| 9Marks | Print | Back  |
|
A Pastors' and Theologians' Forum on Fundamentalism A Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum: We asked a roundtable of pastors and theologians the following question:
Most of the answers focus, positively, on the Fundamentalists’ willingness to stand for truth and, negatively, on their tone and an inability to distinguish between primary and secondary matters. What’s striking is how the respondents nuance their answers.
David S. Dockery
David M. Doran
In light of the subsequent fragmentation among Fundamentalists, it seems important to learn that separation must always be viewed in relation to the gospel. In the early stages of Fundamentalism, this was clear. Both modernism and compromise with it were genuine threats to the gospel—the former by denying essential elements of the gospel and the latter by denying that acceptance of the Christian gospel is necessary to be recognized as a Christian. Later, in the midst of the conflict between the Fundamentalists and new Evangelicals, in some ways the focus shifted off of the gospel to secondary matters. Separation, rather than serving the goal of gospel purity, sometimes came to be viewed as end in itself—separation for the sake of separation. That’s a path to constant schism. In summary, gospel believing people and churches need to recognize the biblical call to defend the gospel even to the point of separation while not getting sidetracked into divisive battles matters which are not essential to the gospel. The 21st century church needs to embrace and wisely apply biblical separation for the sake of the gospel, the health of the church, and, ultimately, for God’s glory. David M. Doran is the pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, Michigan, and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. He also wrote For the sake of his name: Challenging a New Generation for World Missions (Student Global Impact). Timothy George
Another lesson: how to work together across denominational lines for the historic orthodox faith. Fundamentalism is the mother of Evangelical ecumenism at its best. Here is a third lesson: an unstinted commitment to the cause of world missions. The Fundamentalists gave the lie to the old canard, "Doctrine divides, missions unite." But there are negative lessons as well. The twin errors of Fundamentalism, to my mind, were reductionism and separatism. On the first, the Fundamentalists were not fundamental enough (where’s the Trinity?), and on the second, they became, over time, too contentious to contend for the faith once delivered, except in their own sectarian bubble. Still, there is much to learn here about our Christian witness today. Timothy George is the founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and a senior editor of Christianity Today. Os Guinness
Fundamentalism began as a theological movement at the dawn of the twentieth century, and for all who love truth and orthodoxy its beginnings were praiseworthy. As every academic tutor and sports coach knows, what is more basic and productive than a "return to the fundamentals"? But over the course of the century, Fundamentalism has morphed from its theological roots into a cultural movement, and as such it has now spread to characterize parts of all the world religions – and even secularism. Richard Dawkins, for instance, is a fundamentalist atheist just as the radical Islamists are fundamentalist Muslims. The impulses of the original theological movement are good, but those of the contemporary cultural movements are bad. For advanced modern fundamentalism is not in fact traditional; it is a modern reaction to the modern world. Modern fundamentalism still has a religious identity, but it is also a social movement. What it does is reassert a lost world, a once intact but no-longer-taken-for-granted cultural reality. In doing so, it both romanticizes the past and radicalizes the present with its overlay of psychological defiance and cultural militancy. Herein lies its danger to followers of Jesus: the cultural overlay grows more and more alien to the call of Jesus to his disciples. In their zeal to resist modern culture, for example, Fundamentalists have been quick to abandon such costly teaching of Jesus as "Love your enemies" and forgive as we have been forgiven—without limits. In my view, then, Fundamentalists demonstrate two valuable lessons to other followers of Jesus. On the one hand, they rebuke us for our lack of courage. Each of us must be prepared to take up our cross and count the cost. On the other hand, they warn us of the unintended consequences of faith in a fallen world. Declaring an aim to return to fundamentals is not enough. We have to go back again and again and again, to question our faith and our lives by the standards and teaching of Jesus himself. Semper reformanda is our watchword, which is why the Church is an institution that always goes forward by first going back—and keeps on doing so. Os Guinness is an author and social critic, whose latest book is The Case for Civility – and Why Our Future Depends on It (HarperOne). Darryl G. Hart
