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.
- 815 views
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
Gregory Barkman,
While I’m waiting for Don to respond, let me come back and address a couple of points you have raised.
I think you have asked some highly germane questions, particularly about the juxtaposition between unity and separation. While this is not the place to reproduce the entire history, this same question has been asked from at least the time of the Reformers downwards. Almost universally, the approach to answering it has been to consider unity before thinking about separation—and I believe that approach is correct. We don’t understand why we separate or what we separate from until we understand how unity actually works.
No one has dealt in more detail with this problem than the Princeton theologians. They were forced to address it after the Old School expelled the New School in in 1837. They had to explain how they could separate from a whole body of gospel-affirming brethren—even brethren of the same denomination—yet not become guilty of schism. Their writings are deeply biblical, deeply historical, deeply theological, and even deeply devotional. This is the theory of unity and fellowship that was passed down from Charles Hodge to A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, (but unfortunately not to Cece Winans, Dee Dee Ramone, e. e. cummings, F. F. Bruce, Gigi D’Agostino, or H. H. H., though T. T. Shields eventually picked it up) and eventually J. Gresham Machen. It is the most coherent and thoughtful theory of fellowship and separation that I have seen, and it is especially unique because it does not depend upon the idiosyncrasies of a specifically Presbyterian ecclesiology (though it is, of course, compatible with a Reformed theory of the church). It was the theory of fellowship and separation that many of the first-generation Fundamentalists held, and in which many of the second-generation Fundamentalists were trained (from Carl McIntire to David Otis Fuller to Charles Brokenshire). Of course, not all of them implemented it with equal consistency.
By the way, not all of us are exactly novices on how Fundamentalism started and what it was at the beginning. In fact, a few of us have earned advanced degrees by researching those days.
Oh, incidentally, about Spurgeon’s premillennialism. Probably the best person today to address this question is Kerry Allen. At least I don’t know of anyone who has devoted more time to the study of Spurgeon’s writings and ideas in our generation. Kerry has written quite a bit on the subject, but I’m told that one of the Reformed publishers refused to handle his work unless he took out the clear premillennialism in Spurgeon’s views, because they knew it couldn’t really be his. But I’ll let Kerry speak to that question if he wants to.
Kevin
Kevin,
This sounds fantastic! Oh my word! - is there a “standard” by the Hodge’s or Warfield view that has served as an apologetic to this “approach” used by the Princeton guys? I have all of Warfields works in that series CBD sells. I don’t recall seeing his work on that in there - but of course I could have easily missed it I’m sure. Did Machen write on the topic? Do you recall the name of the apologetic or two for this Princeton “approach?” Wow does that sound juicy!
Joel
Oh yes……Straight Ahead!
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;
I propose that we all wait for Don to reply substantially to Kevin’s questions and points.
[Kevin T. Bauder]…This is the theory of unity and fellowship that was passed down from Charles Hodge to A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, (but unfortunately not to Cece Winans, Dee Dee Ramone, e. e. cummings, F. F. Bruce, Gigi D’Agostino, or H. H. H., though T. T. Shields eventually picked it up)….
Dude. You were on a roll…you could have made it to ZZ Top…keep going…keep going….
Kevin,
I’m old enough to remember them without the beards.
Jesse,
thx!
straight ahead!
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;
[Kevin T. Bauder]Let me ask you a question. In an ideal world (by your understanding of ideal), what would you want Kevin Bauder to do? Other than drop off the face of the earth, how could he best invest his time and gifts?
An interesting question. Really makes me put up or shut up, eh? Criticism is easy, counsel is not so easy.
In a nutshell, I have two problems with the approach so far. First, the interaction with evangelicals gets very close to cooperative ministry with men who are in serious error. I think your term for them is “indifferentists”. Perhaps a Dever isn’t totally indifferent, but he remains in the same convention as Rick Warren, for example. So the first problem is one of unwise cooperation. Obviously, you have felt justified in your participation so far, but my recommendation for you or anyone in a position similar to yours is to keep such interaction on a much less formal and less public stage. I’d love to see Dever persuaded about separation and actually see him come out and separate from the many entanglements that surround his ministry. I doubt that persuasion will come from giving him a public platform, if it will ever come at all. It might come if you or someone like you were able to have private interaction with the fundamentalist idea prevailing after due consideration and leadership of the Holy Spirit. (I say that while conceding that any such opportunities are a judgement call and it is easy to criticize from the sidelines.)
