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

Bro. Tyler, this is a condition known as Forum Blur. Take two cups of coffee and wait a few minutes for your neurons to get the wake up call. :D

Personally, I am weary of defending labels and the use of them. They are supposed to serve a beneficial purpose, but I fear that Satan has yet again been successful at doing what he always does- take something good and useful, twist it into pretzels knots, and get us to beat each other over the head with it. Food, music, landscaping, sex… everything bad is a good thing twisted.

This forum is indeed about discussion of things in Fundamentalism, but it generally ends up at the edges — i.e. we discuss the things on which we differ. iK, most of us would agree with you on the core things you mentioned: “Move on. Do ministry. Fight apostates. Defend and preach the Gospel.” Since there’s no real disagreement there, most discussions on a site like SI don’t stay on things like those. By its very nature, discussion will eventually cease where agreement is present and continue where it isn’t. This can often go too far, and many of us find times we need to step away.

Whenever these discussions end up making us angry, then I think it’s time to step back and take Joel’s advice — relax and go for a walk, have a cup of tea or coffee, etc. We will always have some disagreements about how ministry is to be done, and of course that will affect how we write, talk, and act — how we do ministry in our sphere. However, once in a while we should also remember Jesus words to the disciples on those who were not with them “He who is not against us is for us.” We can’t all do ministry together because of some of these differences, but in a sense we still are doing so because we still serve the King. We’d all do well to remember that as we defend the faith in our little corner of it.

Dmyers,

I understand exactly where you are coming from. I was also one of those non-Baptist students at BJ. I come from a fundamental Methodist background, and since Dr. Bob Jones senior was a Methodist, it seemed natural to pick a school like BJ. Little did I know that most of the students were *very* Baptist there. I also dated a girl a few times who was shocked when she found out I wasn’t a Baptist and firmly believed that non-Baptists couldn’t be scriptural in their practices! The woman I ended up marrying was from another country and went to BJ because Baptist *wasn’t* in the name. (Her family thought that “Baptist” sounded cultic, so she avoided any Baptist schools. Her home church name translates to something like “Free Evangelical Fellowship.”)

However, as you said, life can be funny. We now both are members of a Baptist church that we love very much and serve in, though I would describe neither of us as “committed Baptists.” We are committed Christians who serve in a church that we believe is the best one for us in our area, and it just happens to be Baptist. As part of our history, we have also been in a Baptist church that slowly turned to KJVO, and further, to local-church only, though neither of those were true when we first started there. The changes were not something we would have wished for, but they are just part of our journey, and we know God meant it for good, just as he did exeriences in Joseph’s life.

Dave,

What do you mean they turned to local-church only?

Yeah yeah, those mobile devices to type on.

Chip, probably that they would deny a universal church.

Hey Tyler,

Thanks for your reply. Let me make a few comments.

[TylerR]

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.

Well, this depends what stripe of fundamentalism you’re in. Some would argue that integrating CCM or whatever, one jumps on a slippery slope down into apostasy. Things like “Who knows where NIU will be in 10-15 years will be..” or “CCM is just the beginning of NIU’s downward spiral into compromise” have been said. What people like me (small “f” fundamentalist, if that) say is: Leave NIU alone. They are doing biblical ministry.

[TylerR]

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.

Worth discussing? Well, that’s the debate. After a while, people (younger fundamentalists, or fundamentalist defectors) get sick of hearing the “ills” of X type of music and are concerned for more robust things like theology and actual fundamentals of the faith. There is a battle to be fought; we just don’t think it’s between CCM vs. TSM or John MacArthur.

[TylerR]

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.

What I am pointing out is this: Fundamentalism has lost its focus and mission. Every issue has become a fundamental issue. People like me think otherwise. There are other groups who have picked up the baton of historic fundamentalism. These groups are actually running the race, whereas many “Fundamentalists” (e.g. Those who question NIU’s fundamentalism) argue in the stands on what type of shoes or what color the runners should be wearing..

In the end, labels don’t matter. Actual ministry and faithfulness to God does..

iK

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Dave,

What do you mean they turned to local-church only?

Dave wrote:

They claim to NOT be landmark, but practically speaking, I see little difference.

Good point and another reminder that we need to look at what people believe and practice rather than what they call themselves. It is not uncommon for Baptist Brider and Landmark types to claim that they are not landmark or Baptist Brider. I am a small “f” fundamentalist because I am not in the the big “F” KJO, Landmark, Hyles, or Ketchum camps. I actually think it is more important to separate from those groups than it is to separate from some Conservative Evangelicals. Some would say I am on the slippery slope, but I am just trying to take a Biblical stand and not compromise with heresy or apostasy.

I actually think it is more important to separate from those groups than it is to separate from some Conservative Evangelicals. Some would say I am on the slippery slope, but I am just trying to take a Biblical stand and not compromise with heresy or apostasy.

Good point. Our church is a tier or two removed from some other churches who flirt with Baptist Brider or Landmarkism. I received an invitation to a “Baptist Heritage” conference in the mail at church the other day. It was a thinly veiled attempt to promote Landmarkism. I took great glee in ripping the invitation up and tossing it in the rubbish bin.

For some reason, our church is on a lot of Hyles-style mailing lists. I don’t know why we continue to get some of the stuff we do. We faithfully get Sword of the Lord in the mailbox. My particular favorite, in a bad way, is Revival Fires!

The doctrine of “local church only” was something I saw first in the 1980’s. In Minnesota, I saw a book by then-MBA missionary Dr. Paige called “The Church Christ Built”. It was advocating for the local church only. I am not sure if Dr. Ketchum holds to it or not, but there were a number of MBA leaders of that time who did. Don’t know how many are around now, or if they are influential today.

