UNIFIED FUNDAMENTALISM? NEVER HAPPENED-NEVER WILL!

The very idea of a unified Fundamentalism brings forth a chuckle of derision.  Having been personally involved in Fundamentalism for over forty-four years, I find the very notion of unity within Fundamentalism ridiculous. Fundamentalism has always been divided into numerous theological taxonomies. In most part, these various taxonomies had little or no identification or cooperation with one another other than a general taxonomy in that they agreed there were certain fundamentals of the Christian faith. They did not even necessarily agree on the details of those fundamentals. Therefore, Fundamentalism was always divided by adjectives such as Presbyterian Fundamentalism, Methodist Fundamentalism, Congregational Fundamentalism, Pentecostal Fundamentalism, Baptist Fundamentalism, or varying associations or groups of fundamentalists like the F.B.F., I.F.C.A., G.A.R.B.C., and ad infinitum. The point is that divisions have always been a defining factor within the nomenclature known as the Fundamentalist Movement. Separating from various groups within the movement has also been a descriptor of Fundamentalism. Perhaps this is what defines the word movement.  

There are those that have given the analogy that Fundamentalism is like an ocean liner that has developed huge holes in it caused by divisions. These people postulate that those dividing are actually taking big pieces of the ship with them causes the holes. Instead, I would postulate that the divisions have been attempting to deal with the holes innate to Fundamentalism by using rescue boats to escape the originally corrupt movement. It is those that have escaped the ambiguous nomenclature of Fundamentalism with definitive doctrinal positions that are the hopes for giving it any real and lasting hope and purpose. Those postulating that the divisions are the problem simply do not understand that such evolving taxonomy is normal.  

From the beginning of the Fundamentalist Movement, there has been a continual evolution of divisions that no longer cooperated with one another. Divisions within divisions even developed. Were some of these divisions nonsensical? Probably, but those within those new divisions did not think they were unimportant. They believed they would answer to Jesus at the Judgment Seat and felt compelled to act upon what they believed to be important. These new divisions acted upon convictions or preferences they thought important. I want to understand what they believe and I want to talk with them to discover why they think a new division is essential. I may persuade them or they may persuade me, but I will listen and hear what they have to say. These are conversations in which I regularly participate, especially with young pastors just going into the ministry.

The latest unity craze within Fundamentalism is really a form of Ecumenicism between various professing Fundamentalists, Conservative Evangelicals, Evangelicals, and even many New Evangelicals. Within this New Ecumenicism are included almost all forms of Reformed Theology, Covenant Theology, and those holding to non-cessation of miraculous gifts such as tongues and healers. Ecumenicism is defined as dialogue between diverse theological beliefs in order to set aside many doctrinal distinctions in order to promote a common good. Those within Ecumenicism are those willing to cooperate together in the common good. This common good within broad, or universal Ecumenicism, has evolved into political and social activism in promoting the social gospel and the advancement of Socialism in the world.  

Most New Evangelicals immerse themselves in Ecumenicism. This Ecumenicism became apparent in the formation of Ministerial Associations in cities all over the country. In the city of Hutchinson, MN (about 13,000 people), almost every pastor in town (but me) belongs to the Ministerial Association.  

Old Fundamentalism completely rejected Ecumenicism. New Fundamentalism has developed its own form of Ecumenicism within their newly redefined parameters. These New Fundamentalists are no longer content with having considerable and uncooperative divisions within their Fundamentalist Movement. These New Fundamentalists want a new Ecumenicism that promotes some kind of pseudo-unity for the common good. This never existed in any real way within the Fundamentalist Movement before. There were a few organizations that attempted conferences promoting such unity, but they never achieved it in any practical way. They got along fairly well as long as no one started talking about theology.  

The very idea of unity within the broad stream of Fundamentalism is ludicrous. It is not ludicrous because we should not discuss differences in beliefs with those with which we disagree. It is ludicrous to think that there can be some kind of unity within diverse theological divisions just for unity's sake. The very notion is bizarre. Unity is the outcome of unifying beliefs, unifying practices, and unifying attitudes/emotions. We cannot simply create a taxonomy called Unity and put within it anyone willing to be included. How would such taxonomy be defined? - All Those That Do Not Care about Doctrinal Unity. This defines New Fundamentalism as New Ecumenicism.  

