An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum

I appreciate Kevin’s candid assessment of the FBFI and his efforts with the brethren. Twenty-seven years ago I was in the FBF and even had the opportunity to preach at one of their area meetings. (Where, BTW, I was scolded for quoting Thomas Manton.) When the MacArthur/Blood thing came up, I actually wrote a letter (remember those things?) to JM asking him about it. He wrote back and explained himself to my satisfaction, although I had to look up the word metonym in my dictionary. I took my letter to the next FBF fellowship I attended and was told I was being manipulated and to look out for JM and others. I began to realize that as a member of the FBF I was insignificant and that decisions, resolutions, and direction were in the hands of the few in leadership and membership meant little.

Today I could probably be labeled an old young fundamentalist and I’m happy with that. I serve in a great church where my fundamentalist convictions aren’t compromised and I’m not experiencing the sometimes petty bickering over things of little consequence.

Ron,

On behalf of Type B fundamentalist everywhere - not only are we presenting you with a free “Type B fundamentalist” T-shirt, “Type B - we’re just a group of friends” coffee mug (left over from the first standpoint conference back when we were just a group of friends) but Ron based on your great attitude, priceless experience dealing with Type A’s - we have determined that you my friend - you will be the head of our “Type B” resolutions committee. However - in order to be one of us, you will have to be “cool.” Yes that’s a major challenge for many of us. So in order to help with your image we shall give you a “tag” …. a “title” ….. a “nickname.”

You are hear knighted “Ronny-B!” (Hear-Hear!). This not only makes you “cool” - this makes you - wait for it………”Super Cool!” :)

Of course this makes you one of the “old-guys” in the young fundamentalist group - which is a delight! At 44 I’m always one of the “old” young guys or one of the “young” old guys. You tip the scales my man! Outstanding!

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Kevin T. Bauder]

Fundamentalism has always been committed to the idea that the music (and other manifestations) of popular culture should be appropriated for use in worship and religious service. Whether it’s Rodeheaver (in the Victorian-Edwardian era), Wyrtzen (in the Jazz age), Peterson (who brought show tunes to church), Hamilton (whose work is just goofy), or the rock-rap-techno-glam-grunge-Indie-metal-Goth-funk-punk crowd, it all comes out to about the same thing, none of it good. Some Fundamentalists just want to stop with their version of popular music.

Oh dear. This is certain to draw the ire of some (many?). But I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, you are one of very few willing to say such things publicly. It is acknowledgments such as this that I believe should guide us in our dealings with others on issues of a secondary nature. This is where the disconnect is for me with fundamentalism. I am not looking for consensus on the issue of music (or other controversial issues for that matter), because I don’t think it is possible or necessary (though certainly we should graciously challenge each other to be as God-honoring as we can be in these areas). So that is not what is keeping me away. What is keeping me away is that in my estimation most fundamentalists ignore the facts that you lay out in your post and live in blissful ignorance - thinking that there is and always has been consensus on issues like music. Therefore, when someone steps out of line with the “consensus” they are an immediate candidate for scorn, secondary separation, or public flogging. So, if I had to summarize what is keeping me away it would be one word: credibility (of which I earlier gave a couple examples).

[Kevin T. Bauder] What do you intend to see accomplished if I take your advice? What will changes will occur in evangelicalism and in Fundamentalism? How do you think the change in my approach will affect and be received by younger Fundamentalists, both those that are committed to the idea of Fundamentalism and those that are wavering between Fundamentalism and some version of evangelicalism? How do you think the change will affect and be received by the leadership of the FBFI? Of other Fundamentalist organizations?

As I see it there are roughly four groups that you influence. 1) There are evangelicals who are open/interested in fundamentalism and dissatisfied to disgusted with the evangelical left. 2) There are those from a fundamentalist background who are actively pursuing an evangelical identification/connection. 3) There are those who are dissatisfied with fundamentalism for various reasons and are wondering whether the evangelicals offer a better alternative. 4) There are convinced fundamentalists who are not hyper fundamentalists but are dismayed at the changes being seen in groups 2 and 3.