As contrary as it runs to popular perceptions, Fundamentalists were not fools. In fact, their powers of discernment make contemporary Evangelicals, who have supposedly advanced beyond Fundamentalists’ defense of simple verities, look downright gullible. Fundamentalists knew they were in a battle, that the church is always being threatened with false teachers and members with "itching ears." They took the New Testament seriously when its writers charged the early church to be on the lookout for those who would lead God’s flock astray. Fundamentalists also knew that the greatest danger to the church invariably came from within her ranks. J. Gresham Machen was a great example of such skepticism. In 1926 he wrote, "Last week it was reported that the churches of America increased their membership by 690,000. Are you encouraged by these figures? I for my part am not encouraged a bit. I have indeed my own grounds for encouragement. . . . But these figures have no place among them. How many of these 690,000 names do you think are really written in the Lamb's book of life? A small proportion, I fear. Church membership today often means nothing more, as has well been said, than a vague admiration for the moral character of Jesus; the Church in countless communities is little more than a Rotary Club. . . . It will be hard; it will seem impious to timid souls; many will be hurt. But in God's name let us get rid of shams and have reality at last." In a day when Protestants seem to be as easily impressed by smooth-talking television preachers, beautiful liturgies administered by women and gays, or smart popes, we could use Fundamentalist suspicion. Darryl G. Hart is an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and co-author most recently of Seeking a Better Country: Three Hundred Years of American Presbyterianism (P&R). Michael Haykin
Alongside a passion for the Truth, early Fundamentalism was also shaped by a desire to know the reality of that text in Ephesians 5, where we read that Christ’s great work includes the sanctification and purification of the Church (verses 25-26). Early Fundamentalists were keenly aware that purity of doctrine was a key part of our Lord’s sanctifying and purifying work and that Christians cannot walk hand in hand with those who flagrantly deny the essentials of the Faith. In this connection, they were also desirous of heeding another related text, namely, that "pure and undefiled religion in the presence of God, even the Father, is this…to keep oneself unstained from the world" (James 1:27). These desires—seeking purity of doctrine and church reform as well as living holy lives—should also be central to our Christianity. Yet, as Fundamentalism pursued these passions, all too frequently it found itself getting sidelined in debates about tertiary issues and becoming a movement that fostered schism rather than reformation. At times it seemed to forget that theological orthodoxy in and by itself cannot revitalize Christian communities: the coals of orthodoxy are vital, but there must be the life-giving flame of the Spirit as well. Michael Haykin is Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky & Research Professor of Irish Baptist College, and the author of The God Who Draws Near (Evangelical Press, 2007). Matthew C. Hoskinson
Matthew C. Hoskinson (Ph.D. Theology) is the pastor of ministry vision at Heritage Bible Church in Greer, South Carolina. Bob Johnson
Many of these strengths have certainly become points of abuse and are well documented, tragically so. But Fundamentalists are not afraid to take a stand, which is refreshing. We can also learn that your strength taken to an unbiblical position will be your weakness. The emphasis upon preaching has often turned into an emphasis upon the preacher. The priority of evangelism has led to much man-centered gospel presentations, manipulation, and forced conversions. Some local churches function with cult-like symptoms, where the fear of man reigns over the fear of God. Personal purity can turn into following a list of external standards which do not always address the heart nor reflect the Scriptures. Concern for separation from the world has often resulted in a tolerance for arrogance and aberrant theology by others who are also separated (e.g. KJV only, blatant Arminianism). Some who grew up in the Fundamentalist camp (no Fun, all Damn and no Mental) have reacted to the abuses by abandoning that which is biblical and truly fundamental. Bob Johnson is the senior pastor at the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Roseville, Michigan, and is a graduate of Bob Jones University. Paul C. H. Lim
Published between 1910-1915, this twelve-volume compendium of what biblical, orthodox Christianity stood for was edited by Dr. R.A. Torrey, a Yale-educated evangelist/theologian (and founder of Biola University in Los Angeles) who was acutely aware of the corrosive impact of "higher criticism," which had a deleterious—indeed disastrous—impact on how people thought of the trustworthiness and truthfulness of the Word of God, human origin and destiny, and eventually Christianity itself. Methodically laying out the basic contours of "faith once delivered for saints," The Fundamentals was comprised of contributions from B.B. Warfield and Charles Erdman of Princeton Seminary; Anglican bishops such as J.C. Ryle and H.C.G. Moule; a Scottish professor of divinity, James Orr; missionary par excellence C.T. Studd; E.Y. Mullins, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; a celebrated preacher G. Campbell Morgan; and Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis who contributed a key chapter "Satan and His Kingdom." As one can see it was both international and ecumenical, provided that the center of Christianity was found on the vicarious, penal-substitutionary redemption wrought by the work of Christ, who was sent from the Father as eternal, co-equal Son of God, and whose identity was savingly revealed through the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the Church. In other words, the Trinitarian orthodoxy of Nicaea was recast in early twentieth-century garb in order to stake out the claims of Christianity, not merely defensively but also as an effort to re-present the "saving shape" of the Christian faith and practice. Paul C.H. Lim is an assistant professor of the History of Christianity at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and is the co-editor of The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge). James MacDonald