Old Fundamentalism has always been divided into numerous uncooperative theological divisions. New Fundamentalism condemns that, even calling what has historically been normal to be now abnormal. There is an uncertain trumpet being sounded here. These New Fundamentalists are speaking in a language of words that have no meaning. How can one have unity where there are doctrinal divisions? How can that happen without changing areas of disagreement? Unity within disunity - really, is there anyone gathering to the sound of that uncertain trumpet?

Dr. Lance Ketchum

Reprinted by permission

Midwest IndependentBaptist Pastor’s Fellowship

The Evolution of Taxonomy in Theological Divisions

Taxonomy is the way we group things together for identification. We all like to choose our own description and our own taxonomy. That is really not the way things work. We would have to be naive to think people are not going to try to define us or categorize us in some way. This process is natural. We are categorized by how we dress, the things we find to do for recreation, and certainly by what we believe and the way we live. There are so many nomenclatures of taxonomy that it would be difficult to even list them all. Most nomenclatures are not of a nature we would refuse them. However, there are also nomenclatures of taxonomy with which no one wants to be identified.

Fundamentalism is a taxonomy that has really lost its identifiers. Fundamentalism, as a movement, was born out of the struggle against Liberalism and Liberalism’s denial of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures and the cardinal doctrines of the faith. Liberalism came from German Rationalism and Higher Criticism. The Fundamentalist Movement has always been theologically ambiguous from its inception. Therefore, taxonomy of divisions developed very quickly out of the large number of various denominations and theological positions within the movement.

Terms like Evangelicalism, New Evangelicalism, and Neo-orthodoxy are taxonomies that separate certain positions from the group known as Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists wanted to exclude these divisions from their taxonomy. Those holding these positions were not to be allowed to continue calling themselves Fundamentalists (most did not want the title). That taxonomy within Fundamentalism continues to evolve today. However, the new groups did not want to divide themselves from the taxonomy of Fundamentalism. They began to practice a rather subtle tactic. They continued calling themselves Fundamentalists while separating the group they view to the right of them out of Fundamentalism by calling these men Hyper-fundamentalists. They change the identifiers in the taxonomy known as Fundamentalism. This is a radical change in the way taxonomy evolves. In order to do so, they took a more inclusive and fluid approach to separation that hitherto would have excluded them from Fundamentalism. Those now labeled as Hyper-fundamentalists continued taking a strict approach to the interpretation of the Scripture’s teaching about separation.

Strict Constructionism or Fluid Constructionism
Most people understand these terms as they are used in the arena of Constitutional Law within the USA. Fluid Constructionists believe that the Constitution of the USA is a fluid document and needs to be reinterpreted according to the evolution of culture and the changing cultural values. Strict Constructionists believe that the Constitution of the USA is a static document and that its interpretation should control how a culture evolves within the parameters of Constitutional Law. Fluid Constructionism is actually an outgrowth of Liberal Theology, which takes the same approach to the interpretation of Scripture. Liberal Theology began perverting evangelism and the purpose of the Church through this fluid approach in interpreting Scripture with such things as the Social Gospel. The Social Gospel came from a fluid interpretation (actually misinterpretation) of Matthew 25:31-46. The text talks about Christ rewarding believers that survive the Tribulation and who tried to help the Jews during the time the Antichrist seeks to have them all killed (correct Eschatology is important in the strict interpretation of Scripture). The liberal Fluid Reconstructionists reinterpreted this text to mean redistribution of wealth through progressive Socialism. False theology completely changed and redirected the missional purpose of the Church.

Fluid Constructionism enters into Christianity in many ways. Perhaps a basic way is the way in which people reinterpret God and begin to make Him into their image, or what they want Him to be or accept. Doing this culturalizes God. In this culturalization of God, there is a transition whereby the focus is progressively corrupted by varying degrees. God's commands are progressively replaced in their focus by man’s needs. Doing this tries to make God more acceptable to the mixed multitudes. Almost anyone should be able to see how all of this has made the Church anthropocentric in the Post-Modern era. It is amazing how people justify these distortions of God. It is also amazing how each generation tries new variations of these distortions. It is almost like they view Christianity as some kind of ongoing experiment. When people minimize God’s attributes, or maximize one attribute at the exclusion of others, they distort the image that God reflects of Himself through the revelation of inspired Scripture. Which corruption do we evaluate as the greatest offense?

