -
I’ll allow you to decide whether Proverbs 26:4 or 26:5 should apply in this instance.
[Ron Bean]And to imagine there are only two choices is much of the problem as demonstrated hereThere are no old time fundamentalists who knowingly and publicly embraced and/or approved ministerial efforts with old Pentecostals. But that would not matter anyway. Error is error and it is not justified because some (unnamed) fundamentalist might have done so.So one side has C. J. Mahaney who, while being a non-cessationist, has produced some very beneficial material. (BTW, while I disagree with some of his position on spiritual gifts, I’ll acknowledge him as a brother in Christ in the same way that some of the old-time fundamentalists co-habited with the old-fashioned pentacostals.)
The other side has Hyles and Schaap and tolerates baseless tirades like Danny Sweatt’s at an FBFI meeting.
People make their choices
[Barry L.] “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..” I would like to believe that the young fundamentalists are looking to scripture rather than influential men for their stand in the faith; however, I think they are just trading one old passé authoritarian leadership group to a more trendy cerebral authoritarian leadership group to blindly follow. Very few in the generation before them would dare challenge the likes of Jack Hyles or Bob Jones, Jr. and very few of the young fundamentalists today challenge a John MacArthur or Albert Moeller. This is clearly displayed in how the young fundies handle the C.J. Mahaney situation. Sovereign Grace has a child abuse situation, as bad, if not far worse, than Trinity in NH. Sovereign Grace has an “overlord” style leadership only differing from the old guard in that instead having one dictator leading, you have a small politburo. Yet, there are few who challenge Moeller and SBTS and their relationship to SG. Why, because Moeller is probably the most influential man in conservative circles today and it is easier to challenge the older less influential group than the most popular.Barry, you have put your finger on the pulse of many. They have simply traded Gurus. They are unable to bear criticism, particularly direct criticism, of their chosen Guru(s).
I use John Piper as a case in point often and for a reason. He is an exegetical and theological mess. Repeatedly his theological claims are as equally outrageous as his Jack Hyles. This has been demonstrated over and over again and they come from the identical cause of Hyles’ theological ineptness, exegetical malfeasance. But as with Hyles, because Piper meets a certain need, his offenses are ignore and his children highly upset when they are brought out. Of course there are those who feign concern with John Piper like Phil Johnson whose only complaint has been associative issues with Piper, that is platform sharing or transfers of trust and not the large body of failing exegesis and theological propositions. Which make them even more of a concern seeing the feign raising awareness of problems but only the less egregious, thus modeling a continued approval and consumption of Piper’s errant views with discrimination.
Discussion