Worse than the legalism was the tone often expressed in enforcing these codes. Fundamentalism’s angry assessment of all who disagreed led to the oft repeated axiom, "no fun, too much damn, and not enough mental." In my experience it was Fundamentalism’s uncharitable attitude toward those outside their camp or even toward those inside but within a different faction, that precipitated the exodus of the past 25 years. On the positive side fundamentalism taught us to earnestly contend for the faith. They were willing to separate from people who denied the explicit statements of Scripture. They were willing to confront error and argue for biblical fidelity. That kind of courage is hard to find in the church today. Doctrinally I would consider myself a Fundamentalist, I’m just not mad about it. J James MacDonald is the senior pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel in Rolling Meadows, Illinois and the author of Ancient Wisdom (B&H). Mark A. Minnick
It’s expressed succinctly in the title of an Iain Murray booklet called The Unresolved Controversy: Unity with Non-Evangelicals. The title strikes to the heart of the issue. We have an unresolved controversy, the scriptural rightness or wrongness of uniting in spiritual endeavor with non-Evangelicals. If I understand Murray’s concern, this evidently isn’t a great divide between only Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, but between Evangelicals themselves. So it seems to me that one critical thing Evangelicalism could learn from Fundamentalism is the necessity of coming to a verdict on this question Scripturally. Does Scripture, either by its directives, examples, or good and necessary inferences tolerate, let alone encourage, our uniting for spiritual endeavor with teachers of another gospel? Mark A. Minnick (Ph.D.) is the pastor of Mount Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina, is on the New Testament faculty at Bob Jones University, and is a contributing editor to Frontline, the magazine of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. Phil Newton
Negatively, Fundamentalists sometime miss the forest for the trees. While maintaining convictions, they may treat relationships lightly, neglecting the Second Great Commandment. I recall getting a visit from a local Fundamentalist shortly after I moved to a pastorate in Alabama. I smiled, welcomed his visit, and told him that I was a believer and a new pastor in the area. I assured him that I joined him in seeking to reach unbelievers in our area. I shall never forget his response, complete with a scowl on his face, "Time will tell, time will tell." So much for warmly welcoming me to the community! I learned from this to stand firmly on truth, pursue my gospel calling, and always do so with warmhearted love for my neighbor. Phil Newton, author of Elders in Congregation Life (Kregel, 2005), is the senior pastor of South Woods Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee. Mark Noll
But there is also much to learn positively, especially the shining Fundamentalist emphasis on Scripture as much more than any other human book. And there are also other positive lessons:
Mark Noll is the Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame and a co-editor of the recently re-released Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the Present (Oxford). Paige Patterson
Negatively, a believer always loses the high ground in a discussion when his spirit appears vindictive even if his thesis happens to be correct. Second, untested hypotheses may prove ultimately to be correct, but their resiliency is in question until faced with a fair and honest evaluation. Finally, from the failure of some fundamentalists, Christians should learn that at best we know very little. As a result, a profound humility is always in order. Not all Fundamentalists were guilty of violating these perspectives, but violation has been common enough that there is some truth in the accusations. Positively, however, Fundamentalists were right first about the fact that in any enterprise there are always "fundamentals" that are foundational to meaning and success. Football coaches frequently are heard to say "we have to get back to the fundamentals." In so doing, they are simply recognizing that the team blocking, tackling, and running best will probably win. The same is true in theology. Second, verbal abuse and ridicule not withstanding, the Fundamentalists remained faithful to their convictions. This resolution of mind and heart is worthy of imitation. Finally, Fundamentalists were crystal clear about epistemology. This is to say that unless God had spoken a sure and certain word, in the end it is impossible to have any clear knowledge of the spiritual world. Paige Patterson is the president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and, most recently, a contributor to Daniel Akin’s A Theology for the Church (B&H). Lance Quinn
The Fundamentalists were protectors of the essential truths of Scripture. As the name suggests, the early Fundamentalists fought to retain the core doctrinal verities of the Christian faith. Doctrines including—but not limited to—the historicity and authority of the Bible; the deity of Jesus Christ, including belief in his virgin birth; the depravity of mankind; the vicarious, substitutionary nature of Christ’s death upon the cross; salvation by grace through faith in Christ; the pursuit of holiness; and the visible return of Jesus Christ to the earth, were absolutely non-negotiable with them. If we are their heirs in any meaningful sense, we should be mindful of their battle-scarred victories as we engage in our own truth war. The Fundamentalists often fought over matters that exceed what is written. Later Fundamentalism unfortunately became enmeshed in areas where Scripture gives greater latitude or is silent altogether. While we can appreciate the Fundamentalists’ tight grip on the essential elements of Christianity, we must eschew their doctrinaire stances on issues which are much more secondary or tertiary. The Apostle Paul is thus our wiser guide in these areas (1 Corinthians 4:16; Romans 14:1—15:13). Lance Quinn is the pastor-teacher of The Bible Church of Little Rock in Little Rock, Arkansas. Jeramie Rinne
Unfortunately, this separation too often fostered an oppressive legalism and divisive denominationalism that impeded the gospel. But could it be that the 21st century Evangelical church has begun to err in the opposite extreme? If Fundamentalists overemphasized separation, do we overstress relevance? Is there not a tendency today to uncritically adopt contemporary models of entertainment, management, therapy, marketing, and technology, all in an effort to make our churches relevant? Do Evangelicals really believe that the gospel is the power of God for salvation, or does the juice lie in a trendier approach? The Evangelical church needs to slow down, look again at God’s Word, and think seriously about how cultural models affect the gospel. It may be time for a little separatism! Jeramie Rinne is the senior pastor of South Shore Baptist Church, Hingham, Massachusetts. Carl Trueman
On the debit side, we can also see the problems involved when Christianity retreats into a siege mentality to avoid contamination by the world—a retreat which, in America at least, is as culturally conditioned as anything else; and in the proliferation of trivial taboos which distract from central Christian truths, foster legalism, and hinder a fully-orbed understanding of the Christian life. Having said that, by the definition of J I Packer (in Fundamentalism and the Word of God), I am a Fundamentalist! Carl Trueman is the professor of historical theology and church history at Westminster Theological Seminary, and the author of John Owen: Great Theologians (Ashgate). David Wells
Ben Wright
Fundamentalists are most often criticized for their attitude towards the world and their attitude towards other Christians, and they would certainly acknowledge their differences with broader evangelicalism on these points. That’s exactly why we should examine these particular attitudes for Fundamentalists’ unique contribution. Fundamentalists are right to conclude that Christians shouldn’t expect the world to like Jesus or the Bible—assuming of course, that the gospel is faithfully proclaimed as the offense Scripture describes it to be. They recognize far better than most evangelicals that organizations that call themselves Christian churches but deny the doctrines essential to the gospel are, in fact, no churches at all. They perceive, as Machen did, that these "churches" are simply temples for a different religion—just another segment of a world in rebellion against its God. Over the past century, many in the evangelical movement have glossed over these fundamental differences, believing that sincere engagement and better arguments would win hearts and minds. Despite the prevalence of revivalistic anti-Calvinism among Fundamentalists, they better understand the implications of depravity than many of their more Calvinistic evangelical brethren. They know that human effort alone cannot mitigate the effects of the Fall, and they resist any strategy that compromises the gospel in an attempt to make it more palatable to those fallen hearts and minds. Fundamentalists also withhold fellowship and cooperation from many people whom they understand to be genuine believers. They recognize that when a genuine believer treats as a Christian brother one who professes Christianity, but denies it in doctrine or deed, that genuine believer may do harm to the gospel. Cooperation and fellowship with unbelief is unconscionable to Fundamentalists because it blurs or compromises foundational biblical truth. Though this kind of separatism has been widely disdained by evangelicals who pursue broad unity, Fundamentalists recognize the pitfalls that accompany an age of ecumenism and mass evangelism. These evangelical efforts have created an interlocking network of alliances between people, churches, and parachurch ministries that do not always share the same set of foundational theological convictions. Fundamentalists discern how participation in this network fosters a perception of affirmation and endorsement of those who deny or marginalize crucial facets of Divine truth. Fundamentalists fear that this form of engagement compromises the non-negotiables of the gospel more than cooperation could ever advance it. Fundamentalists gladly exchange this kind of ecumenical unity for biblical fidelity and a clear conscience. In so doing, they remind evangelicals that Christian unity is only authentic when it is unashamedly and undeniably Christian in its essence. Ben Wright is a pastoral assistant at the Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC, and blogs at http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com. March/April 2008, ©9Marks Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030. |
Answers from
Having been called a fundamentalist many times by those to my left, I am aware that in the eyes of many, a fundamentalist is "anyone to my right." But, if by this term we mean those who have historically identified themselves as such since the early decades of the 20th century, then I think we can make the following observations.
