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
Charles Spurgeon’s millennial position is not crystal clear. Peter Masters, present pastor at The Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, Spurgeon’s church, makes a strong case that Spurgeon was amill. I am not totally convinced, but to state dogmatically that Spurgeon was pre-mill requires careful editing of Spurgeon’s statements. (Much like John R. Rice used to edit Spurgeon’s sermons in “The Sword of the Lord” to remove the Calvinist elements. That was not only unethical, but served to mislead many IFB ers as to Spurgeon’s true position. It pays to examine the original sources.)
It seems to me that Spurgeon was undecided regarding his millennial position. At times, he seems to be amill, but at other times pre-mill. He was probably like many today, largely pan-mill! :)
As to Fundamentalists sharing the platform with traditional Pentecostals, I have seen it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears. Traditonal Pentecostals have been part of the historic fundamentalist movement along with virtually every other Christian denomination.
I hear fundamentalists dogmatically pontificating about what they do not know nor understand. Many assume that Fundamentalism is what they have personally experienced and observed. It would be helpful if those who aspire to influence others would prepare themselves by a bit of thoughtful reading in the area of historic Fundamentalism before making their assertions.
G. N. Barkman
[Alex Guggenheim]Of course there are those who feign concern with John Piper like Phil Johnson whose only complaint has been associative issues with Piper
What makes you say that Phil Johnson’s concern about Piper’s associations was fake? Just because he did not go as far as you would like in his criticisms of John Piper, does not mean that the red flag he rose about Piper’s associations was all pretend. Seems like a really poor choice of words on your part.
Andrew Henderson
I don’t understand the hero worship mentality. There have to be some of us who just don’t care about following the “big name” guys. I don’t care about John MacArthur. I don’t care about John Piper. I don’t care about Al Mohler. They have good points to learn from, and bad areas too shy away from. I love listening to James White, but I don’t believe in limited atonement. Just use some discernment …
Perhaps I’m just hopelessly naive, but I don’t follow a particular “big name” Pastor and I have to believe there are a lot of us who don’t. I think this “guru” worship may be a tad bit overblown, or else I just have my head in the sand. It just isn’t an issue to me.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Don,
Sorry that I wasn’t able to get to this sooner. And I hope your plumbing problems have been solved by now. If not, be sure to contact Winston Rothschild.
The substance of your remaining exhortations seems to be that I don’t show sufficient—what?—deference? respect? reverence? when addressing some present-day Fundamentalist institutions and leaders. You point out that some of these have “given me a platform” and “encouraged [me] to participate in their endeavors.” The implication is that, by asking me to speak from the platform, these unnamed individuals are forever sealing my lips against any criticism (especially disrespectful criticism) of their institutions or leaders. Am I understanding you correctly?
Both as a pastor and as an agency president, I’ve had occasion to invite speakers to appear on our platform. My perspective was never that we were somehow doing the speaker a favor by “giving him a platform.” We always wanted speakers who would actually enhance what we were doing (though I sometimes made bad choices). Consequently, I always thought that the speaker who agreed to appear on our platform was doing us a favor, not the other way around. When any Christian institution or leader of whatever sort begins to feel so self-important that this role is reversed, it is a sign that something is seriously amiss.
One reason that I talk about the faults of the FBFI (for example) rather bluntly is because I am a member. Before I joined, I largely ignored the organization. Its footprint upon my world was exceedingly light. That began to change when I attended my first meeting about ten years ago. That’s when John Vaughan approached me and asked me to consider joining the board. I wasn’t even a member of the organization. What’s more, I was not at all sure that I wanted to be. The FBFI had taken some pretty preposterous positions back during the 1970s and 1980s, and I certainly didn’t want to endorse those. Some of its leaders had also done a good bit of bullying (I mean this word as a statement of fact, not as a pejorative), and I wanted nothing at all to do with that.
