FUNDAMENTALIST OR FUNDAMENTAL?
Editorial
November/December, 1993
Volume 28, Number 6
During the early centuries after Christ, Christians slowly worked out
a set of beliefs on such doctrines as original sin, the trinitarian nature
of God, the deity and resurrection of Christ, etc. This body of beliefs
survived pretty much intact until the late 1800s and was commonly referred
to as "orthodoxy." The basics of the Christian faith, the authority of
the Bible and the belief that individuals can be saved only by accepting
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, were held generally by all Christians.
During the 19th century, various forces (both inside and outside the
church) were joined together to challenge orthodoxy. Darwin and his evolutionary
theory seemed to challenge some of the bedrock tenets of biblical belief.
The higher criticism of European scholars analyzed the Bible from a literary
and historical point of view and began questioning whether the Bible was
after all the Word of God. Theological liberals attempted to make Christianity
more compatible with contemporary trends. As a result, early in the 20th
century, conservative Christians tried to protect orthodoxy (correct belief)
by embracing a twelve-volume statement of conservative theology which came
to be called "fundamentalism." Following World War II, a new generation
of fundamental and conservative theologians came into the foreground and
shaped a movement known as "evangelicalism." (Although evangelicalism is
customarily seen as a relatively recent phenomenon, the evangelical spirit
has manifested itself throughout church history.)
Evangelicalism may be defined as the movement in modern Christianity
(which transcends denominational boundaries)--that emphasizes conformity
to the basic tenets of the Christian faith, and stresses a missionary outreach
of compassion and urgency. Evangelicals regard Scripture as the infallible
guide for faith and practice, deny the innate goodness of human beings,
and teach that God himself provided the way out of the human dilemma by
allowing Jesus Christ to make atonement for sin by shedding His blood and
thereby redeeming individuals from spiritual death by dying in our place.
Evangelicals believe there needs to be an urgency about getting that message
proclaimed. Today the evangelicals are strong in a number of mainline denominations,
and are found in many of the independent Bible churches and the parachurch
organizations.
Fundamentalism (about which Brother Craig Alan Myers has written in this
issue of the BRF Witness), is a subgroup of evangelicalism,
characterized today by a militant opposition to liberal theology. A fundamentalist
is sometimes described as an evangelical who is angry about something.
Brethren Revival Fellowship believes and teaches the fundamentals of the
faith, but we are not fundamentalists. Readers will do well to carefully
absorb the pages which follow, and notice especially in the last part of
Craig Alan's essay how BRF-type conservative Brethren differ from fundamentalists.
Brethren have always accepted the generally recognized fundamental truths
of Protestantism, but Brethren have also with great conviction, preached
as essential those parts of the Gospel which even fundamentalists have
neglected, disregarded, or rejected. A study of the books produced by Brethren
historians Donald Durnbaugh, Emmert Bittinger, and Dale Stoffer will reveal
a number of essential ingredients of Brethrenism (with its Anabaptist and
Pietist roots) which have often been ignored by fundamentalists. The distinctive
teachings include:
1. Adult baptism and the teaching that infant baptism was not valid.
2. Refusal to bear arms or to do military service.
3. Consistency between faith and works rather than an undue emphasis
on justification by faith alone.
4. Focusing on the question, "How do I live my life now that I have
been reconciled with God by faith in Jesus Christ?"
5. Outward obedience to simple commands (baptism, the three-part lovefeast,
simplicity and modesty in dress, etc.).
6. Reliance for strength on a simple, face-value reading of the New
Testament including even the hard sayings" of Jesus.
Brethren Revival Fellowship claims to be conservative. In theology,
a "conservative" keeps to basics (the fundamental doctrines) so that the
believer will have an anchor that is firm and steadfast. Conservatives
will not abandon a position just because it is old, nor will they take
up everything new just because it is new. A conservative will test each
new idea against the old to make sure that it is in line with biblical
truth. All ideas are measured and weighed against the Scriptures. A "conservative" need not be an "old fogey." A "conservative" examines everything and keeps (conserves) what is good; an "old fogey" examines nothing and keeps everything! BRF claims to be conservative and evangelical and Anabaptist in its focus.
--Harold S. Martin
Fundamentalist or Fundamental?
by Craig Alan Myers
Much confusion exists in Christianity over the use of the term, fundamentalism." News reports tell us of the activities of Muslim fundamentalists." The Southern Baptist Convention has been struggling with the issue of "fundamentalism." The resurgence of conservative Christianity in the political realm has been painted with the "fundamentalist" tag. News magazines and other printed materials occasionally mention "fundamentalism" within Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam--all in the same breath--as if it is a monolithic force with united goals, values, and beliefs.