1. Is the greatest offense by the Atheist, who denies the existence of God and corrupts humanity with varying degrees of moral relativism and ethical subjectivism like Paul describes in Romans 1:18-32?

2. Is the greatest offense by the Distortionist, who distorts the image of God by corrupting doctrine and thereby corrupting the criteria for acceptable worship, acceptable service, or varying aspects of holiness and separation?

In the abdication of dogmatism, theology is now being presented as varying degrees of theological theories. The Gospel Centrists are not saying it is inappropriate to disagree about these various theories. They just do not believe they should separate from those holding to a different theory than they hold. They redefine separation because of some silly notion that thinks separatists are unwilling to even discuss differences with those with which they disagree. Such discussions are not fellowship. We can have the discussion and be friends without joining in cooperative ministry with people of remarkable differences in beliefs.

Gospel Centrism takes an inclusive, fluid, wishy-washy approach to the practice of separation. Others taking borderline positions on Gospel Centrism, like Kevin Bauder, David Doran, Timothy Jordan, and Douglas McLachlan are trying to define their own taxonomy. I like these guys. I like a lot of what they have to say.

Matt Olson of Northland International University started down a slippery slope and appears to have completely lost his footing and theological anchors.

The sad thing about Matt is that no one knows what his taxonomy is yet. We know where he is not anymore, but do not yet know in what taxonomy he will land. In doing what they are doing, all these men become Distortionists and Contortionists in varying degrees. They are Contortionists because of all the hoops through which they must jump to justify their distortions of the doctrine of separation. The Atheist does not pose the threat to the purity of the local church like the Distortionist does. The Distortionist works inside the camp, at least until he is put out of the camp. Some of these guys suffer under an illusion that they are still inside the camp. The Lord’s camp is stationary and right where it was when they left it. God intended His children to cross the Jordan; not to stand in the middle of it. If they stay in their wishy-washy river long enough, they will soon find themselves in the midst of the Dead Sea.

These men mentioned here are leaders in this distortion. They want to change their taxonomy without changing their constituency. That is not how it works fellows. I am sure they are finding that out. They now find their detractors to be those that they once called friends. They now find their defenders to be those from who they once separated. They have determined their own taxonomy. They may be saying, good riddance to their detractors. The fact of the matter is that you are changing your taxonomy by confusion and compromise. Your detractors are trying to detract people from following you. Understand this, your detractors love you and seek to persuade you to repent lest you end up in the Dead Sea.

“In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean. And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the LORD: Since those days were, when one came to an heap of twenty measures, there were but ten: when one came to the pressfat for to draw out fifty vessels out of the press, there were but twenty. I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to me, saith the LORD. Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD'S temple was laid, consider it. Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day {the day you repent and return} will I bless you” (Haggai 2:10-19).

If you are a student contemplating enrolling in one of the institutions of higher learning led by any of these men, you might want to reconsider. A simple principle might go something like this:

ALWAYS MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHERE THE PLANE IS GOING TO LAND BEFORE YOU GET ON BOARD!

If you are an alumni of one these institutions of higher learning led by any of these men, your degree is being devalued before your eyes. Having a degree from any one of these institutions of higher learning will cast shadows of doubt upon your beliefs. Your testimony is vested in your identification with these schools. Make your voice heard. Alumni Associations should be the most vocal of all voices. Local churches should write formal letters of concern and protest. A turtle never gets anything done until he sticks his neck out of his shell.

Dr. Lance Ketchum
(2/14/2013)

Midwest Independent Baptist Pastors’ Fellowship

Related Reading:
NIU: Plunging Headlong into a Liberal Entertainment Approach Ministry

Is NIU Opposed to the “Modern Charismatic Movement?”

NIU Students RAPPIN’ “To Jesus Loves Me” and It’s Blasphemy

Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter to Lance Ketchum: Expanding Our Reach

Site Publisher’s Update (2/1/13):
Dr. Lance Ketchum publishes a response to Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter.  See, Defining Points

“The contradiction of all this is that men like Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Doug McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, Dr. David Doran, and Dr. Matt Olson all profess to be independent, fundamental Baptists.  However, their new definition of the practice of separation is like that of the interdenominational Fundamentalism.  They want most other doctrines other than the Gospel to be eliminated from the practice of separation.  Independent, fundamental Baptists do not agree and do not like what they are trying to do.  They are convoluting what it means to be an independent, fundamental Baptist.”

We have been conducting a critical review of Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter to Lance Ketchum.  Previously we published,

An Open & Critical Review of Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter

Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter to Lance Ketchum: Where Do I Find Agreement?

As we progress through this series on Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter we are going to expand our reach.  That is because Kevin has had a great deal more to say in the discussion thread under his Open Letter that appears at the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI) site. Pastor Don Johnson posted a series questions to Kevin about elements of the Open Letter. Kevin has been answering Don’s questions in a series of thread comments. I will say this about the interchange between Don and Kevin. Don asked some pointed questions and is getting responses from Kevin that are exposing the real Kevin Bauder.

For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, Kevin is removing any doubts about his congeniality with evangelicals and personal disdain for objections that others may have over his lavish praise for, defense and embrace of them. We will excerpt from Kevin’s comments at SI and have some reaction to them here and in upcoming articles.

Dr. Bauder tries to act the gentleman in his Open Letter to Lance Ketchum. His words, however, seem as though his kindness toward Brother Ketchum is artificial. This is especially born out in his thread comments at SI. Sadly, Dr. Bauder’s public ministry in recent years has demonstrated his on-going unwillingness to deal specifically and directly with the errors of the so-called “conservative” evangelical crowd. He has frequently pointed out what he perceives to be the errors of fundamentalism in a very public way (Danny Sweatt, Lance Ketchum, Bob Jones, Jr., John R. Rice, the FBFI, etc.) and castigates them with impunity.

No one will forget Kevin’s 2009 three part series from his blog and SI in which without provocation he attacked the legacy and ministry of Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice. Missionary John Himes (Rice’s grandson) responded with,

“Again, I am very disappointed at the language Bauder uses against his fellow fundamentalists, evidently chiefly against Rice: ‘pugilistic and bellicose,’ ‘alpha males,’ ‘the big boys,’ ‘bullies,’ ‘chieftains,’ etc. Is this the kind of language a fundamentalist leader should use?”1

“Bullies, alpha-males, Chieftans…?”  For his reaction to Bauder’s harsh rhetoric John Himes was gang-tackled and run off by the SI moderators. That is the historic pattern of SI moderators.  See, SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another

From the platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship Kevin, without provocation, and instead of answering a direct question put to him by the moderator Dr. John Vaughn on the evangelicals, chose to besmirch Bob Jones University. These are but two examples of Kevin discrediting fundamentalists from a previous generation and a fundamentalist institution. Even today, at SI, he attempts to demonize and dishonor men and/or their fellowships.

Where is Kevin’s indignation over the theological errors, ecumenical compromises and worldly methods of the evangelicals?

Where does he publicly “admonish” them?  Where does he call on to repent and obey the Scriptures?  Where does Kevin publicly warn the Fundamentalists he claims to speak on behalf of to “withdraw from, mark and avoid” the most theologically off-base and brazen non-separatists of the evangelical camp?

When it comes to the evangelical crowd Kevin Bauder portrays them as theological champions.  Only rarely has he dealt with disagreements, but in a very “professional way” – (i.e. - private dialogue and conference). The confusion that Kevin Bauder has spawned is widespread and frightening. Today, at the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron we read where Kevin acknowledges that “hazards do exist” and yet is willing to accept casualties among the next generation because of and for the sake of his dialogue and cooperative ministries with non-separatist, compromising evangelicals.2

Kevin seems to think that to “leave fundamentalism” is the hazard.  The real danger is not necessarily leaving fundamentalism.  The danger is where they are going to wind up, who will be their mentors and what they will become theologically and in practice.  If the trend that is already in place3 continues we will seen young men who were once balanced, militant separatist fundamentalists become practitioners and defenders of the modern charismatic movement, ecumenical compromise and a host of cultural compromises.  These young men have already been drawn to and are learning these things from so-called “conservative” evangelicals. Add to that Kevin Bauder heaping “lavish praise” on the evangelicals, refusing to articulate any meaningful Bible based reproof, admonition or warning about the aberrant theology and practices of the evangelicals and relentlessly redefining or castigating historic, balanced fundamentalism we will see mounting causalities in his Bauder’s wake.

As a man who has inherited the legacy of R.V. Clearwaters and Ernest Pickering, Kevin has not promoted their militancy. Nor has Kevin Bauder disseminated words of warning like his predecessors. Instead Kevin perceives, maybe self-appoints himself as the historian and spokesman for a brand of “biblical fundamentalism” that in reality is increasingly indistinguishable from non-separatist evangelicalism.

“If Kevin Bauder desires to take Dr. Clearwaters’s venerable institution a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be guardian of the legacy. I knew Doc well enough to know that he would not be at all happy with the direction of Central Seminary under Bauder’s leading. It’s bad enough that his school is headed in a decidedly leftward direction. Please, Dr. Bauder, don’t make it any worse by pretending some affinity with one of the greatest separatist Christians of the last century.”4

Dialogue is Very Appealing to Academics

Our fundamentalist forefathers would have warned that dialogue of the sort Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran have participated in and encouraged others to emulate will always lead to disaster! These men may wind up becoming causalities to having thought that through dialogue they could influence the evangelicals.  It nearly always works the other way around.  In short or long term memory can we identify any high-profile evangelicals moving toward absolute fidelity to the Bible, especially in regard to obeying the God-given mandates for separation? We can, however, observe that 

Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Matt Olson and Tim Jordan have become apologists for and are shape-shifting into what the evangelicals are.

The dialogue, therefore, is achieving results, but not the results Kevin thinks or hope it will. His dialogue is causing confusion and casualties like that of Andy Naselli who has just joined ranks with John Piper at the Bethlehem College & Seminary. Given enough time this dialogue with non-separatists won’t have any better outcome than it did for Jerry Falwell and Liberty University.

The most obvious evidence of contemporary disaster is in what both Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale) and Northland International University have become.  Northland’s disaster of dialogue began in April 2010 when Matt Olson, Sam Horn, Les Ollila and Doug Mac Lachlan traveled to California to call on John MacArthur, Phil Johnson and Rick Holland.

“In April 2010 Matt Olson, Sam Horn, Les Ollila and Doug McLachlan traveled to the Grace Community Church (GCC) to meet with John MacArthur, Phil Johnson and Rick Holland. After a day of discussions the NIU men came away finding no reason not to have and increase fellowship with them. Inviting GCC’s executive pastor, Rick Holland, to speak in chapel confirms a new alliance for NIU with evangelicalism.”5

Calvary Seminary’s disaster of dialogue is through their conferences featuring Mark Dever and Haddon Robinson. Central Seminary’s disaster of dialogue has been fomenting for several years in large part due to Kevin Bauder’s inflammatory articles, apologetics for compromising evangelicals and, in the opinion of some, a revisionist history of fundamentalism. Bringing Central Seminary closer to disaster was its appearance as an official vendor at John Piper’s 2012 Desiring God conference.6 

There is much more to address from and about Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter to Lance Ketchum. This series will be continued.

LM

New Critical Review: Please see Kent Brandenburg's new article,  A Really Nice, Gentle, Loving OpenLetter, Because That's What I'm Calling It, to Kevin Bouder (sic)

“Do you [Kevin Bauder] have available a similar kind of criticism of any evangelicals like you have criticized Lance Ketchum? I could appreciate your wordsmith applied to John Piper, instead of what seems like only glowing praise… Piper doesn’t believe and practice like you.   Ketchum doesn't believe and practice like you.  It seems that perhaps the deciding difference between Piper and Ketchum is that Piper doesn't criticize you at all.  He's only praised you that I have read… And your guys would be upset about criticism of Piper, diminishing your legendary status with them.”

Related Reading:

A Letter from *Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to KevinBauder

“It is astounding to me that in many of your recent writings on a professedly fundamental, Baptist site, you seem to constantly extol the ‘virtues’ of evangelical Protestants while, at the same time, deriding the ‘vices’ of Fundamental Baptists. Reading your posts would lead some to wonder if you weren’t just writing a resume for some ‘conservative evangelical’ seminary to read and then hire you…. Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings, the students of Central, and even Central itself away from the Testimony upon which it was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism. As Samuel of old who, after his death, confronted Saul in his error, I plead with you to turn back ‘to the Law and to the Testimony’.”

Dr. Ernest Pickering, “The Separatist Cause is NotAdvanced by Featuring Non-Separatists”

“But a man is more than his pulpit message. He brings to the pulpit a lifetime of associations, actions and perhaps writings. He comes as a total person. Is he in his total ministry the type of person you would want the young people at the separatist college to emulate?  If he is a compromiser, his example would be harmful, and the college president would be at fault for setting him up as such. The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non-separatists.” (Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Implementing Separatist Convictions, Whom to Invite to Your Platform, p. 229.)

Footnotes:

1) Today, at SI, Kevin chose an unflattering term in which to portray one unnamed FBFI leader. Kevin refers to him as a “muckety-muck FBFI official.” Such a pejorative to be used in describing a bishop, an official, sad!!! With his pejorative today and how he demeaned Jones and Rice Kevin is really helping produce a negative spirit, an angry spirit among the younger men seeking mentorship from Bauder, and it shows.

KevinBauder: Even More Than “Nuff Said” For His Removal From the National Platform of the FBFI Annual Fellowship

2) An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum, SI, January 30, 2013.

3) See, Andy Naselli’s Five Reason Were Excited to Serve at Bethlehem College & Seminary, Thoughts on Theology blog, Jan. 16, 2013.

Central Baptist Theological Seminary (CBTS) is bleeding cash. See What’s the Costof Change? $2.7 Million Dollars. In the business community one might refer to what they see at Central as “the death rattle.” John Piper started his Bethlehem College & Seminary in 2009.  Bethlehem Seminary is situated just 10 miles east of CBTS. One might reasonably conclude that it is only a matter of time before Central folds—and Kevin Bauder goes to work for Piper. One pastor wondered if Kevin’s Open Letter and his relentless defense of evangelicalism seem like he is making overtures to Piper for a position.

4) Pastor Marc Monte: Kevin Bauder, It Won’t Fly With Those of UsWho Know

5) Northland Int’l.University’s Convergence with Evangelicalism: What Does it Mean forImpressionable Students?

6) What Does Central Seminary & John Piper’sDesiring God Have in Common? Each Other!

An Open & Critical Review of Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter

On Jan. 25, 2013 from his In the Nick of Time blog Kevin Bauder published An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum. This Open Letter is Kevin Bauder’s reaction to a Nov. 2012 article by Dr. Ketchum titled, The Subtlety of “Good Words and Fair Speeches.”1

“Kevin [Bauder] has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists. Yet he has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism…. Like Kevin, I would give credit to the conservative evangelicals where credit is due. I say ‘Amen’ to everything they have done well in defense of the gospel of Christ. But not at the expense of discrediting fundamentalism for the valiant battles it has fought against some of the very things many conservative evangelicals are espousing which compromise the gospel, yet which many of the current generation do not seem to take very seriously…. What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear.” (Dr. Gerald Priest reacting to Dr. Kevin Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This, March 2010)

In the nearly three years since Dr. Priest’s evaluation above Kevin Bauder has gone far beyond simple “lavish praise” for so-called “conservative” evangelicals. He has doubled-down! Furthermore, it has come to pass that significant differences between conservative evangelical and certain former fundamentalist institutions has disappeared. None more stark than the former Northland Baptist Bible College2 and Calvary Baptist Seminary3 (Lansdale).

Kevin Bauder publicly praises evangelicals for the things he agrees with. However, neither from his blog or the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron does he offer serious public criticism of the evangelicals. He does not warn readers of the doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises, “pitfalls and problems” of conservative evangelicalism.  He has not publicly “reproved” or “rebuked” them. (2 Tim. 4:2) He will not publicly “admonish” them. (2 Thess. 3:15) He does not “mark” them or caution believers to “avoid [any of] them,” (Rom. 16:17).  Instead Kevin Bauder has tolerated, allowed for, excused or ignored the major errors in theology and practice of the evangelicals.  He has, furthermore, embraced them in fellowship and cooperative ministry efforts.4

I invite you to read and consider each of the following articles.  Each has a direct correlation to Dr. Bauder’s defense of, silence or indifference toward the aberrant theology and non-separatist practices of the evangelicals. For example, since first we learned that John Piper would join Rick Warren in joint ministry Kevin Bauder has apparently said nothing from his blog to address this matter.