That was one reason I chose not to join the board. The other is that I think that ideas are more important than structures—in fact, I am willing to sacrifice structures to ideas. Clearly articulated thought is more persuasive than political maneuvering and posturing. We can never build a Fundamentalism worth saving by using our structures to keep (or force) people out, which is what the FBF had tried to do for decades. We can build a vibrant Fundamentalism only on the basis of persuasive and biblical thinking. What I wanted to do—and what I still want to do—is to articulate ideas. I knew, however, that my ideas were going to be unpalatable to at least some of the old guard of the FBFI, and for my part, I thought that they were part of the problem that needed to be fixed.
John accepted my decision not to join the board (and I’m sure he’s now happy he did!), but he did keep after me about joining the FBFI. He insisted that the FBFI was changing, that it was embarrassed by some of the antics of the 1970s and 1980s, and that it needed the kind of influence that I represented. Finally, under his persuasion, I agreed to come into the organization.
When I came into the FBFI, it became an ecclesial home to me. Because it is now my home, I don’t intend just to walk away from it. Furthermore, because it is my home, I have a duty to take responsibility for cleaning it up (especially since I was drawn in by the FBFI’s own professed desire to clean up). But you can’t clean up without occasionally hauling out the trash. In other words, nonsense that I could tolerate without comment from a distant FBFI is now intolerable to me as a member. Since I am a member, I don’t see it as anybody else’s job to address it. I see it as mine.
It’s not my responsibility to fix the SBC, the NRB, or the NAE. Those organizations have plenty of problems, some of them worse than the problems in the FBFI. I am quite willing to point out those problems from time to time. But I don’t have to live in the SBC, the NRB, or the NAE. I live in the FBFI. When I see people in my home who insist upon leaving the toilet seats up, whose dirty dishes are cluttering the sink, and whose refuse litters the floor, I’m going to try to tidy up. If these people keep on making messes, then I’m going to name them as the slobs they are.
Sometimes slobs don’t like being called slobs. There is a solution to that. Let them stop being slobs. Let them clean up their space in my house. Or let them move out. But don’t expect me to live in filth.
Which brings us to the muckety-muck. You want a strong organization? You don’t get it by dismissing young leaders and telling them that the discrepancies they have observed are none of their business. An official who would do that kind of thing really is a muckety-muck. He is a slob, and his behavior is part of the trash that needs to be hauled out. Let me say this as clearly as I can: Fundamentalism (including the FBFI) does not need any more big men. It needs little men who have a big God. Fundamentalism is never going to be saved by those who protect power. If it can be saved at all, in any form, it will be saved by those who spread power around and who win people to ideas.
I would love to see a healthy, strong, vibrant FBFI. Some of its leaders have seen the need for a house cleaning, and they’ve worked hard to bring it to pass. I have nothing but respect for their efforts. Furthermore, there is rebuilding that could be done to restore this old house to its former glory. Rebuilding, however, usually requires some kind of demolition first. Good things do happen in the FBFI, but about the time they do, somebody tramps through the living room with his barnyard boots on.
You want to know why young Fundamentalists are not being attracted to the FBFI? It’s not because I point out the mess. It’s because they can see it for themselves. They don’t want to live in a dirty house, either. They certainly don’t want to live in a house in which certain tenants act like slum lords. Above all, they don’t want to live in the kind of dysfunctional home in which everybody just pretends that old Uncle Louie is normal when he slobbers all over the floor.
Here is a wonderful resolution that the FBFI adopted several years ago.
08-04 Uncompromising Fellowship: Resolution on the Importance of Fellowship
Whereas we believe
► That this Fellowship of individuals is vital for the encouragement of godly Christians worldwide;
► That one of our goals is to cultivate an atmosphere of Biblical fellowship in order to build one another up in the faith, even though we may differ in some of our convictions;
► That Scripture imposes upon us a theological imperative to promote Biblical unity as well as Biblical separation;
We resolve
► To promote fellowship among uncompromising believers;
► To minister to all like-minded believers, whether or not they are members of the FBFI;
► To strengthen the hands and hearts of God‘s faithful servants, while holding a thoroughly Biblical position with a thoroughly Biblical attitude, free from condescension and pride;
► To encourage pastors with more resources to attend fellowships for the encouragement of others, and to also seek out and help others to participate in our local, state, regional, national, and international fellowships.