In light of the subsequent doctrinal decline in Evangelicalism, it seems important to learn that granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who deny essential Christian doctrines is not only disastrous for the health of the church, but, more fundamentally, it dishonors God by disobeying His Word. Many texts are clear that false doctrine and those who teach it must be identified and rejected (e.g., Romans 16:17), and that giving such false teachers any encouragement makes one a participant in their evil deeds (2 John 9-11). Fundamentalism’s commitment to maintain the line between truth and error was the right position, and rejecting that position has yielded a harvest of heresies among professing Evangelicals.
What can we learn from the Fundamentalists? Well, to start with, how about the fundamentals? These sturdy Christians stood courageously for crucial doctrines of faith such as the total truthfulness of Holy Scripture, the Virgin Birth of Christ, his substitutionary atoning death on the cross, etc. when these teachings were under attack by unbelieving theologians. Thank God for them and for their courage! 
"A fundamentalist," Jerry Falwell once said to me, "is an Evangelical with guts." His point is a good one in a day when, in Peter Vierek’s quip, "Anti-fundamentalism has replaced anti-Catholicism as the anti-Semitism of the intellectual." But there is more to the issue than that.
The Virtue of Being Suspicious.
The term "Fundamentalism," for many in our culture a word with exclusively negative associations, was birthed in the 1910s and 1920s in connection with a desire to affirm the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith in the face of the 19th and early 20th century liberal denial of various orthodox doctrines. As such, Fundamentalism points us to the important task that confronts the Church in every generation, namely, the vigorous assertion without compromise of such key truths as the Trinity, the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, his bodily incarnation and resurrection from the dead. The passion for the Truth gripped the early Fundamentalists and it needs to grip us as well.
Nothing is more critical to the Fundamentalists' mindset than to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered. They take this responsibility with a laudable gravity. Doctrines are examined to see whether they are in keeping with the faith. Practices are evaluated to determine whether they reflect godliness or worldliness. Their goal in both respects is to guard the gospel from doctrinal and practical aberrations that would dilute its message and power.
We can learn from the Fundamentalists to appreciate and affirm the following:
Allow me to re-phrase the question. Rather than answering what I can learn from the Fundamentalists, I would like to engage the question, "What I can learn from The Fundamentals?" 
I was raised in a Fundamentalistic Baptist church and attended a Fundamentalistic Bible college. In the negative I believe Christian Fundamentalism in North America during the last century became too focused on an extra biblical code of conduct as a measurement of orthodoxy. Many good people, who agreed with the doctrinal positions of Fundamentalism, left because they knew that "mixed bathing," music/movie choices, and length of hair or dresses were not accurate assessments of an individual’s commitment to biblical holiness. 
Before suggesting an answer, I need to state two qualifiers. The first is that I’m writing of the Fundamentalism with which I’m familiar, not everything calling itself such. The second is that Fundamentalism isn’t fixated on a single issue. Along with conservative Evangelicals, Fundamentalists are majoring on the core scriptural truths which comprise the Christian Faith, that is, on the fundamentals. But unfortunately there’s a watershed dividing them from many Evangelicals. 
Fundamentalists pose both positive and negative lessons for Evangelical believers. From the positive end, Fundamentalists exhibit high standards. They have strong convictions, so much so that they are willing to face criticism to maintain their stance on various issues. All the while, they take seriously the call to spread the gospel and to call God’s people to holiness. 
Christian believers of all types might learn much, both positively and negatively, from the history of Fundamentalism. Negatively, the most important lesson is to avoid the frequent fundamentalist mistake of treating some other practice, belief, habit, or even concept of doctrine as more important than living by God’s free grace in Jesus Christ. But there are also other negative lessons to learn:
The name "Fundamentalist" essentially came out of controversies that erupted across America in the face of the ascendency of the historical-critical method in theological studies and the theory of evolution in the sciences. Fundamentalists themselves come from various denominations with different levels of educational achievement and with a variety of spirits and attitudes. There are things to be learned from Fundamentalists—both positively and negatively.
At least two important lessons can be learned from the Fundamentalists:
Today’s Evangelical church can learn from the Fundamentalist call for separation. Twentieth century Fundamentalists saw the increasing secularization of American culture and drew a line in the sand. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (2 Cor. 6:17, KJV of course) became a text that embodied this impulse. Fundamentalists tended to take a hard line on drinking, dancing, movies and the like, and to withdraw into separate colleges, missionary organizations and denominations. 
We can learn from the Fundamentalists a number of things (depending, of course, on how you define the term). On the positive side, we see in many Fundamentalists the importance of an unapolgetic emphasis on exclusivity of Christ and the centrality of a high doctrine of scripture and clear understanding of scriptural authority for the vitality of the church. We also see a zealous earnestness both for truth and for reaching out to the lost. 
We can learn three positive and three negative things from Fundamentalism.
|
|
|