Of course, there are individuals who don’t fit exactly into any of the four groups – I am pointing at characteristics on a spectrum of ideas.

If you modify your approach along the lines I advocate there could be some changes in the way these groups respond to you. I could see those in group 2, the fundies pursuing an evangelical identification, simply tuning you out. However, I don’t think that would be true of the other groups. Those who are committed fundamentalists would be more willing to hear what you have to say. I can’t speak for the whole of the FBFI, for example, but if you appeared less as an antagonist and more as an ally, it is my opinion that you would get a better hearing amongst them.

I am not omniscient, so there may be other ramifications that I haven’t considered. As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.

Thank you for your magnanimity. I am someone now. Your recognition has given me the motivation to award myself an honorary doctorate.

[Don Johnson] I can’t speak for the whole of the FBFI, for example, but if you appeared less as an antagonist and more as an ally, it is my opinion that you would get a better hearing amongst them.

I am not omniscient, so there may be other ramifications that I haven’t considered. As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.

My personal perception is that FINALLY someone has decided to vacuum their own living room instead of complaining about the soda cans and popcorn on the floor of the folks next door.

When you clean your own house, you have the credibility to offer advice about how to clean someone else’s.

IFBism has lost much of its credibility over the last few years. Someone made the point earlier that no longer can our leaders make pronouncements that have to be taken at face value. Most folks own or have access to tech that allows them to verify statements made from the pulpit, and it has been discovered that much of what has been taken for granted as God’s honest truth in the last few decades were disingenuous, exaggerations, manipulations, and outright falsehoods.

Credibility will be returned when the bar is set high and pastors/leaders rise to meet it.

The analogy that comes to mind is that the best marketing focuses on what my product or service can offer the customer. How will it meet your needs? Why is the best choice for meeting those needs? I don’t have to spend time running down other products and services in order to accomplish this. I don’t need talking bananas or chicks in bikinis or other hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye tricks (unless I am trying to deceive someone).

So IFBism needs to show why it is the best system for the advancement of Biblical faith and practice. Stop pointing fingers at the guy down the street and tell me what Fundies are doing to fulfill God’s mandates for the church and the individual Christian, and how best to fix and maintain our own house.

I think that some object to the Fundamentalist doctrine of separation, at least as it is often understood and practiced. Many, who agree that the Bible teaches separation, do not believe it requires, or even allows, the degrees of separation that many Fundamentalists practice. Too often, it seems to boil down to cutting off all fellowship from anyone who disagrees with me about anything, along with denouncing such Christians as heretics, compromisers, or, worst of all, evangelicals.

Along with questionable doctrine there are even more questionable attitudes. Too many Fundamentalists seem to believe that the mark of spirituality is the degree of approbation I heap upon others with whom I disagree. The louder I denounce, and the meaner I act, the higher my rank among fellow Fundamentalists.

To some observers, it appears that Fundamentalism simply seeks to provide doctrinal justification for what would otherwise be recognized as a very un-Christlike spirit, a cloak for ugly carnal behavior. But when this behavior is called into question, many Fundamentalists simply circle the wagons, and accuse the questioner of practicing un-Christlike behavior toward themselves. Fundamentalists, it would seem, are immune from criticism for their behavior toward anyone deemed to be “outside the camp,” but woe to the one who dares criticize someone, especially a leader, within “approved” Fundamentalist circles.

Brethren, until we can understand this problem, and humbly repent before God and change, serious-minded Christians who endeavor to develop Christ-likeness will depart from Fundamentalist institutions and churches. Until we are willing to receive constructive, Biblical criticism, and examine it honestly before God, Fundamentalism will continue its path toward self-destruction.

[Don Johnson] As I see it there are roughly four groups that you influence.

1) There are evangelicals who are open/interested in fundamentalism and dissatisfied to disgusted with the evangelical left.

2) There are those from a fundamentalist background who are actively pursuing an evangelical identification/connection.

3) There are those who are dissatisfied with fundamentalism for various reasons and are wondering whether the evangelicals offer a better alternative.

4) There are convinced fundamentalists who are not hyper fundamentalists but are dismayed at the changes being seen in groups 2 and 3.

