Lance Ketchum: Why I No Longer Refer To Myself as a "Fundamentalist"
[JD Miller]Ahhhh…did the scary big words monster get you? Your pettiness is outstanding among pettiness. Faulting a man for using words which do not suit you? You have surrendered any argument with such ad hominems. Unfortunately while learning what those big words meant you never learned that their use is legitimate and has their place, thus they remain big scary monsters.I do not know where he got his education, but I know he uses a lot of really bigs words that even most seminary professors would have to look up.
[TylerR]In fairness to LK you misrepresented what he said in the quote. He said you should separate with that person if their variation “greatly impacts how a person defines the Christian life and how a person enters into fellowship with God”.Dr Ketchum appears to advocate not merely separation, but complete isolation from any and everyone who does not agree with him:
Orthodoxy will not be found in the myriads of numerous theological positions. Orthodoxy will be found in a right interpretation and application of the Word of God. Although there are many applications of right doctrine, there is only one correct interpretation of any given portion of Scripture. Our goal should not be to just get along with everyone. Our goal should be to arrive at that one correct interpretation. If there are variations that greatly impact how a person defines the Christian life and how a person enters into fellowship with God, then separation is demanded.
The issue here is that Dr. Ketchum will not tolerate anybody who does not share his particular view on a given point. It is easy to practice separation when everyone who disagrees with you is “wrong.” Not to be rude, but it seems as if he wishes to ditch the term “fundamentalist” for “ketchumist.”
He continues:
Therefore, the Fundamentalist Movement was born out of a humanistic view that Christianity needed numbers to be victorious against the enemies of God. The Fundamentalist Movement formulated a pseudo-unity in order to be victorious against Liberalism. That is a matter of fact! They just keep on with new variations of their pseudo-unity.
Dr. Fred Moritz wrote, and taught me in Seminary, that we are called to separation, not isolation. I believe Dr. Ketchum has tumbled into the ditch on this one.
Frankly, that is quite orthodox among Protestant churches and their is nothing proprietary, novel or extreme (all my qualifiers) about this demarcation. Now what one considers as “greatly impacting” needs application but still, in no way does Lance Ketchum suggest we “not tolerate anybody who does not share his particular view on a given point”. That is an quite a misrepresentation of what he said.
Alex, I was pointing out that he was very educated (I do not think he just went through a diploma mill to get a degree). I was also pointing out that just because a man has a high level of learning that does not mean his positions are correct.
And the irony is that I know quite a few people who don’t call themselves “fundamentalists” any more because of guys like Lance and a few others that “use big words” around here.
I continue to use the term from time to time because I actually know what the real definition was and is and I qualify. (And because it irritates those who would likely separate from Peter, Paul and John were they alive today.)
What really amazes me is that so far, this thread hasn’t mentioned NIU.
:-D
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
[JD Miller]And your argument assumes Lance Ketchum has forwarded this notion explicitly or implicitly and until you can demonstrate that, such an assumption is invalid and your point, moot. Secondly, if you meant it for readers, no one has posted being baffled or misled by his “big words”, again making your point irrelevant and leading to distraction.Alex, I was pointing out that he was very educated (I do not think he just went through a diploma mill to get a degree). I was also pointing out that just because a man has a high level of learning that does not mean his positions are correct.
I made this point on another thread mentioning Dr. Ketchum, but I believe Dr. Ketchum draws the circle of fellowship much tighter than many other would.
Now what one considers as “greatly impacting” needs application but still, in no way does Lance Ketchum suggest we “not tolerate anybody who does not share his particular view on a given point”. That is an quite a misrepresentation of what he said.
I don’t believe so. Dr. Ketchum appears to want to separate from people who tolerate anything he disagrees with. He is silo-ing himself off and isolating himself from fellow fundamentalists. I repeat his own words:
Our goal should be to arrive at that one correct interpretation. If there are variations that greatly impact how a person defines the Christian life and how a person enters into fellowship with God, then separation is demanded.
The above quote is even under a banner which reads, “No Compromise.” Those who disagree with his particular views are compromisers. He even repudiates historic fundamentalism as a legitimate movement.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Dan Burrell]You just did. :-DWhat really amazes me is that so far, this thread hasn’t mentioned NIU.
That scary old big word monster. Someone ought to slay that fellow so don’t have to be ‘ascared no more and kin talks likes this and stuff.