An extremist, racist political movement known as "Christian Identity,"
has also been lumped together with mainstream conservative churches by
an unwitting media unable or unwilling to do the proper research. Even
on evangelical college campuses there is an attitude of arrogance toward
Christians who maintain a conservative witness, and the word "fundy" is
aimed at putting such persons down.
Our purpose here is to briefly describe Christian fundamentalism--its
origins, rise, and narrowing--and dispel some misconceptions about it and
its relationship with fundamental Christianity. We trust that our picture
will not be simply a caricature (as many in the media depict), but a true
examination and evaluation of fundamentalism as it has developed through
the years of this century. Fundamentalism, in its better days, has made
valuable contributions to Christianity, and these should not be overlooked.
Yet, we want to draw distinctions between being fundamental and being fundamentalist.
THE ORIGINS OF FUNDAMENTALISM
Fundamentalism has its roots in the orthodox, Bible-believing Christianity
of the 1800s. Evangelical doctrine and practice were the hallmark of the
19th Century--to the extent that church historians call it the "Evangelical
Century" in America. This evangelicalism was bolstered by the advent of
revivals, and was noted for its concern for the abolition of slavery, the
elimination of alcohol, and the promotion of higher education.
Many scholars point out that fundamentalism as we know it is a 20th
century movement. Yet it also must be said that wholesale attacks on the
trustworthiness of the Bible, the deity of Jesus Christ, the sin-pardoning
atonement, the personal return of Jesus Christ to earth, etc.--all of which
demanded a conservative response-were only coming into their own in the
late 1800s.
Evolution, German rationalism, and general unbelief began to find their
way into the churches in the middle and late 19th century, and many denominations
and churches found their leadership absorbed into modernism. This modernism
denied the fundamental truth of the Bible, saying it was just another human
book," and said that Jesus Christ was only a good man. Everything in the
Scriptures was questioned, to the point that some scholars believed that
the Apostle Paul wrote only four of the letters attributed to him. It was
a dark time in many of the larger denominations.
Bruce Shelley writes, "The hallmarks of liberal theology are here: (1)
the evolutionary philosophy applied to religion, (2) the optimistic view
of man centering in his 'religious experience' and (3) the moralistic conception
of God, who can so readily be 'found' in man" [Church History in
Plain Language, pp. 454-455].
To counteract this unbelief, conservative Christians began to defend
the trustworthiness of the Bible and the basic Christian teachings. One
attempt to do this was a series of articles with the general title, The
Fundamentals, published in 1912-15. This series, with 64 writers
from many denominations, found its way into the studies of over three million
pastors, missionaries, and seminary students.
The articles defended the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the Trinity,
the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, ascension,
and literal return of Jesus, the personality of the Holy Spirit, as well
as a host of other topics. The authors meant to provide a realistic ground
for believing in orthodox Christianity. There was no hint of separatism
or extreme militancy, but rather an emphasis on the historic truths of
the faith as being believable for modern times.
In 1920, a group of conservatives, led by Baptist editor Curtis Lee
Laws, consciously called themselves "fundamentalists," and the name stuck.
By this they meant that they believed in the basic historic doctrines of
the faith. While many adopted the name proudly, others, like J. Gresham
Machen, disliked it. Machen was a dignified Princeton Seminary professor
who doggedly contended for the historic faith of his own Northern Presbyterian
denomination. To him, the differences were clearcut: conservatives were
Christians, and the modernists or liberals were not.
With the prominent 1925 court battle over evolution in Dayton, Tennessee,
between agnostic Clarence Darrow and conservative William Jennings Bryan,
fundamentalists found themselves on the negative side of public opinion.
They were painted as ignorant, Bible-quoting lunatics. This image, largely
false, remains with us to this day.
As fundamentalists came under fierce attack, not only in the general
press but also in their own denominations, they tended to group themselves
together and eventually separated themselves from the larger mainline churches.
This occurred most prominently in the Northem Baptist Convention and the
Northern Presbyterian Church, when the General Association of Regular Baptist
Churches and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church were begun by outcasts of
those respective groups.
THE NARROWING OF FUNDAMENTALISM
In the 1930s, fundamentalism began to be more of a mindset rather than
a belief framework. It took on more of a negative, fighting, separatist
spirit than it had shown in its earlier days. Bible-believing Christians
who had formerly worked together in the same denomination, now labored
separately because many groups that pulled out viewed those who remained,
as apostate or in league with apostasy. Prominent fundamentalists such
as Bob Jones, Sr. (Baptist), Carl Mclntire (Bible Presbyterian), and J.
Frank Norris (Bible Baptist) became known for their attacks on modernism
and on those who did not agree with their separatism.
This separatist attitude even prevailed in generally conservative denominations,
such as the Brethren Church (Ashland). Most theological liberals had left
that fellowship in the early 1920s, but a fundamentalist faction demanded
even more theological strictness. The tension ultimately led to the division
of the Brethren Church into two groups, the Ashland Brethren and the Grace
Brethren, each with its own seminary, missions organization, and conference.
As the fundamentalist movement narrowed, its scholarship tended to decline.
While early on, noted intellectuals such as Benjamin B. Warfield and J.
Gresham Machen were instrumental in providing a scholarly base, after the
1930s the movement focused inward, intent on defending its own and building
churches. Few if any leaders had or even sought higher theological education.
Not until the 1970s would fundamentalists seek to defend their faith on
an intellectual basis.
Along with this declining scholarship came less of a commitment to social
concern. Concerns over health, education, and welfare were hallmarks of
the evangelical movement from which fundamentalism sprang. Yet these concerns
were of little interest to later fundamentalists, often because the modernists
centered their religion on social issues and made doctrine a side issue.
Many fundamentalists took on a suspicious view toward any other groups,
and erected their own standards of fellowship which excluded those with
even minor differences on less important issues. Jack Van Impe, in his
book, Heart Disease in Christ's Body, details some of these items, down
to the wearing of beards and wirerimmed spectacles, as being causes for
disfellowship.
A heightened sense of militancy developed, and many conservative believers
became righting fundamentalists," ready to debate at a moment's notice.
Additionally, many (but not all) fundamentalist groups adopted C.I. Scofield's
dispensationalism as part of their system of belief. Some took on the view
of third degree separation. This means that they not only separated from
apostasy (first degree), and from those who had fellowship with apostates
(second degree), but also from those who fellowshipped with those who had
fellowship with apostates.
Thus, Billy Graham found little cooperation from many fundamentalists,
not because of the content of his message, but because his crusades were
(and are) sponsored by united fronts of churches in the host cities. These
united efforts often saw churches of vastly differing standards and confessions
working together to promote Mr. Graham and his message of the Gospel.
Fundamentalism further took on more of a "God and Country" attitude
in which true Christianity was identified with the United States, its form
of government, and its stance against Communism during the Cold War. Many
fundamentalist churches stand out in their hyper-patriotism in which the
United States can do no wrong. American flags are featured prominently
in their worship auditoriums, and elaborate Independence, Memorial, and
Veterans Day activities are promoted as expressions of rove of country.
Fundamentalism in Christianity returned to the fore in the late 1970s
and early 1980s with the development of groups such as the Moral Majority,
led by independent Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell. Falwell, with a nationwide
television and radio audience, also promoted Liberty University as the
"Harvard" or "Notre Dame" of fundamentalism, and for a while published
a well written monthly magazine titled The Fundamentalist Journal.
All this was a conscious effort to return fundamentalists to active involvement
in more than simply church matters.
While broadening its interest in government and social issues, fundamentalism
kept the doctrinal basics of its earlier years, yet tried to package and
promote those basics in ways intended to attract new generations of hearers.
Some leaders have attempted to shed the negative images of earlier years,
with varying success.
DIFFERENCES
Those of more liberal persuasion have attempted at times to portray
all Bible-believing Christians as fundamentalists. Often there is a dark
linking of conservative believers to the extreme views or actions of fringe
groups. Persons involved in revival and renewal work in mainline denominations
sometimes face the charge of being "bigoted fundamentalists."
Fundamentalism, like any other worldview, does have its extremists.
There will always be those who take their ideas and beliefs to an unbalanced
extreme. Modern theological liberalism has its extreme believers too, although
with so few firm convictions, there is little about which to be extreme!
Non-fundamentalist conservatives and fundamentalists usually agree on
the basic doctrines of Christianity. The difference comes in the outworking
of those doctrines and the overall attitudes of people who identify with
either group.
Fundamentalism in Christianity is one part of the overall conservative
evangelical expression of the faith. Not all fundamentalists agree with
one another, so it can be difficult to make general observations without
causing offense. This being said, some main differences between fundamentalists
and fundamental believers can be distinguished. The differences can be
summarized in relation to the larger church, to scholarship, to patriotism,
to other Bible believers, to denominational distinctives, and to humility.
Fundamental believers try to maintain relationships to the larger church
structure, even while believing that most of the real work of the church
happens on the local scene. An earlier leader in one of the revival movements
said, "Even though some churches and some leaders have gone apostate, yet
if we want to let our lights shine, we need to be firm, yet charitable.