The only thing that I’ve done is to challenge those who acted publicly in ways that were out of keeping with this resolution. Yes, I’ve sometimes called things by their rightful names, but I’ve never employed those names for mere opprobrium. That’s a distinction that you don’t seem to catch.
Don, don’t you get it? People like me are the last and best hope for Old Fundamentalist institutions like the FBFI. The trouble is that most of my kind have just given up. They don’t think it’s worth the effort, because they are convinced that the house is beyond cleaning. They are looking for some house where they can settle down without having to live in constant clutter. By the way, one of the reasons that I stay is that I’ve been in some of those other houses, and I know that their messes, while different, are not noticeably better than ours.
Can the FBFI house be cleaned up? Are you even willing to try? I’ll do one more post in which I say what I think needs to be done.
Perhaps I’ve responded less directly to your criticisms than you had hoped. I’m trying to give you my mind so that you can set the things you don’t like about me into a context. And Don, I do appreciate your interaction.
Kevin
Minor, but should be noted: (1) Arno Weniger, Jr was not pres of MBBC in 1978 as stated above (he came later than that) and (2) Mt. Calvary does not have elder rule, though they do have a plurality of elders (those are not the same things).
Btw, kudos KB on stating well so many things in this thread.
DMD
To Barry L and partially to Alex G:
I agree with what you are both saying about trading one overlord for another. Too many new guys fear being on the outs if they criticize popular speakers today.
I am reminded of Galatians 1:10: For am I now trying to win the favor of people, or God? Or am I striving to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ.
I do not understand the fascination with Mahaney. What an absolute trainwreck. He wrote a book on humility that was praised by many. This is the same guy who determined that no one was organizing church the right way so he had to start his own movement. Nothing says humility more than no one else getting it right.
To his charismaticism along with Piper’s, I find both disturbing on many levels. If I talk about Piper with people who don’t know about him, I make mention of his strange view of sign gifts.
I also have my disagreements with MacArthur, though they are not at the same level of disagreement with Piper and way less than Mahaney.
With that being said, I am also a baptist. I don’t share pulpits with those who refuse to submit to such basic doctrines as believer baptism by immersion. Fundamentalists were never so small as to be baptist only, but if the Bible truly was their standard, they would have been.
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.
[Andrew Henderson]Phil is smart enough to both be quite aware (at one time he labeled Piper as one of his favorite Teachers via his books) of Piper’s exegetical and theological malfeasance and has demonstrated this level of objection with other teachers. Hence, I chose feign because I applied his own standards in dealing with the poor exegesis and contradictory logic of others teachers to that of his treatment of Piper and deduced this is the best current description. Now, it might be my I am guilty of a poor word choice and so with the devil as the advocate I will describe his treatment of Piper as negligent, contradictory to that of others and untrustworthy in light of how he has poured over the work of others and demanded theological, exegetical and logical consistency which he has repeatedly ignored with Piper. In the end you have the same problem with someone like Phil Johnson providing a very poor and injurious model for others in how to approach the work of John Piper. Feel free to read what the late John W. Robbins had to say. He was no Independent Baptist Fundamentalist: The Trinity Foundation: Pied Piper.[Alex Guggenheim]Of course there are those who feign concern with John Piper like Phil Johnson whose only complaint has been associative issues with Piper
What makes you say that Phil Johnson’s concern about Piper’s associations was fake? Just because he did not go as far as you would like in his criticisms of John Piper, does not mean that the red flag he rose about Piper’s associations was all pretend. Seems like a really poor choice of words on your part.
[James K] I do not understand the fascination with Mahaney. What an absolute trainwreck. He wrote a book on humility that was praised by many. This is the same guy who determined that no one was organizing church the right way so he had to start his own movement. Nothing says humility more than no one else getting it right.To his charismaticism along with Piper’s, I find both disturbing on many levels. If I talk about Piper with people who don’t know about him, I make mention of his strange view of sign gifts.
Ditto.
Alex, your complaints about Mahaney miss the mark because I’ve never heard Mahaney on that subject - nor do I have any desire to. I know that he’s got issues, but since I don’t know what he believes, I can say little more than that.
I’ve heard Mahaney speak once or twice (via the sermons at the Resolved 2008 conference), and have never heard nor seen anything from him that would indicate that tongues speaking is normal. I enjoyed and appreciated his sermons because they were exegetically sound and spiritually impacting. I have no idea where Mahaney stands on tongues and don’t especially care. The mess at SGI was addressed (and is still apparently being addressed - I’m not following that), but is immaterial to me because I don’t have any ties or acquaintances in SGI. I do listen to some of the SG music, but even that I’m picky about.
So for you to say that I should shun MacArthur because of some association with Mahaney doesn’t even make sense. How am I supposed to ‘shun’ someone that I’ve heard speak twice or because I own a book that doesn’t even contain his error? I suppose I could burn his book on Worldliness (which also doesn’t touch on tongues or charismaticism, but was a gift and has been VERY helpful to me), but if I’m not in contact with his error - and MacArthur isn’t promoting Mahaney’s error (which he hasn’t that I’ve ever been aware of) - then what exactly is the point of your complaint? That I’m not discerning? I wasn’t aware that I needed you to discern for me between the right and the wrong. Forgive me this wrong!
As for your base slander in post #126 (regarding my “duplicity”; I am not so bold as to demand that I am the only right one on this board) - well, I forgive you for that, but I think any chance that we ever had of productive conversation has now ended.
Drs. Bauder and Doran, I appreciate the substantial investment of time and energy that you have put into this discussion. It’s been an interesting and fruitful discussion.
"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 never complained to you about Mahaney, I made comments in general and then pointed out what I believe is your duplicitous standard for fundies vs MacArthur with the Mahaney association as an example but no direct complaint about Mahaney to you.Um also Jay I never told or suggested you shun MacArthur. No post of mine exists which you can provide but you do have me rethinking I my application of your Proverbs suggestion.
plurality of elders not elder rule, yes, correct. My mistake. Sorry about that, there is a significant difference.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Kevin T. Bauder]Above all, they don’t want to live in the kind of dysfunctional home in which everybody just pretends that old Uncle Louie is normal when he slobbers all over the floor.
I know this came in the midst of a very serious (and very good, btw) stream of thought. But I must confess…I laughed out loud at this. More there than meets the eye, perhaps? But that is pure speculation on my part. Very funny and effective, nonetheless.
Mark Mincy
[Kevin T. Bauder] And I hope your plumbing problems have been solved by now.Yes, job is all done and the water is all on the inside of the pipes. A monumental victory for the clueless.
[Kevin T. Bauder] The substance of your remaining exhortations seems to be that I don’t show sufficient—what?—deference? respect? reverence? when addressing some present-day Fundamentalist institutions and leaders.We are moving beyond the questions I first raised regarding the public meetings with Evangelicals. I appreciate what you have had to say there, but I still wonder about its wisdom and effect. Nevertheless, I am prepared to drop that point for now.
My objection here rises out of your answers to me in this thread. What you said in those answers is very similar to what you have said at other times with respect to criticizing fundamentalists. You tend to use pejorative language in these criticisms. There are several negative consequences of those kinds of answers, in my view.
You fail to persuade those you criticize, rather you motivate their resistance to criticism.
You inflame the already critical spirits of those who are disaffected – they see you as an ally in their march towards evangelicalism, rather than as someone trying to influence them towards a better fundamentalism.
You reserve this language for fundamentalists rather than evangelicals. This seems to be a strange way to offer ‘constructive’ criticism.
[Kevin T. Bauder] You point out that some of these have “given me a platform” and “encouraged [me] to participate in their endeavors.” The implication is that, by asking me to speak from the platform, these unnamed individuals are forever sealing my lips against any criticism (especially disrespectful criticism) of their institutions or leaders. Am I understanding you correctly?No, certainly not, but see my points above.