Not NIU …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]It does not matter what you were doing on another thread, your representation of the quoted material was a direct and clear misrepresentation of what he said. You have an obligation to fairly represent what others have said.I made this point on another thread mentioning Dr. Ketchum, but I believe Dr. Ketchum draws the circle of fellowship much tighter than many other would.
Now what one considers as “greatly impacting” needs application but still, in no way does Lance Ketchum suggest we “not tolerate anybody who does not share his particular view on a given point”. That is an quite a misrepresentation of what he said.
I don’t believe so. Dr. Ketchum appears to want to separate from people who tolerate anything he disagrees with. He is silo-ing himself off and isolating himself from fellow fundamentalists. I repeat his own words:
Our goal should be to arrive at that one correct interpretation. If there are variations that greatly impact how a person defines the Christian life and how a person enters into fellowship with God, then separation is demanded.
The above quote is even under a banner which reads, “No Compromise.” Those who disagree with his particular views are compromisers. He even repudiates historic fundamentalism as a legitimate movement.
Now, if you wish to contrast what he said and fairly represent what he said with something that you believe is either some other words or deeds which you can clearly cite and argue he says or does things contrary to portion you quoted, go ahead but none of that frees you to misrepresent what he said.
Part of this thread illustrates what I’ve long suspected: that we’re prone to “be fair” mainly to those with whom we sympathize. We are skilled at finding the necessary rationale to separate from those we disdain and we are equally adept at ignoring significant issues that would force us to separate from those we esteem.
We treat some brothers fairly and others are “fair game”.
It does not matter what you were doing on another thread, your representation of the quoted material was a direct and clear misrepresentation of what he said. You have an obligation to fairly represent what others have said.
I have explained my reasoning twice. If you wish to accuse me of deliberate, malicious misrepresentation then do so publicly - now.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]I have explained my reasoning twice. If you wish to accuse me of deliberate, malicious misrepresentation then do so publicly - now.
I haven’t said a word about your motive and will not, that isn’t the point. So let’s go back to what he said and you said he said and compare the two:
Lance
[Lance Ketchum] If there are variations that greatly impact how a person defines the Christian life and how a person enters into fellowship with God, then separation is demanded.
TylerR
[TylerR] The issue here is that Dr. Ketchum will not tolerate anybody who does not share his particular view on a given point.
Now, Tyler, Lance recognized that variations may exist and only when it “greatly impacts how a person defines the Christian life and how a person enters into fellowship with God” is the basis for separation.
You, on the other hand, claim Lance will not tolerate anybody who does not share his particular view on a given point. He said no such thing in the quoted material which you, yourself, quoted and commented on with this claim.
You see the difference. He recognizes variations and has a threshold of separation which is not based on anyone not sharing his particular view on a given point, he never said that or is it implied. He said, again, that separation is not when one disagrees with Lance Ketchum on a given point but when it “greatly impacts how a person defines the Christian life and how a person enters into fellowship with God”.
Now, maybe you believe the two are synonymous statements, if so I can be of no further assistance seeing your troubles are more than such a view, if you believe this.
Alex:
Who defines which variation greatly impacts a Christian? Dr. Ketchum. He has therefore decided to separate from the very term fundamentalist because (1) he repudiates historical warrant of the movement in general, and (2) he views many within the movement as compromisers. Doesn’t the very title of the article give this away?
If you dig deep enough into anybody’s theology, you will find you have differences. Should we separate from everybody? The tenor of Dr. Ketchum’s article, and others he has written, indicate Dr. Ketchum draws the circle of separation much tighter than others. You disagree. Lovely. I won’t separate from you over it, honest …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]And Lance Ketchum never claimed to be the sole person for that, either. Again, another misrepresentation. He is providing a principle that has to be applied for each conscience for separation, he isn’t trying to be that conscience. But it is clear you are avoiding answer for and apologizing for your earlier misrepresentation at the moment.Alex:
Who defines what variation which greatly impacts a Christian? Dr. Ketchum alone.
If you dig deep enough into anybody’s theology, you will find you have differences. Should we separate from everybody? The tenor of Dr. Ketchum’s article, and others he has written, indicate Dr. Ketchum draws the circle of separation much tighter than others. You disagree. Lovely. I won’t separate from you over it, honest …
But it is clear you are avoiding answer for and apologizing for your earlier misrepresentation at the moment.
I have explained my reasoning thrice. If you wish to accuse me of deliberate, malicious misrepresentation then do so publicly - now.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion