Lance Ketchum: Why I No Longer Refer To Myself as a "Fundamentalist"

Please, save the posturing and melodrama for your wife. You have misrepresented what Lance Ketchum said and have had that plainly demonstrated to you and if you are satisfied with such a misrepresentation, so be it. It informs me about who and what you are. However, I feel no need to debate your misrepresentation anymore, it is rather self-evident.

Temper, temper. No need for cheap personal insults. You cut me deep, brother…

I tried, but couldn’t find a good smiley with a knife in the back, so this one will have to suffice.

You shouldn’t fall on swords so readily.

I didn’t fall, Alex. You pushed me!

If that is the narrative you need to create in your head, so be it. This is becoming a familiar theme in your approach. So with respect to SI“s objectives, I am finished here and return to the subject matter at hand to join others in discussing the topic. Let’s hope you have learned, however, not to misrepresent others.

Let’s get back to the topic at hand. I’d like to hear from people who can discuss separation without resorting to personal attacks. Otherwise, this thread shall continue to run off the rails …

I am saddened by what I see going on within the Fundamentalist Movement. I am saddened because many of those I once considered compatriots in the battle for truth have decided that certain truths are no longer truths for which they will fight. I am saddened that people I once respected have decided that it is more important to have many disagreeing friends than it is to be definitive about “the faith”for which we are to contend.

I am saddened that many of those I once considered “compatriots in the battle for truth” have chosen to fight for, and defend, truths that are not taught in Scripture. They’ve defined the Fundamentalists so broadly that they see everyone that is not like them as some sort of liberal, neo-orthodox, new evangelical, apostate or some other term that I’ve missed.

Phil Johnson (yes, I know) mentioned this back in 2005:

Why hasn’t fundamentalism ever put that kind of energy into teaching and defending the doctrines that are truly fundamental? Have you ever wondered about that?

There is a decidedly anti-intellectual strain in American fundamentalism that has dominated the movement for the past fifty years or more. Many fundamentalists are openly wary of scholarship, suspicious of anything too academic. They dislike historical theology; they have no taste for doctrinal teaching; they prefer preachers who specialize in emotional rants against the evils of rock music or movies or some other aspect of popular culture.

Now, I know there are some blessed exceptions to that rule. Detroit Baptist Theological seminary is a fundamentalist school, and their journal is consistently superb. I recommend it to you with enthusiasm. I already mentioned Dr. Kevin Bauder, President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis. He’s obviously a gifted writer and a capable theologian. And in April of last year, I visited the seminary at Bob Jones University and had the privilege of meeting several of their seminary faculty members, as well as some fundamentalist pastors in the area who have strong ties with Bob Jones University. BJU is well known for the high academic standards they maintain, and in my discussions with these men it was obvious that there’s nothing superficial about their approach to doctrine and to Scripture.

But I have to say that in my experience, men like that are all too rare in the fundamentalist movement. The mainstream of the movement often regards them with deep suspicion, because they are too academic, too Calvinistic, not sufficiently devoted to the exclusive use of the King James Version of the Bible, not vocal enough in their criticism of John MacArthur—or whatever.

…Just look at the issues that are high on the fundamentalist agenda today. The question of whether the King James Version is an inspired translation is the single issue that consumes the most fundamentalist bandwidth on the Internet. Contemporary Christian music would have to be a close second. At the moment, long debates trying to justify strict separation from John MacArthur and his associates might come in third. Then you’ve got a host of highly polemical but doctrinally barren treatises on fundamentalism’s favorite evils—dancing, drinking, card-playing, the Beatles, the Harry Potter Books, and whatever other worldly amusements you can think of.

and then he said this as well:

“Fundamentalists” who tied themselves to the movement got sidetracked into fighting and dividing into ever-smaller and less significant factions. They managed to start with the all the right ideas, all the right enemies, and all the best men—and reduce their movement to virtual insignificance in less than a hundred years.