In this regard, I don’t mind so much the book writing. The “four views” concept is a means of having a public debate in a neutral setting, so to speak.
Perhaps the bigger problem is the problem of influence. I think that your influence has tended to make the evangelicals not seem so bad and certainly has made fundamentalists seem like abusive demagogues, except for a select few. What would I counsel you to do here? I would counsel you to to speak more forthrightly about why you are so different from the evangelicals and why you can’t go there to join with them.
For example, you mentioned in one of the posts Al Mohler and his repentance concerning the Manhattan Declaration. His repentance comes from one line in one of the four views books you participated in, correct? Does the whole context of that line bear out the sense of repentance you report? I have not read the book, but I have read reports that make it seem that Mohler is still generally favorable to the MD, even in the context of the quote you cite. Furthermore, the MD web page still lists Mohler as a signatory. Do you know if he has made any effort to “de-list” himself? What about Mohler’s own web pages? Do you know if he has made any public statement there saying that it was an error for him to sign the MD? His justification for signing it still appears on his website with no disclaimer or qualifier.
Do you think that young people should attend Southern Seminary in preparation for ministry in fundamentalist churches?
I would also have you refrain from rehearsing the litany of fundamentalist offenses and excesses whenever you talk about fundamentalism. It is not that we should not be self-critical. But we don’t need to be self-trashical (I know, no such word). The way you talk about fundamentalism reinforces the caricature many disaffected people hold. I simply don’t believe it is an accurate picture of fundamentalism. The errors you mention really did happen, I agree. But that is not all there is to fundamentalism and fundamentalists. For every error you point out, there are faithful fundamentalists laboring outside the spotlight, serving the Lord with integrity and spending their lives building disciples.
Please remember, I am not saying fundamentalists are immune from criticism. But the way the criticism is made has more than one effect, and I would have you encouraging young people to be fundamentalists. That is not because I think fundamentalism as a movement or a label needs to be preserved, but because I believe that fundamentalism is Biblical Christianity.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Kevin T. Bauder]Let me ask you a question. In an ideal world (by your understanding of ideal), what would you want Kevin Bauder to do? Other than drop off the face of the earth, how could he best invest his time and gifts?
[Don Johnson]In a nutshell, I have two problems with the approach so far….[snip]
Don, you seem to answer the question in reverse, explaining what you want Kevin Bauder to stop doing.
Okay…at one point you give a mild affirmation, “I don’t mind so much the book writing.” (Whew. I was personally worried about that one!) And if I understand the end of your post correctly, you’d like to see Kevin encourage more young people to be fundamentalists. (A person could argue he’s been doing this).
Anything else?
Don,
Why must Fundamentalists “separate” from Dever (whatever that means. It seems to mean have nothing to do with him in any way except to denounce him) because he remains in the same Association as Rick Warren, but Fundamentalists do not have to remove themselves from Fundamentalist associations with those who teach heretical doctrines and practice and/or cover-up gross immorality? In fact, you are calling upon Fundamentalists to not even speak out publicly against such men, lest the cause of Fundamentalism be tarnished. But you will not be satisfied unless Dever speaks out publicly against Warren and removes himself from the same Association.
Isn’t there a huge inconsistency, a double standard at work here?
Perhaps young fundamentalists might be excused for believing that older Fundamentalists are more interested in protecting their institutions than applying Biblical truth.
G. N. Barkman
It strikes me as…odd…that so many fundamentalists have so much to say about Dever’s errors, Piper’s errors, MacArthur’s errors (yes, him again), [Phil] Johnson’s errors, Bauder’s errors, and Mahaney’s errors that there’s no one that they can actually give a endorsement of.
I mean, there’s got to be someone out there that us younger guys can look to, right? Someone outside the people that tell us that everyone (who isn’t our kind of fundamentalist) is wrong? I haven’t seen it yet in the roughly fifteen years that I’ve travelled in “our circles”. I’d love to be proven wrong on that.
FWIW, the ‘erring’ guys that I mentioned above seem to have no problem telling people who is good and worth reading. They were even praising the Puritans a long time ago, which now seem to be the new fad among our circles!