Kevin Bauder Discussing: Al Mohler’s Signing of the Manhattan Declaration

It was widely agreed that when Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration, which he has never apologized for or repented of, he gave Christian recognition to the deadly “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil 3:18) and compromised the gospel. 

The Convergence of Fundamentalism & Non-Separatist Evangelicalism

“The ‘Conservative Evangelicals’ have a great articulator in Dr. Bauder. Dr. Bauder gives a positive overview of the movement but says nothing as to their position on ecumenism and Biblical Separation. Read again Dr. Bauder’s definition of neo-evangelicalism. According to his definition, New Evangelicals of the past would qualify as ‘Conservative Evangelicals’ today…. Dr. Bauder’s “Conservative Evangelicals” repudiate the doctrine of separation, they are for greater social involvement, and they are determined to engage in theological dialogue with liberalism as is seen by their associations with what are considered liberal religious organizations.”

Kevin Bauder & Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

“The Trojan horse of evangelicalism is being brought into the fundamentalist camp and it is Drs. Bauder, Doran, Jordan and Olson that are holding the gate open and leading it in. All doubt has been removed on the direction of Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder toward cooperative ministry with non-separatist, compromising evangelicals. Is this a fundamentalism worth saving?”

What Does Central Seminary & John Piper’s Desiring God Have in Common? Each Other!

“Should there be genuine surprise that CBTS would participate in the Desiring God conference? From what Central’s former president Dr. Kevin Bauder (2004-2011) has written and with whom he has been in fellowship and cooperative ministry with it is no mystery that Kevin’s feet are pointed toward the compromising evangelical orbit that is cloaked under the guise of a so-called ‘conservative’ evangelicalism. Unfortunately, it now appears as though Central Baptist Theological Seminary, as an institution, is headed in the same direction as Kevin Bauder.”

The Minnesota Baptist Association has announced that Phil Johnson, of John MacArthur’s Grace to You, will be the featured speaker at its September 2013 Men’s Fellowship.

“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. Mahaney, 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. This goes one step further when they invite these men to preach for them.”5
(Dr. Lance Ketchum’s The Subtlety of “Good Words and Fair Speeches”)

Beginning Tuesday we will examine and consider a number of excerpts from Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter to Lance Ketchum.  Does Kevin address the crux of Dr. Ketchum’s article? We will examine some of Kevin’s criticism, claims for himself and on behalf of conservative evangelicals. We will determine, which if any pass the smell test and a reality check.

Yours faithfully,

Lou Martuneac

Please continue to, Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter: Where Do I Find Agrement?

New Critical Review: Please see Kent Brandenburg's new article,  A Really Nice, Gentle, Loving OpenLetter, Because That's What I'm Calling It, to Kevin Bouder (sic)

“Do you [Kevin Bauder] have available a similar kind of criticism of any evangelicals like you have criticized Lance Ketchum? I could appreciate your wordsmith applied to John Piper, instead of what seems like only glowing praise… Piper doesn’t believe and practice like you.   Ketchum doesn't believe and practice like you.  It seems that perhaps the deciding difference between Piper and Ketchum is that Piper doesn't criticize you at all.  He's only praised you that I have read… And your guys would be upset about criticism of Piper, diminishing your legendary status with them.”

Site Publisher’s Update (2/1/13):
Dr. Lance Ketchum publishes a response to Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter.  See, Defining Points

“The contradiction of all this is that men like Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Doug McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, Dr. David Doran, and Dr. Matt Olson all profess to be independent, fundamental Baptists.  However, their new definition of the practice of separation is like that of the interdenominational Fundamentalism.  They want most other doctrines other than the Gospel to be eliminated from the practice of separation.  Independent, fundamental Baptists do not agree and do not like what they are trying to do.  They are convoluting what it means to be an independent, fundamental Baptist.”

Footnotes:
1) The Subtlety of  “Good Words and Fair Speeches.”

2) Northland Students RAP to Jesus Loves Me, and It's Blasphemy!

Is Northland Opposed to the Modern Charismatic Movement?

3) Calvary Baptist Seminary Hosting New Evangelical Dr. Haddon Robinson

4) The same tolerance for and cooperative ministry with non-separatist evangelicals is true of Drs. Dave Doran, Matt Olson and Tim Jordan.

5) The Subtlety of “Good Words and Fair Speeches” by Dr. Lance Ketchum originally appeared at his Line Upon Line blog