“Moderates” never did anything, period, except gum up the works of denominational discipline, while compromising and clouding everything that ought to be kept crystal-clear.

If you think about it, the twentieth century saw the same pattern repeated that you see throughout all of church history. The true vitality of the church is traceable through the nonconformists, the independents, the true biblical separatists. The true secret of their power is not—and never has been—in earthly organizations, political clout, or visible movements of any kind. Their power is derived from the biblical truth they preach. And the influence of that kind of power has always been what determines the relative health and spiritual vigor of the church…

…When the spirit of independency flourishes, the church thrives. When simple gospel truth is proclaimed and human hierarchies are kept to a minimum, the church flourishes. When organizations, hierarchies, and human clout comes to the forefront, the church’s power wanes. That’s why I don’t care if the fundamentalist movement dies as a movement. I think it would untie the hands of a lot of godly men who are currently in bondage to other people’s opinions, and that would be a good thing.

My only regret is that I wasted a lot of time and energy on that too. Fortunately, good men (like Johnson) got a hold of me before I went too far down that path.

Ketchum represents the men who are realizing they cannot simply bully others around. The information is too accessible to keep the majority in the dark. He must now do the only thing he knows how to do: further distance himself after lobbing grenades at those who won’t follow.

I know a Pastor or two who call themselves independent NT Baptists who use CCM like John Piper and fellowship with evangelicals and are not fond of KJV only Baptists.

So, if I follow the logic of this article, Lance will have to get a new name real soon.

[Matthew Richards]

Thanks for the history, JD. I grew up in the very dysfunctional Hyles camp from the nursery up through all his schools. We didn’t associate with the liberals at BJU, PCC, Pillsbury, or Maranatha so I know very little about most of them.

Matthew

Matthew: I knew exactly what you meant. It took me until my freshman year at BJU to learn that some viewed the school as liberal. Coming from a Nazarene background, I (and my Nazarene and Assembly of God friends) thought BJU was the definition of a religiously conservative school. (At the time, as far as I knew, PCC was BJU on the beach. They offered me a scholarship and I might have thought about going there, but they didn’t have Prelaw major.) My eyes were opened to the world of hyper-fundamentalists when I secured a date to Vespers with a pretty young woman from a small town in PA who was in a school play with me. Her divorced father, with the benefit of one year of Bible College (at Piedmont), was “pastoring” a small (i.e., a half-dozen attenders, including children, when everyone showed up) IFB church. He had vehemently opposed her choice of BJU because it was a “liberal” school in that it did not have Baptist in the name and enrolled (some) non-Baptist students. He only relented because his mother’s church supported BJU and she offered to help fund her granddaughter’s freshman year. His greatest fear in allowing his daughter to attend BJU was that she would meet and fall in love with a non-Baptist (who would, by definition, be a liberal). I enjoyed that first date and asked for another. No dice. I asked repeatedly over the next couple months, until the young woman finally explained to me that, though she liked me and had enjoyed her date with me more than any other date she’d had (and she had many), she knew when she found out that I was a Nazarene that she was “not allowed” to date me again. I actually laughed out loud and thought she was pulling my leg. I pointed out to her that I had gone to an IFB Christian high school for 8th-12th grade, had “gone steady” with the IFB school principal’s daughter for a couple years, and had a Bible the school had given me for “Outstanding Spiritual Leadership.” Didn’t matter; as far as her father was concerned, I could not be a Christian having grown up in the Nazarene church and, even if by some remote chance I was a Christian, I was not an obedient Christian because, among many other faults, I had not been baptized properly (though I was baptized by immersion, I was baptized by a Nazarene pastor, who obviously could not have been a Christian, invalidating my baptism) and I was not KJVO. (This was also my first introduction to the concept of KJVO, which at first amused me (much to the father’s displeasure) and ultimately left me shaking my head — as it still does.)

The first punchline is that I married that young woman two days after graduation. (I left the Nazarene church during our courtship and we attended IFB churches for most of our marriage.)

The second punchline is that she divorced me 29 years later and — wouldn’t you know — those first date issues of “liberal” vs. fundamental, KJVO, and dad’s approval (or not) still played a role all those years later. Loony theology has real world consequences.

Dearest IKU

So I laughed pretty hard when I read your last post telling Lance he should keep the fundamentalist label yet explained that Lance was a bit out of bounds to claim exclusivity on the NT. There is a sense in which you are right - why be worried about a label that hardly means today what it meant yesterday? On the other hand, there is a sense in which I understand why some will labor hard defending what originally was a good thing. Historic Fundamentalism as an idea and as a cause was noble. So many wanting to defend that nobility understand that the position held by what you call “the Kechumites” is really “hyper-fundamentalism” vis-a-vis “historic fundamentalism.” Furthermore others who still love the tag and want to defend it from the likes of Lance, will continue to you know……fight for the cause. Now you are right on your ending point - indeed it’s actually easy to show that historic fundamentalism has migrated into a variety of different “movements,” “groups,” “sub-groups,” (or as you say, “other segments of Orthodox Christianity”), etc…..

Brother IKU - I’m concerned about the ending of your note. You speak of frustration and such. Look my friend - In the end if you find yourself frustrated and annoyed, just ignore the various discussions. Life is a gift - enjoy it! Read the newspaper, go for a walk, go to the beach, I’ve been enjoying hot tea lately - fantastic - especially in the early morning. Whatever helps you to relax in a non-sinful kind of way. In the end….

don’t worry……..be happy………

Straight Ahead!

jt

Joel,

I would go to the beach if I had the opportunity. Is this some proverbial (subliminal) way to tell me I need to reread articles about “lines in the sand”? Just kidding =). You’re right, I’m frustrated. May be even a little angry. I am not the only one. When the Gospel is no more the center of a movement, I think frustration and a little Pauline rebuke is natural and warranted. Move on. Do ministry. Fight apostates. Defend and preach the Gospel. It’s easier said than done to avoid the discussion. It actually comes and find you. Matt Olson and Northland, unfortunately, have to defend to the Fundamentalist “public” that they are not going down the slopes of apostasy. That conversation has tracked them down, not the other way around. So yes, a part of me wants to ignore, another cannot.

I’m more happier than it sounds. =)

iK

iKuyper:

Nobody is suggesting NIU is going downward into apostasy. Nobody is suggesting evangelicalism as a whole is an apostate movement. What fundamentalists are concerned about is a philosophy of ministry; a mindset about how ministry is done.

Some of us suggest NIU’s stance on music is indicative of a changing philosophy. Others are concerned about charismatic connections in conflict with their doctrinal statement. Still others say the rest of us are troublemakers for bringing this up.

I doubt any of us go to church and preach against NIU.

Move on. Do ministry. Fight apostates. Defend and preach the Gospel. It’s easier said than done to avoid the discussion.

Amen! We all do these things. However, SI exists as a forum for fundamentalists to discuss things. Isn’t this worth discussing? I enjoy the different perspectives I get here. It has challenged my own comfort zone. It has made me think. If we just wanted to all get along, we wouldn’t need SI. We could just talk with our own circle of friends, you know - the one’s who all agree with us anyway.

When the Gospel is no more the center of a movement, I think frustration and a little Pauline rebuke is natural and warranted.

I don’t think anyone here is suggesting the Gospel is not the center of Christianity. However, in the context of an inter-movement discussion over a philosophy of ministry, this is not the issue at hand. We’re not talking about whether the Gospel is the center - we’re discussing how to implement God’s word in ministry. I would also point out that a call for unity for the sake of the Gospel above all else is a historic hallmark of the original new evangelicalism.

I am now really confused. iKuyper mentioned NIU, so I thought this was the NIU thread. It is actually the Ketchum thread. I need more coffee. Sorry everybody …