@KevinM, I think Bauder has only done one book, so that probably wasn’t common enough to be a threat to us. Yet. Don’t worry though, someone will probably start a blog warning us of his apostasy if he does another, or maybe he’ll earn an FBFI resolution of his very own. ;)
"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
Don,
We are friends and serve together in the FBFI. My evaluation of Kevin’s admonitions to us is that he is endeavoring to help us. His rhetoric is to the point, humorous, logical, and candid. Men such as Kevin are good for fundamentalism. Almost twelve years ago I said publicly at the national FBFI meeting that fundamentalism wasn’t certain as to what the gospel was nor was it certain as to what the Bible was; other than that we were in great shape. I quoted Dr. McCune and said that fundamentalism is bleeding on these issues; let it bleed. King James Onlyism and rampant easy believism characterize a large segment of fundamentalism. You see elements of it in Ketchum’s blog. Those elements are heterodox. The FBFI has since addressed both of those issues in their resolutions. The FBFI needs to remain militant on the big issues. Dr. Minnick has exhorted us to be harder on ourselves than we are on others. Personally, I keep up my ecclesiastical fences between myself and the evangelical world. However, I know the difference between a departing “brother” (apostasy), a disobedient brother (willful disobedience to the clear dictates of the Word of God), and a disagreeing brother (someone with whom I disagree with enough not to partner with, but nevertheless see a great deal of good in their ministry). When we throw good men like Bauder or Doran under the bus, we are making a horrible mistake. I know these men pretty well (particularly Doran), and I assure you that there is a great deal of truth and ministry that we (myself particularly) can and should emulate. None of us are above evaluation. Nevertheless, maintaining a defensive posture when good men like Doran and Bauder have been admonishing us to be more self-critical than others-critical will not help us be the kind of thoughtful, godly, theologically sound fundamentalists that we ought to be. MacArthur was never heretical on the blood, but some mainline fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heretical on easy believism, but many fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heterodox on inspiration or preservation, but many fundamentalists were and are. Mac certainly had his problems as has been pointed out, but we had much bigger problems. I am strongly favorable in maintaining our ecclesiastical fences between ourselves and the conservative evangelicals. Nevertheless, men like Doran and Bauder are on our side and we need them.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Mike Harding]We are friends and serve together in the FBFI.
This is a great blessing and I’m still holding out hope that we could squeeze a little time in your visit to the northwest for Victoria.
[Mike Harding] Dr. Minnick has exhorted us to be harder on ourselves than we are on others.
I agree, but that is part of what I am doing with Kevin, no?
[Mike Harding] MacArthur was never heretical on the blood, but some mainline fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heretical on easy believism, but many fundamentalists were. MacArthur was never heterodox on inspiration or preservation, but many fundamentalists were and are. Mac certainly had his problems as has been pointed out, but we had much bigger problems. I am strongly favorable in maintaining our ecclesiastical fences between ourselves and the conservative evangelicals.
I don’t think I brought up MacArthur in this discussion. I have some problems with MacArthur, but far less than with the Southern Baptists.
It isn’t easy navigating these waters because the men we are criticizing here are brothers who do good work in many ways. There are still serious issues between them and us and I think they preclude cooperative ministry. I’d like Kevin to be more forthright in pointing that out and less inflammatory in his criticism of fundamentalism. Criticism is not the problem, but inflammatory rhetoric is a problem. I have a hard time seeing how that is different from the rhetoric of some of the past, the very ones now being criticized. Surely criticism, when warranted, can be offered without rhetoric.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[G. N. Barkman]In fact, you are calling upon Fundamentalists to not even speak out publicly against such men, lest the cause of Fundamentalism be tarnished.
Greg, that is not at all what I am saying. I am not afraid of criticism, we all need it. But we need to criticize in a constructive way.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Jay]I mean, there’s got to be someone out there that us younger guys can look to, right? Someone outside the people that tell us that everyone (who isn’t our kind of fundamentalist) is wrong? I haven’t seen it yet in the roughly fifteen years that I’ve travelled in “our circles”. I’d love to be proven wrong on that.
My first thought on this may seem like I’m being a smart-alec. How about Jesus Christ? Really, is there any other man we should look to? I’m serious about this. Why do we need some man to follow other than Him?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion