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.
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.’”