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
[Kevin T. Bauder] What percentage do you think is likely to say, “Yes! Don nailed it, and that’s exactly what Bauder needs to do!”What percentage is likely to say, “Don has some good points, but to make this advice workable it’s going to have to have something added or taken away.”
What percentage do you think will be saying “I sure hope that Bauder ignores Johnson’s advice, because we need him to be doing approximately what he’s doing now?”
I’ve been on the board for just the last two years, so I am not sure how accurate my sense of the whole board might be. The wider FBFI constituency would be even harder to evaluate since I am not as well traveled as some would be. However, let me make an effort at a response.
I think virtually no one would choose door number 3, whether they are “pro-Bauder” presently, or “something-else-Bauder”… No one likes to see division, and I get a sense that almost all of the men in the FBFI room are pro-fundamentalism in the post Graham era sense of the word, if that makes sense.
I suspect there might be some who think they could modify my suggestions. Often I am among that number. However, I think most would warmly receive a changed approach something along the lines I suggested.
I would also like to echo Mike’s suggestions, especially if you could get out to more meetings and get to know the men who support the FBFI’s efforts and values. I realize that isn’t always feasible, given the cost of travel. But it would do you and us good if we could see you more often.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Joel Tetreau]…Just be clear on what you believe, who you are and enjoy being there! No matter what view you take, you’ll have some opposition. Like piranha in the amazon……it just comes with the territory! When you do that, you’ll be amazed at how many like-minded friends you’ll bump into!
Thought I’d comment on this one, Joel. I agree with your advice in this post, just snipped it for brevity. Our applications differ, but ultimately, we don’t answer to men, we answer to God for the positions we take. We need to develop a scripturally informed conscience about separation and fellowship, then minister accordingly within our spheres of influence.
No matter where you finally come down, there will be those who misunderstand you or oppose you. But they aren’t our masters and we can’t please everybody. We need to look to the Lord and discern how he would have us serve.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I recently read, “Where everyone thinks alike, nobody thinks much.” The herd instinct is deeply ingrained in human nature, and is found in groups of every description, so this is not a criticism aimed at Fundamentalists alone. It is an observation about a weakness in human nature that we all need to recognize and resist. Nevertheless, it is one of the traits observed in Fundamentalism that some find disappointing.
I well remember the John MacArthur “blood of Christ” controversy. A few Fundamentalist leaders accused MacArthur of heresy because he said the the word “blood” in reference to salvation was a metonym for the death of Christ, a literary device where a part stands for the whole. “All hands on deck” is a commonly understood metonym. Nearly all Fundamentalists jumped on the “MacArthur is a heretic” bandwagon, following the herd rather than thinking through the issue. Most who examined this carefully came to the conclusion that MacArthur was correct, but I don’t think I ever heard an apology from those who accused him of heresy.
Both Joel and Don are spot on. Each of us needs to be his “own man.” We will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ individually, not in a group of fellow Fundamentalists. We will each be judged by our handling of Truth, not how closely we toed the fundamentalist line. That requires a willingness to listen, learn, think, and stand upon our own two feet, regardless of what others may think. I believe that is exactly what some Young Fundamentalists are doing. It seems that this is what some older Fundamentalists find threatening.
Can we agree that Fundamentalism, at its core, is the belief that God’s Word is Truth, and that each person should stand for truth as he has come to understand it? At the beginning, that meant being willing to separate from the herd mentality of liberals and compromisers, and standing alone upon the Word of God. Today, it may mean standing apart from some of the “official” fundamentalist positions and pronouncements to give greater allegiance to God than to men.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Both Joel and Don are spot on.
You have two guys who are both verbally proclaiming the message: “Being in good physical shape is important, so be careful what you eat and get regular exercise.” The first is 175 lbs. with running shorts on drinking water and eating fruit. The second is 380 lbs. with a Five Guys t-shirt on chugging a beer and eating a Big Mac while he watches “Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives” (which is a great show, by the way). Which one do you believe? The first guy comes off as someone who really believes what he is saying. The second guy just comes off as disingenuous. It takes a lot more than just saying it.
Pastor Barkman, I always appreciate your words. Thanks so much for your posts.
Dr. Bauder, I have been challenged by your words and your willingness to engage with men like pastor Ketchum. After many years of reading the material men like Ketchum write, I tend to just want to ignore and dismiss them. I appreciate your example.
Andrew Henderson
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm
Is there any record of Bob Jones retracting their criticism? I should say - “any documented record”?
By the way … Google “MacArthur Blood” and one will see how there are many IFB types who still attack him for this.
The second is 380 lbs. with a Five Guys t-shirt on chugging a beer and eating a Big Mac while he watches “Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives” (which is a great show, by the way).
Obviously, beer is the problem here.
Everyone knows that T-Shirts are the real problem there. :)
Jim, I’ve never heard a peep from BJU about retracting their slander. BJIII was supposed to have called him and apologized corporately, but I have not heard or seen of any kind of public announcement.
