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

13912 reads

There are 83 Comments

Matthew Richards's picture

Who is he?  I don't think I have ever heard of him.  Does anyone know where his Doctorate is from or where he went to school?

Matthew

JD Miller's picture

Lance wrote;

Today we have Liberal Christians (an oxymoron) who do not believe in much of anything. We have New Evangelicals who will not separate from the Liberals, but separate from the Fundamentalists. We have Evangelicals who separate from the Liberals and Fundamentalists, but will not separate from the New Evangelicals. We have the soft separatists in the Conservative Evangelicals who really cannot decide what separation even is. Then we have the Fundamentalists practicing soft separatism towards the C.C.M. crowd, the Conservative Evangelicals, and Evangelicals while practicing militant separatism from the strict independent, fundamental, Baptists. This latter category seems to practice separatism very pragmatically rather than biblically. They are reaching out to the Conservative Evangelicals and the Evangelicals while, in most part, castigating independent, fundamental Baptist. This is supposed to be reclaiming authentic Fundamentalism.     

I believe this paragraph is very telling about the direction Lance has chosen.  He definitely has a different idea than I do about what is actually Biblical concerning separation.  As sad as we feel over such moves, I believe that they are important, because if they do not take place, then there will continue to be much confusion concerning our positions.   That is one of the challenges with even using the word "Fundamentalist."  People do not know if I am more like Jack Hyles or Matt Olson. 

I think Lance actually has a lot in common with many of us who do not hold his positions- we all recognize that the word "fundamentalist" does not have the clarity it once had.

JD Miller's picture

Matthew,

I first met Lance when he became the leader of the Minnesota Baptist Association (they were the association connected with Pillsbury Baptist Bible College- they are very similar to conservative Regular Baptists).  While in that role, his position was phased out as he stepped in to pastor a small struggling church in Hutchinson, MN.   I believe he is still pastoring that church and is now heading up a new movement called the Midwest Independent Baptist Pastor's Fellowship.  He is also a prolific writer and speaker.  I believe he self publishes his books but I may be wrong on that (we are moving and my books are all boxed up).  He is also a blogger and has 3349 facebook friends.  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.   I was younger and less educated when I first met him and thought that he must really know what he was talking about because I did not even know what a lot of those words meant, then I realized that using big words does not make a man's position correct. 

Matthew Richards's picture

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

J.Schmitz's picture

On the playground everybody is supposed to  get along. Those on the battleground understand there are real enemies of the Cross and sometimes they dress in the same uniform as we do. The battleground is for battling. The playground is for playing.

Wouldn't it be great if we had some Word from our Great Captain giving us a simple way to determine whether a person in uniform is the enemy or not? 

1Jn 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3  And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Just because a soldier looks, talks, and acts differently from us does not mean he isn't a true soldier of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Ketchum seems to advocate for executing soldiers who share some camaraderie in-between battles.

 

TylerR's picture

Editor

Matthew wrote:

We didn't associate with the liberals at BJU, PCC, Pillsbury, or Maranatha so I know very little about most of them.

That is a ridiculous statement. Was it a joke . . . ?

 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

TylerR's picture

Editor

After reviewing Matthew's statement, above, I have decided it was indeed a joke. I feel sheepish now . . . I'll feel even more sheepish if he was serious. I have another picture in store in that event. 

 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

TylerR's picture

Editor

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. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Matthew Richards's picture

TylerR wrote:

After reviewing Matthew's statement, above, I have decided it was indeed a joke. I feel sheepish now . . . I'll feel even more sheepish if he was serious. I have another picture in store in that event. 

 

I was serious.  Hyles found reasons to separate from anyone who didn't hail him as king--especially those who found him to be disqualified from the pastorate.  PCC and BJU had books in their libraries that documented Hyles' improper relationship with his secretary as well as his many lies regarding his son.  I am not kidding here.  In fact, when my wife and I began attending Colonial Hills in Indianapolis, many in our family were disappointed.  They were liberal because they didn't "soulwin", they didn't run buses, they weren't KJVO, the ladies could wear slacks, and they preached "dry" and "dead" expository sermons.  This is the basic view that most in the Hyles-Fundy camp still espouse.  This is definitely a case of truth being stranger than fiction.

By God's grace we rejected their criticism and have been blessed greatly.  

Matthew

TylerR's picture

Editor

I was wondering whether the charge that BJU, PCC, Pillsbury, or Maranatha were "liberal" was a joke. I think we're on the same page. My old KJVO pastor believes Maranatha is liberal . . .

 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

JD Miller's picture

Interpretation and application

Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV 16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Titus 3:10 KJV 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

The word heretick means a divider.  It is sad when some think that in order to obey God they have to sow discord and divide.  Please do not misunderstand me- we need to take a stand in the Lord and even point out where others have erred, but when we end up calling fellow brothers in Christ enemies, we have crossed the line.

2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 KJV 14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Romans 16:17-18 KJV 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Perhaps the "compromisers" who are avoiding certain "Fundamentalists" are actually properly applying the above texts.  I think they are.

 

TylerR's picture

Editor

we need to take a stand in the Lord and even point out where others have erred, but when we end up calling fellow brothers in Christ enemies, we have crossed the line

Agreed. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Joel Tetreau's picture

OK look,

I apologize to the moderators if this is over the line........

but the day we call our good friends at Maranatha Baptist Bible College and our good friends at Bob Jones University "liberal institutions" is the day I need to ask you if you have a card in your wallet legalizing what you are smoking!?

Oh - I have much much more that I would like to say - but I will not say it.

For any of you who doubt - you cannot believe the amount of restraint I just practiced. I will continue to work on that.

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;

Matthew Richards's picture

Joel Tetreau wrote:

OK look,

I apologize to the moderators if this is over the line........

but the day we call our good friends at Maranatha Baptist Bible College and our good friends at Bob Jones University "liberal institutions" is the day I need to ask you if you have a card in your wallet legalizing what you are smoking!?

Oh - I have much much more that I would like to say - but I will not say it.

For any of you who doubt - you cannot believe the amount of restraint I just practiced. I will continue to work on that.

Straight Ahead!

jt

 

Joel,

I was just sharing how Hyles and his sheeple thought/think about the likes of BJU, PCC, Maranatha, Pillsbury, etc...  Nobody in their right mind would think these types of things--only the lobotomized who are in that camp.  Sorry for the hijack--I will not speak of any of the Jacks again in this thread.

Matthew 

Alex Guggenheim's picture

JD Miller wrote:

  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. 

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.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

TylerR wrote:

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. 

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".

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.

JD Miller's picture

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.

Dan Burrell's picture

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.

Biggrin

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

Alex Guggenheim's picture

JD Miller wrote:

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 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.

TylerR's picture

Editor

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 an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Dan Burrell wrote:

What really amazes me is that so far, this thread hasn't mentioned NIU.

 

You just did. Biggrin

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.

TylerR's picture

Editor

Not NIU . . . 

 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Alex Guggenheim's picture

TylerR wrote:

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. 

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.

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.

ADThompson's picture

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".

 

TylerR's picture

Editor

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 an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Alex Guggenheim's picture

TylerR wrote:

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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

TylerR's picture

Editor

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 an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Alex Guggenheim's picture

TylerR wrote:

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 . . . 

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.

TylerR's picture

Editor

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 an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Pages