We need to maintain a Christlike spirit; this will win in the long run."
If we believe the truth of the Bible, and we are obedient to that truth,
there is no need to constantly be negative and on the defensive. Romans
12:17-21 reminds us how to deal with even those who persecute us. We certainly
can have the same attitude toward those within the professing church, no
matter where they fall in believing God's truth.
Many otherwise 'liberal" denominations have those within who believe
in certain non-negotiable basics. Such persons work with the larger body,
taking their cue from the Old Testament prophets who contended with those
who fell away from God. These believers share the heritage and foundational
teachings of the larger church body, and cannot be called "fundamentalist"
in either action or spirit.
Fundamental believers have an interest in sound Christian scholarship.
The rise of the "new evangelical" movement has verified that Christians
can maintain a conservative testimony and still be active in pursuing the
lines of human knowledge. Thinkers like Carl F.H. Henry, J.I. Packer, Francis
Schaeffer, and others have shown that intellectual pursuits are not off
limits to those who adhere to the core truths of the Bible. Yet, none of
these persons could be considered narrow in attitude or associations.
Fundamental believers may not share the "God and Country" posture of
the fundamentalists. While we appreciate the freedoms our native land affords,
we cannot overlook the fact that Christianity is bound up with no secular
nation, but instead is a worldwide faith. No secular country has had a
comer on God's truth or God's blessing, and certainly many have come under
God's curse because of the immorality and debased lives of leaders and
people.
Non-fundamentalist conservatives look with wary eyes toward moves by
the 'religious right" to make the United States a "Christian nation" again.
We fear that our fundamentalist brethren are following the same path trod
in the 1910-1930 period when liberals felt that many of humanity's problems
could be solved by government. Though concern about the issues of the day
is good, we must always remember that the primary work of the church is
the worship of God and the conversion of the lost.
Fundamental believers have an appreciation for Bible believers within
other denominations, and even those within liberal groups. We are glad
whenever the basic truths of the Scriptures are taught and Jesus Christ
is magnified, whether it be by Baptists, Wesleyans, charismatics, Pentecostals,
or Methodists. Conservatives of many denominations were interested enough
to join with others to form the National Association of Evangelicals in
1943. This organitation is made up of denominations, organizations, and
individuals who maintain belief in a basic statement of faith true to the
Word of God.
While having the highest loyalty to Christ and the Scriptures, many
fundamental believers have a high regard for historic expressions of the
Christian faith, especially as found in denominational distinctives. All
too many fundamentalists give the impression that true Christianity started
with them or the pastor who started their local church. They have little
understanding of the struggles or circumstances which marked the founding
of denominations, and hence little appreciation of historic, Biblical distinctives.
Some liberal scholars have remarked that all that keeps conservative
believers from being fundamentalist is the commitment to the historic doctrines
of denominations. Fundamental believers have a sense of history.
Finally, fundamental believers have tried to maintain an attitude of
humility when working with others of whatever persuasion. While we have
firm convictions, we are human enough to realize that our understandings
may not always be completely correct. Certainly the last word has yet to
be said on many matters of legitimate debate, and it helps no one to come
across as an arrogant "know it all" in every situation.
CONCLUSION
Fundamentalism has had an admirable purpose over the years--one which
has not been abandoned. That purpose is to lift up the historic basic truths
of the Christian faith. With this emphasis, other Christian conservatives
would agree.
It is encouraging to note that in some areas fundamentalists are moving
toward the more moderate approach of non-fundamentalist conservatives.
In confronting social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, etc., conservatives
and fundamentalists have joined together in limited ways to present the
Scriptural stands. A fundamentalist Baptist pastor in Grand Rapids is taking
the lead there in ministering to those suffering from the HIV virus. Fundamentalist
Christians are using higher education and advanced scholarship to defend
and further the faith. Many recognize the hazards of hyper-patriotism.
Many individual fundamentalists have a humble attitude toward others and
seek to quietly win souls to Jesus Christ.
Fundamental believers share much in common with fundamentalists. Our
exchanges are often gracious and encouraging. We appreciate their soulwinning
motivations and expectancy of the Lord's return. We are glad for their
doctrinal emphases. Yet, we grieve that fundamentalists more often focus
on the more debatable issues which tend to separate us, rather than on
the major articles of faith which unite us.
"Fundamentalism" as a name, has acquired too much excess baggage over
the years, and too many negative connotations. This leads BRF to say, "Call
us fundamental, but we respectfully decline the label 'fundamentalist.'"