I think it would be an issue to take up in SI at some point. What is the role of the local church vs. the universal church. I see a lot of misuse of the universal church, which will never meet on earth (despite all our “Christian polling”). The church which is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15) is by context, clearly a local church, with scriptural officers, etc. We may denigrate the local church for the home church, the parachurch, or lack of loyalty to any church (there are active “Christian” organizations in our area that don’t recognize the authority of the local church, in some cases even programming some of their activities on Sundays).
I do recognize the universal church, but believe in the primacy of the local church. It would be good to have some folks weigh in on this subject.

I am interested in hearing the arguments for the pre-emminance of the Church Universal vis a vie the Local Church.

What comes first, the cart, or the horse?

The New Testament speaks PRIMARILY about the Local Church. If the Universal Church was the focus of the New Testament, there would be no need for the use of ekklhsisiai (pl.) [37x in 36 verses; Acts 19:37 excepted “temples”].

The Body of Christ as a Universal Body co-existent with the Local Church would be a very difficult doctrine to define.

The use of the greek word, ekklhsia (sg.) in the New Testament is used almost exclusively for the local church. There are, it may be, some texts, where one could make extended applications to the prospective (i.e. universal) church. But let’s not get the cart before the horse!

As an instance, to make the point that the doctrine of the local church only was not an abberation of the 1980s, please refer to R.V. Clearwaters’ booklet: The Local Church of the New Testament. Exerpt from p.8:

b. The second error is that the invisible church exists separate and apart from the visible church. Apart from individual Christians and that series of local congregations or churches called the visible church there is no Christian church upon the earth. Christ has no earthly church except those individuals and local congregations (I Cor. 12:12-31) .
(1) The local particular congregations known as churches are both visible and invisible, temporal and spiritual (I Cor. 12:27-31).
(2) The two New Testament church ordinances are both mediums of visible acts and conveyors of spiritual truth (I Cor. 11:23-34; Rom. 6:1-23). e.g.
One need only glance at those sects or Christian communions that convert the ordinances into the spiritual magic of sacraments, that allow unregenerate sinners to enter Christ by water baptism, and allow Christ to enter unregenerate sinners by the communion wafer; they at once fill up the local churches with dead and unregenerate church members with more members in the local church that are “natural” than those that are “carnal” or “spiritual” (I Cor. 3:1-23).
Also notice those communions that deny, eliminate, neglect, or compromise the materials of both ordinances, converting them to the purely invisible spirit, and notice how they dissipate themselves and are utterly unable to fulfill Acts 2:42-47. The two New Testament ordinances are material dramatizations of our spiritual salvation. The “sign” is never greater than the thing signified!

c. The third error in the minds of Christians is that the earthly bride of Christ and the universal church are co-existent. There are some instances (Heb. 12:23; Eph. 5:25-27) where reference seeins to be to the general assembly of Christ. But in every such case the ecclesia is prospective, not actual, which means there is not now but there will be a general assembly of Christ’s people. Many of its members, properly called out, are now in heaven (II Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1: 21-23). Many others of them, also called out, are here on earth (Col. 1:20-24). Millions yet to be called out are yet unborn and therefore nonexistent.

Clearwaters, Richard V. The Local Church of the New Testament Minneapolis, Central Press 1954 P.8.

Dr. Richard Paige’s book: “The Church that Christ built; and The Church that Jesus Built, by Roy Mason, Th.D. offer both textual and historical evidence for a doctrine of the Local Church, which is by no way new.

Dr. Mason includes a very interesting quote from an episcopalian, Joseph Cross: “We hear much of the invisible church as contradistinguished from the church visible. Of an invisible church in this world, I know nothing, the Word of God says nothing; nor can anything of the kind exist, except in the brain of an heritic.” (p.40)

Up to his last clause, I think he may be on to somthing…

He goes on to say: “The church is a body; but what sort of a body is that which can neither be seen nor identified? A body is an organism occupying space and having a definite locality A mere congregation is not a body, there must be organization as well. A heap of heads, hands, feet and other members would not make a body; they must be united in a system, each in its proper place and all pervaded by common life.” …

The universal church theory has much difficulty explaining the body theology, the unity of the body, the function of the individual parts of the body. However, the unity and use of the body parts makes perfect sense in the context of a local church.

Joel Sandahl

It’s pretty clear, at least to me, that the NT is focused on the local church rather than the universal one. Nearly all the references to ekklesia bear this out. However, this does not mean that the church universal does not exist.

And while the local church can be the pillar and ground of the truth, we’ve probably all seen a single local church go off “into the weeds” in some area. It certainly happened even in the NT. Early on, the apostles were around to help straighten that out. Now, we don’t have apostles around, and even pastors need fellowship and accountability to help keep them straight. All of us are subject to deception.

Even though the local church is the focus, the NT makes us aware (as it did the believers in Jerusalem) that there are other bodies of believers with whom we share common cause, with whom we can fellowship, and with whom we can mutually build one another up to love and good works. Focus on only the universal church and ignoring the local body is a great error (and those organizations that serve to denigrate or weaken the local church are a real problem), but to deny the existence of the universal church is hardly better.

From my POV, there is a disconnect between the role and importance of the local church, and the autonomy of local churches. IOW, does the ‘local’ part of ‘local church’ trump the idea of any sort of accountability?

It seems to me that there is a very unhealthy “mind your own business” attitude amongst the very independent of independent churches, so much so that dysfunction is allowed to proliferate for years without any recourse for those who are under the authority of a pastor led church.

Surely there is some balance that would help prevent the kind of division that seems to infect IFBism?

Susan:

I have not experienced what you are describing first hand, but I believe it stems from a very weak Deacon board.

Some churches don’t even have a deacon board. What then?