Thursday, January 31, 2013

A Really Nice, Gentle, Loving Open Letter, Because That's What I'm Calling It, to Kevin Bouder (sic)

Dear Kevin,

I like reading you, your (sic) a good writer, and by your own admission, you are well read in so many different philosophers, Hegal (sic) being one.  Don't think that anyone is attempting to embarras (sic) anyone with so many sic erat scriptem (sic).  I'm just trying to be sure to be careful with the original writing of this post, as much as I would with a Joel Tetreu (sic) letter.  It's not a good laugh from anyone's buddies at the expense of Lance Ketcham (sic), I know.  No one could say that.  No one thinks that.

No really, I have enjoyed reading you.  You have been helpful to me in your writing about aesthetics, orthopathy, and minor premise application.  I even have enjoyed your attempts at defending fundamentalism.  I like those defenses far better than evangelicalism, conservative evangelicalism, reformed Charismaticism, militant evangelicalism (in case there is such a thing), and new evangelicalism (wishing not to get the wrong title to label whoever I might be talking about).  Even your own attack on those who believe in perfect preservation of Scripture is the fairest that I have read.  I also recognize, truly, that you and I are together in a group of less than 5% of Americans based on how we see the world.  In other words, we are more alike than we are different.

Do you 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 (here and here).  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 (here).  And your guys would be upset about criticism of Piper, diminishing your legendary status with them.  Piper doesn't feel criticized like I know Ketchum does.  Perhaps Piper has invited you to speak at one of his Desiring God conferences.  Or maybe he hasn't.  If he hasn't, does that bother you?  You couldn't set up a display at an FBFI conference and that bothered you.  That's how fundamentalists behave.  It's a kind of theological triage.   Even when you attempt to criticize conservative evangelicals, it comes across like an endorsement (here).  You are really happy that Piper wants to glorify God, when other Charismatics don't, so you commend him on that.  Don't you think that those Charismatics want to glorify God?  They would say so.  And so Piper goes to Passion 2013 and brings in his rap "artists" for ecstatic experiences, but that gets to be glorifying God?  What kind of discernment are you showing there?  Isn't this just mere sentimentalism on your part?  Come on!  It makes me think you're not really serious about what you say you believe.

You say that no one is ridiculing Ketchum in the MBA, but your open letter then defends anyone who might ridicule him.  You would have a hard time stopping the ridicule because you plainly intimate that Ketchum deserves the ridicule.  You haven't ridiculed him---you just think he deserves the ridicule he does get.  With that no ridicule, who needs ridicule?  And then you read ridicule in the comment section.  No one confronts the ridicule there.  Why would they?  You've said that he deserves it, so open season on ridicule.  Some of the ridicule in the comment section comes from those who have little but ridicule at their disposal, because they can't exegete out of a paper bag.  I've always thought ridicule was easy.  I'm even doing a little here (just that I'm admitting it, unlike you).  Lots of your defenders at SharperIron would be very easy to ridicule, including you, but how valuable is ridicule as a weapon for change?

You are up in amazing detail on Ketchum, but you really do not know about MacArthur's Resolved Conference, the music there?  Just play the samples here, Kevin.   It took me 14 seconds to find.  Is it blasphemous?   Maybe that doesn't bother you.  Wow.  You don't know about the music there.  You don't see the jazz music at the Master's College?  Meet Paul Plew, director of the jazz band there.  Enjoy The Master's College big band.   Kevin, there is worshiping God and then there is "worshiping" God and worshiping "God."  Things do mean things.  God doesn't get to be whatever we make Him to be, like He's some kind of gumby God that is flexible to our taste.  It's up to you to how you will react to such things.  It wasn't hard to find.  Here's what I did. I punched in "jazz" and then I punched in "Master's College."  You can do it, if it matters to you. Maybe these resolved worshipers are just more authentic, which is why they sound so real, i.e., just like night club entertainers.  Is the right God required for a true gospel?  Or can He be a God that enjoys our lust?

You talk sometimes like you are serious about God's holiness, but when you try so hard to be so inclusive of people who would not give holiness the time of day, it makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.  I'm trying though.  By the way, some of your biggest supporters will be very angry with what I'm writing here, because they don't have the discernment to know better.  Will you say anything about that?  Or are these your biggest fanboys, and you can't disappoint them?

Alright, I'm done for now, but there is much more that I could say.  I love you in a non-sentimental way.

Kent Brandenburg


Kent Brandenburg said...

Kevin Bauder writes a couple of comments that would explain what I like about him.


For the record, as what some would call KJVO, I don't appropriate Pickering. I say just that he was the only separation book that I had and knew of after college and seminary. We weren't even required to read it. I bought on my own initiative and read it. In many ways the book is confusing. And it is true, that Bauder is in fact less confusing than Pickering.

Bauder would title me an everythingist and, therefore, a hyperfundamentalist, but I would rather argue things scripturally, as to what is biblical doctrine and practice, rather than apply these pejoratives. There is no historical precedent for calling me any of those names. He's making them up as he goes along.

It's interesting when you read Mike Harding's comments over there, how he thinks of Lance as a factionalist because of Lance's division from the Baptist confessions of faith. Harding talks about KJVO like this, when Lance's and my position on preservation, making us KJVO, is the same as the Baptist confessions of faith. Harding divides from the Baptist confessions on preservation. I might write about that again, since Harding set it up like a tee-ball.

Lou Martuneac said...


This was a masterful reply to Bauder's Open Letter to Lance Ketchum. I cracked up as soon as I read the first [sic] in the title right then knowing where this was headed.

Thanks for entering this important discussion. I may have more for you later.


d4v34x said...

Bro. B.,

You must admit there are some people who write percious few paragraphs one could quote without having to [sic] 'em.

The good Dr. K. may be such an one.

d4v34x said...

"Percious", I says!

Missed your chance. :)

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi D4,

I thought percious was a joke, so I didn't "sic" it. Gollum may have, if he were here. I just lol'ed.

Kent Brandenburg said...


I read this comment from you:

It sounds like us. It sounds like our book on separation. Or in other words, it sounds like the Bible. There is a reason why the Bauder model won't work (or the Pickering one)---it's not scriptural. Scripture always works. The cats (sheep) can in fact be herded (led) there.