[Kevin T. Bauder] The other is that I think that ideas are more important than structures—in fact, I am willing to sacrifice structures to ideas. Clearly articulated thought is more persuasive than political maneuvering and posturing. We can never build a Fundamentalism worth saving by using our structures to keep (or force) people out, which is what the FBF had tried to do for decades. We can build a vibrant Fundamentalism only on the basis of persuasive and biblical thinking. What I wanted to do—and what I still want to do—is to articulate ideas. I knew, however, that my ideas were going to be unpalatable to at least some of the old guard of the FBFI, and for my part, I thought that they were part of the problem that needed to be fixed.Well, yes, clearly articulated thought vs. political maneuvering and posturing. Which one of those categories does the pejorative language fall under?
And so you find some of the old guard at odds with what you would like fundamentalism to be. Fair enough, you are entitled to your point of view. But aren’t you guilty to some degree of the ‘bullying’ you charge them with? You say they used their structures to “keep (or force) people out”, but then you say:
[Kevin T. Bauder] Sometimes slobs don’t like being called slobs. There is a solution to that. Let them stop being slobs. Let them clean up their space in my house. [b] Or let them move out.[/b] But don’t expect me to live in filth.I am not clear how your agenda is different.
[Kevin T. Bauder] People like me are the last and best hope for Old Fundamentalist institutions like the FBFI.Whoa… surely you don’t mean that the way it sounds, do you?
[Kevin T. Bauder] Can the FBFI house be cleaned up? Are you even willing to try? I’ll do one more post in which I say what I think needs to be done.Well, I look forward to your next post.
… And Don, I do appreciate your interaction.
And now, back to Romans…
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Why are we more concerned about separation than unity, when the Bible teaches both?
Why have we become experts on separation, even to the nth degree, but such amateurs about Biblical unity?
Why are we more concerned about the splinter in our CE brother’s eye, than the beam in our own?
Why is it OK to learn from the books of dead men, whose position on everything is not exactly the same as ours, but cannot do so from living men, unless they believe what we do on every point, and identify with our camp?
Why are we such experts on what Fundamentalism is and should be today, and such novices on how Fundamentalism started and what it was in the beginning?
How did we become so skilled at policing the ministries of CE’s, and so inept at policing our own?
When did dogmatism replace Bible knowledge as the test of fidelity?
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] As to Fundamentalists sharing the platform with traditional Pentecostals, I have seen it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears. Traditonal Pentecostals have been part of the historic fundamentalist movement along with virtually every other Christian denomination.I hear fundamentalists dogmatically pontificating about what they do not know nor understand. Many assume that Fundamentalism is what they have personally experienced and observed. It would be helpful if those who aspire to influence others would prepare themselves by a bit of thoughtful reading in the area of historic Fundamentalism before making their assertions.
Greg, you’ve brought up similar points several times. I don’t think anyone is denying that there are fundamentalists who are something other than Baptists. But various types of fundamentalists normally have put their efforts into largely denominationalistic efforts. The “broad based” fundamentalist meetings have long since fallen by the wayside.
Baptist fundamentalists tend to promote Baptist fundamentalist ideas. They don’t particularly care about promoting the Presbyterian or Pentecostal fundamentalist ideas. To some extent, Baptists will look on those other ideas as not worthy of promotion, while at the same time wishing the fundamentalists in those other groups well in their fundamentalist endeavours.
In other words, I am glad for any success a Pentecostal fundamentalist might have within his own group, but I am going to resist his distinctive ideas from showing up in my circles.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
I agree with your post above (#142), but there have been several posts on this thread that apparently do not. My purpose is to encourage Fundamentalists to not shoot the “separation gun” at everyone who does not dot every “i” the way they do. I am appealing for a recognition that Fundamentalism has historically included all denominational positions. Do I agree with them all? Of course not. That would be absurd! Do I denounce everyone who does not agree with me, and declare that no one can be a Fundamentalist who believes this or that? That is also absurd! It betrays ignorance of the history of Fundamentalism. If one wants to be known as a defender of Fundamentalism, he ought to become knowledgeable about the subject he purports to defend.
But I thought of another question to add to my post above (#141) that was prompted by your previous response to Kevin Bauder. Why is it honorable to use pejorative language to denounce transgressions of those outside our “camp,” but not when addressing failures within our camp?
I trust God will give you a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow.
Kind regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Discussion