"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 Kevin asks a brilliant question -
He’s wanting to know from Mike and Don what % of the FBFI believes this or that……
Hey why don’t we do that here at SI?
So a suggestion to the administrators and mod’s is you give like four or five or six different views of what fundamentalism is and how it should be related or inter-related with conservative evangelicals.
You could put “The Bauder View” (and then describe it)
You then could put “The Don View” (and the describe it)
You could come up with “The Matt Olson View” (and then describe it)
Maybe 2 or 3 other approaches. And then let’s take a poll here at SI. That would be fantastic! Just an idea.
Straight Ahead!
jt
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;
Dave Barnhart
Yo Dave,
What controversy? I’m just a loving guy here in AZ just trying to keep everyone happy!
Straight Ahead!
jt
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;
[Joel Tetreau]Well, I think that any time you try to “pigeonhole” fundamentalists as to which group they belong to, there will be a ton of objections as to why you didn’t do it right, or consider certain things, etc.And by presenting some of these differences, even if you don’t try to put everyone into one group or another, I think there will be just as much “heat” from the implied grouping that some will take away from it.I think it would be an interesting discussion, that’s for sure! You always seem to be able to spur those — maybe it’s *because* you are trying to keep everyone happy! :)Yo Dave,
What controversy? I’m just a loving guy here in AZ just trying to keep everyone happy!
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dave Barnhart
I realize that not many are still keeping up with this thread, but here goes any way.
I just read the description of the theme of the upcoming FBFI conference that Don posted and Dr. Bauder seemed to be excited about. In it we read, “This theme is especially appropriate in view of the fuzzy thinking today regarding Christ’s kingdom and the inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology into Fundamentalism.” Inroads of Covenant/Reformed theology into fundamentalism? Historically, have there not always been Covenant/Reformed people in fundamentalism? What in the world do they mean by that statement? What precludes a Covenant/Reformed person from being a fundamentalist?
If historically, Covenant/Reformed people have always been in fundamentalism, then the FBFI is speaking about its own little brand of fundamentalism. It seems to be another indication that they are not trying to protect the ideal of fundamentalism but rather trying to protect their small (and pretty much insignificant) camp within it. And they wonder out loud why in the world the younger to middle generation wants nothing to do with the FBFI. News flash: it does not necessarily mean that they are disgruntled, easily-swayed people who are on the very verge of leaving the faith.
If I am wrong on Covenant/Reformed people historically being in fundamentalism, please steer me straight. I want to be accurate. That is just my understanding.
Andrew Henderson
Will respond to Andrew later
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I want to apologize for something I said in my previous post. I claimed that the FBFI was “pretty much insignificant.” Although there may be those who feel that way and one could possibly argue that the FBFI is not as big as some of its members think, I said it out of frustration. It added absolutely nothing to the discussion. I have friends in the FBF and I appreciate them very much. I do feel like they are a rather small camp within the movement of professing fundamentalists, but I could be wrong there as well. I just do not pay close attention. But I am sorry for the attitude that accompanied those words. It was wrong and I apologize.
The rest of the post stands, I think. That is a genuine question, and I think one that may shine some light on at least one reason that many of the younger generation shies away from organizations like the FBFI.
Andrew Henderson
Andrew, you are absolutely correct, and this is one of the main things has bothered me with the current state of Fundamentalism. As Dr. Bauder has already documented on this thread, the Reformed or Calvinist perspective has always held a significant role in Fundamentalism. Covenant Theology has also been well represented. Although Reformed and Covenant Theologies are not necessarily the same, there is a significant amount of overlap. With Presbyterians, who have been involved in Fundamentalism from the beginning, the two are more likely to be equal, but even there allowance must be made for some exceptions, such as Carl MacIntyre and Donald Grey Barnhouse. However, such men have been systematically squeezed out of Fundamentalist schools, and are often made to feel unwelcome in Fundamentalist fellowships. Then, when such men find places of ministry among Conservative Evangelicals, they are accused of compromise and betrayal. Fundamentalism cannot have it both ways. Either welcome such men into appropriate Fundamentalist organizations, or stop denigrating them when they leave because you told them to.
The Dispensational/Covenant debate is more lopsided than the Arminian/Reformed debate. Calvinists have always been historically represented in Fundamentalism, as earlier posts on this thread have documented. Covenant Theology less so, but has also been present from the beginning until now. T. T. Shields was mentioned earlier by Dr. Bauder, a Baptist Fundamentalist proponent of Covenant Theology. Why should such men be labeled as dangerous to Fundamentalism? Somebody either has not read their Fundamentalist history very carefully, or else is trying to tighten the circle. If you narrow the circle to exclude those who were formerly included, why have those excluded suddenly become compromisers? They didn’t move. You did.
G. N. Barkman
Discussion