Of course, there are individuals who don’t fit exactly into any of the four groups – I am pointing at characteristics on a spectrum of ideas.

If you modify your approach along the lines I advocate there could be some changes in the way these groups respond to you. I could see those in group 2, the fundies pursuing an evangelical identification, simply tuning you out. However, I don’t think that would be true of the other groups. Those who are committed fundamentalists would be more willing to hear what you have to say. I can’t speak for the whole of the FBFI, for example, but if you appeared less as an antagonist and more as an ally, it is my opinion that you would get a better hearing amongst them.

I am not omniscient, so there may be other ramifications that I haven’t considered. As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.

It’s been my experience that most of us dissatisfied with IFB / Fundamentalist ‘movement’ (again, whatever that means anymore - we need to define it!) fall into #3. I know I do. Then there are a few (#5?) who simply have given up on the whole thing and don’t care about labels anymore; they prefer to fellowship with anyone orthodox.

It seems to me that if Fundamentalism can stop being characterized by knee jerk reactions to contemporary issues and start presenting a credible case for who we are, what we believe, and how it works (which includes some of the ‘clean up’ that others have referenced) for what we believe, as Bauder has been trying to do, then the groups will start being more interested in joining or rejoining our ‘movement’. We’ll probably get a few of our own back too - and that’s where admitting our mistakes comes into play.

[Jay]

It seems to me that if Fundamentalism can stop being characterized by knee jerk reactions to contemporary issues and start presenting a credible case for who we are, what we believe, and how it works …

Jay, in the post two above yours, Susan said something similar, referring to “positive marketing” or something like that.

I don’t really see a mandate for that.

Instead, I think we are called to faithful ministry for the Lord, building disciples and proclaiming righteousness in our communities. Part of that ministry involves participation in or support of institutions of higher education that will perpetuate the same ideals. Not to bring the discussion from the other thread in here, but we must have schools that perpetuate fundamentalist ministry for fundamentalist churches. Hence, our preoccupation with what is going on in our schools and in the wider circles of fellowship with which we are involved.

We aren’t about empire building, contrary to popular misconceptions.

Don - interesting observation. I am ~NOT~ arguing for empire building. I’m arguing for doing all the things that, IMHO, we should have done or been doing all the time. I’ve had enough of the “I am of Cephas” mentality of I Corinthians. I’m just saying that if we do those things, we’ll probably see the rate of people who do leave (or who have already left) slow and maybe reverse. Maybe.

I don’t care if a brother is a ‘conservative evangelical’ or ‘fundamentalist’ and couldn’t care less how many people are in our ‘movement’ - it’s not like I’d be interested in attending the next World Congress of Fundamentalists or something like that.

Historic fundamentalism was noted by its exposure of and separation from theological error.

It seems today there is a fundamentalism whose primary identity is found in its zealous separation from brethren that it determines are in error. By their language and actions, it seems that some of them consider MacArthur, Dever, Piper and Mahaney apostates.

Don,

Let me follow up with what could be two simple and yet loaded questions that illustrate my point - “Why should I want to be a Fundamentalist like you? What exactly does that mean?”

Have fun :)

[Don Johnson]

As it stands, I think your corrections tend to fall on deaf ears for many fundamentalists because they are not sure whether you really stand with them or not.

Respectfully, brother Johnson, is that not a problem in and of itself, i.e., that they do not consider the criticism itself, irrespective of the critic who brings it?

This can get dangerously close to the attitude, “You’re one of us, so we’ll listen to what you have to say; as long as you don’t criticize us; because then you’re no longer one of us.”

Dan B, what Don is getting at is if Fundamentalists are compared to King David, they would have stoned Abishai. 2 Sam 16:11.

The whole idea that a person can only offer legitimate and acceptable criticism if he is accepted within the group just smacks of more of the same pride, ignorance, and rebellion to the truth in Christ. People are actually debating how to save fundamentalism. One person has proclaimed himself part of the last who can do it. Others doubt if that same person is even in the movement. Sad and melodramatic.

“You don’t want to sell me any death-sticks. You want to go home and rethink your life.”