Fundamental Differences
June 3rd, 2008
(By Jesse Johnson)
A Few Thoughts on Fundamentalism and the Evangelical Manifesto
One result of the Evangelical Manifesto released a couple weeks ago has been discussion about the differences between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. The manifesto portrays Fundamentalism as a threat to the gospel, and yet many people may not even know the difference between the two terms. These terms are loaded with historical baggage, and for that reason they perhaps have fallen out of use. This causes confusion as to what connotations they may have today.
This confusion is not helped by the manifesto. It paints Evangelicals as the center of Biblical Christianity, with compromising liberals on one side, and isolationist Fundamentalists on the other. Yet it does so without really defining or identifying who they were calling fundamentalists. This ambiguity is unfortunate because historically, Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have defined their differences with clear statements signed by their followers, in similar fashion to the one released last week.
In the strictest sense, there are clear differences between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are marked by a separation from culture, a separation from denominations, holding to inerrancy and inspiration, a negative view toward mass evangelism (crusades), a premil/pretrib eschatology, and an unwillingness to cooperate with theological liberals on social work.
Evangelicals are marked by a tendency to attempt to influence the culture, the desire to work within denominations, holding to inspiration instead of inerrancy, a willingness to participate in crusade-style evangelism, a tolerance of other eschatological views, and openness to working with liberals on social issues.
These are all obviously generalizations, but they were often defined through the 1900’s, and perhaps this recent manifesto would have done us a service had they indicated if they were using the term “fundamentalism” with these historical connotations.
It seems that today these distinctions are somewhat outdated. I know of few pastors who would be entirely comfortable with one label or the other. Many would not have the desire to be known for a separation from the culture and from social work that perhaps marked last century’s fundamentalism. But at the same time, they are not comfortable with the traditional Evangelical view of Scripture that perhaps minimizes doctrinal issues, such as eschatology or even a literal creation.
I have often heard people joke that perhaps we need a new term that defines what it is we are, and what we believe. Unfortunately, this latest manifesto is of little help in that regard.
For more on the history of these terms, and their movements, see George Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture, or (harder to find) Bruce Shelly’s Evangelicalism in America. Also, of interest, is John Piper’s post on why he doesn’t take pot shots at fundamentalists.
I am always puzzled by this description of Fundamentalism as being separated from the culture. I grew up at Bob Jones and in an independent Baptist Church. We did not go to the movie theater or listen to pop music but beyond that we did have TVs and radios. When computers came along we got those pretty quick too. Most Fundamentalists looked askance at the the idea of playing Seinfeld clips on a big screen as a launch point for sermons but then most conservative Evangelicals did too. I have enough contact with culture that I know who Mick Jagger is and I can tell Michael Jackson and Prince apart without having to have owned any of their albums! I want to know enough about culture to be able to talk to unsaved people without imbibing enough to be “spotted by the world (James 1).”
There is a view of Fundamentalism that views it as only a small degree away from being Amish that seems very unrealistic.
For fairness let me also admit that to many Fundamentalists the term Evangelical is synonymous with New Evangelical!
There is undoubtedly an emerging middle seen at places like T4G where Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals are mingling and learning from each other. It seems to me that at some point the Evangelicals in this milieu will get kicked out by their New Evangelical friends and the Fundamentalists will get kicked out by their separatistic friends and they will band together. It seems, right now, that will be a good thing since this gathering is characterized by a strong interest in and passion for the Gospel.
It seems one can come up with his own definition of fundamentalism depending on the book he reads. But when you take an honest look at all that has been written, including fundamentalism’s early writings, I think a good definition can be found.
A fundamentalist is a kind of conservative evangelical. Conservative evangelicals believe in the “fundamentals” of the faith (there is no set number, despite what Stewart Cole says, but the number of fundamentals will obvioulsy be disputed.) These fundamentals include the Deity of Christ, inspiration of scriptures, salvation by faith, resurrection, miracles, etc. But with the rise of liberalism, or modernism, the conservative evangelicals basically split into two. One group was more irenic – they tolerated liberalism until it overtook major denominations, conventions, schools, and churches. It was the other group that became known as fundamentalists. They, like the other evangelicals, affirmed the fundamentals of the faith, but there was a difference – they were willing to do battle royal for those truths. This means a polemical and apologetical approach to the faith and a separation from those who did not affirm them. So among fundamentalits, there were differences, mainly because it was an interdenominational movement that included Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Methodists. Although dispensationalism and pretribulationalism were prevelant,I don’t think they can be considered “fundamental” to fundamentalism. The key is that, unlike the other evangelicals, they separated from the liberals who undermined fundamental truth.
Unfortunately, today fundamentalism has ceased to direct its apologetic and polemical approach away from liberalism and toward each other. They now “fight” over issues like pants, music, Bible versions, service times, style, etc. It has shifted so much that today’s conservative evangelical is more of a fundamentalist than those who keep the label. John MacArthur, for instance, is a fundamentalist (although, ironically fundamentalists call him a New Evangelical) because he militantly, and scholarly, defends the truth and he does separate from those who don’t believe it.
Jesse,
Before I spend much responding to your post, could you please clarify or expound upon your statement concerning evangelicals view of scriptures as “holding to inspiration instead of inerrancy”. In a previous comment section of the post concerning the manifesto you wrote this statement concerning evangelicals that they “view inspiration as more important that inerrancy” (May 16, 2008). Thank you for any help you can provide
Bill,
The gist of what the difference is that “inspiration” implies that the Spirit of God inspired the message of the Biblical text. This is something that both Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would agree on. Beyond that is “inerrancy.” This is the belief that not only was the message inspired, but that every word is inerrant. While some Evangelicals historically might have agreed to that, it is generally one of the divisions seen between those two terms. In an oft cited example of this division, do you believe that the chronologies, years, and details of Chronicles have to be exactly correct, or is it possible that the story of Chronicles could be true, without insisting on the veracity of some of the years and names?
Two of the articles that shaped what the term “Evangelicalism” meant, especially in relation to Fundamentalism and the issue of inerrancy are: “Is Evangelical Theology Changing,” published in 1956; and “Evangelicalism, the New Neutralism” by Ashbrook.
Some of the arguments given from Evangelicals to defend the idea of inspiration over inerrancy were: “Human language cannot convey absolute truth, thus inerrancy is impossible” (Curtis, in a book called “Language and Theology”). “Biblical inerrancy was not the belief of the early church” (Rogers, in “Biblical Authority”). DeWolf, who was a professor at Princeton, wrote “Present Trends in Christian Thought” where he noted the shift from a belief in inerrancy toward inspiration.
Today, many Evangelicals would perhaps insist on inerrancy, as this debate was more or less settled with the “Chicago Statement on Inerrancy” in 1978. But prior to that, through much of the century, this was one of the many divides between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. But this new Manifesto perhaps described a more evolved form of Evangelicalism, bashed Fundamentalism, and did not really show who/what they were denouncing.
Thanks,
Jesse
Jesse,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Is this the stance that Dr. MacArthur and Grace Community Church takes on the subject of Inerrancy? Does this stance apply to the originals or just to copies? Thank you again for any information you can share. I know your time is valuable.
Bill,
Grace takes the view of both inspiration and inerrancy. We believe that the Scriptures are without error, and that every word is accurate. This applies to the originals, not the copies, but we would be quick to point out that through textual criticism and scholarship there are very few places where what the original said could legitimately be challenged., and none of those relatively few places have a direct bearing on doctrine or practice.
Thanks Bill,
Jesse
Jesse,
I have a definition of “fundamentalism” that I use regularly. I fully realize that the term has historical roots, and the meaning has changed over time, but I think there is one broader [and more broadly used] definition that fits much of what takes place in [American] Christianity today. Here it is:
“Fundamentalism” is the act of reducing the faith to a core set of fundamentals. Anything outside of these core fundamentals is then viewed as being outside the faith [regardless of how truly that something is part of the real faith].
It is true that there are fundamentals (i.e. essentials) to the faith (like the virgin birth), but there are also many more non-fundamentals (like eating a bag of peanuts at a ballgame) that are just as much a part of the faith. The totality of the faith encomapsses all of life, all of creation, every thought word or deed (1 Cor 10:31). To reduce it to less than what God intended is fundamentalism. As an example, the bible is part of our faith. To say that the King James is the only valid translation is to be a King James fundamentalist.
So fundamentalism as an act of reductionism I believe is a threat to the gospel and to liberty.
Steve:
It doesn’t sound like you have ever met many Fundamentalists. To paint Fundamentalism as reductionist seems out of place to me. Fundamentalism reacted against liberal reductionism that placed emphasis on a “life of faith” against hard doctrine. The main early tenet of Fundamentalism was earnestly contending for the faith. After 1958 and the Billy Graham controversy the the main tenet increasingly became separation from those who were or seemed unwilling to contend for historic orthodoxy.
The emerging middle that we are seeing today seems to be characterized by those who are interested in contending for orthodoxy but are uncomfortable with separating from everyone who does not want to cross t’s and dot i’s just like me.
Jon,
I think the fundamentalisms we’re talking about are different. I’ve met many fundamentalists and former fundamentalists, self-described at that, and quite often the definition I use fits. One of Jesse’s points was that the manifesto didn’t define the term. So I offered my definition.
Jon,
I would like to know what you mean by crossing t’s and dotting i’s. I consider myself a fundamentalist, and a seperatist. I am also a Reform Baptist, I attend a Reform Baptist church, and am one of a very small handful of seperatistic thinking individuals within my church. There are no known seperatist churches in this area where I live, therefore I consider myself something of an anomily around here. Although, being a Calvinist, I do not seperate from all Arminians. I will unhesitatingly seperate from anyone who denies any one, or more, of the essentials of the faith. To do so is to come with another gospel. Neither will I cooprate in ministry, or have Christian fellowship with any such, individually or ecclesiastically. Neither will I fellowship with anyone who cooperates in ministry with the enemies of the Gospel.(i.e. the Roman Catholic church, and all apostate protestantism) That would be to become “partakers of their evil deeds”, 2 Jn. 11. Unfortuneately a lot of today’s prominent evangelicals fall into this categorie. Such men (or women) need to be called to repentance, and seperated from until they do repent.
I do not believe in seperation based on denominational boundaries, views on baptism, (except for baptismal regeneration as is taught by the Roman Catholic church, New Perspectives on Paul, and Billy Graham) escatalogical views, race, politics, color of the church carpet, etc. A good grasp on proper seperation helps purify unity among the bretheren and make it fragrant. Ps. 133