Fundamentalism

[hannahjoy]

Atheists claim the right to define themselves, so it's only fair that they allow Fundamentalists to do the same.
There's a lot of confusion over the term and a lot of straw men around, so I'm going to try to give as clear and objective an definition as possible.

Fundamentalism as a movement has been around since about the 1870s, but its doctrines and practices have been around since the birth of Christianity.

The term "Fundamentalist" was coined in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws, in an editorial about a group of conservatives in the Northern Baptist convention.
After dismissing several other terms, he wrote,

"We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called "Fundamentalists."

The terms I've bolded make a good outline for a discussion of Fundamentalism.
Another definition provided by Mark Sidwell in The Dividing Line is:

Fundamentalism is the belief (1) that there are certain truths so essential to Christianity that they cannot be denied without destroying Christianity and (2) that these essentials are the basis of Christian fellowship.

The foundation of Fundamentalism is the Bible as the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God.
The practice of Fundamentalism is based on the doctrine of holiness - separation from sin and the world and to God.

"The Great Fundamentals"

The most common list of the "fundamentals of the faith" is the "Five Fundamentals" first stated by the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church in 1910.
1. The inerrancy of the original manuscripts of Scripture
2. Christ's virgin birth
3. His vicarious atonement
4. His bodily resurrection
5. The reality of miracles as recorded in Scripture
(Sometimes #5 is combined with #2 or 4 and "The personal return of Christ to earth" is listed as #5.)

Probably the earliest statement is found in the Niagara Bible Conference's Confession of Faith in 1878.
1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.
2. The Trinity.
3. The creation of man, the fall into sin, and total depravity.
4. The universal transmission of spiritual death from Adam.
5. The necessity of the new birth.
6. Redemption by the blood of Christ.
7. Salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ.
8. The assurance of salvation.
9. The centrality of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures.
10. The constitution of the true church by genuine believers.
11. The personality of the Holy Spirit.
12. The believer’s call to a holy life.
13. The immediate passing of the souls of believers to be with Christ at death.
14. The premillennial second coming of Christ.

"Battle Royal"

Militancy against false teaching and apostasy has been a hallmark of Fundamentalism since its inception. Militancy is related to Separation as an application of the doctrine of holiness. It is the obedience to the command in Jude 3 to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
I will probably devote a post to these twin practices when I have time.

Premillennialism
This is the belief that the personal return of Christ to earth will take place before the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth known as the Millennium. Fundamentalism has been predominantly but not exclusively premillennialist.

Dispensationalism
This is a system of organizing history into dispensations according to the way God has dealt with people. It is characterized by as literal an interpretation of prophecy as possible, drawing a distinction between OT Israel and the NT Church. Again, Fundamentalism has been predominantly but not exclusively dispensationalist.

Fred Moritz, in his book Contending for the Faith, has listed these as major distinctives of Fundamentalism.

1. Fundamentalists stand for the Bible as the supernaturally revealed, inspired Word of God.
2. Fundamentalists embrace a doctrinal frame of reference, most commonly identified by "five fundamentals."
3. Fundamentalists show a militant opposition to apostasy, otherwise known as modernism or liberalism.
4. Separatism is a major distinctive of Fundamentalism.
5. Fundamentalism has been, from the beginning, an interdenominational movement.
6. A premillennial viewpoint is prominent in Fundamentalism, though this is not a test of fellowship.

I'll have to stop with this for now but I want to end with a definition of the "ideal" Fundamentalist as stated by David Beale in In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850:

Ideally, a Christian Fundamentalist is one who desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness. . . . Far antedating any present-day organization, however, Fundamentalism is not a philosophy of Christianity, nor is it essentially an interpretation of the Scriptures. It is not even a mere literal exposition of the Bible. The essence of Fundamentalism goes much deeper than that - it is the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures (italics his).

Hannah Joy

[micatala]

Thanks Hannahjoy. You have done a good job, I think, of providing reasonable definitions and background for the term Fundamentalism.

I would certainly agree that it is most appropriate that those who self-identify as a group, Christian or otherwise, be allowed to define themselves. It is also true, I think, that straw-men abound.

I am not a fundamentalist, and can probably be described as something of a critic of Fundamentalism. My main issues with Fundamentalism are:

1. I don't accept that Scripture was necessarily intended to be considered as 'inerrant' in the sense that I think some Fundamentalists at least take it.
2. My own perception, and I don't want to paint with too broad a brush and am not saying this is true of all or necessarily even most Fundamentalists, is that in doing 'battle royale' as it has been referred to here, Fundamentalists sometimes seem to take that attitude that they or their views are somehow inherently better or more Christian than other Christians or the views of other non-Fundamentalist Christians.

Yes, with regards to 2, I think some non-Fundamentalist CHristians to take offense to easily at views expressed by Fundamentalists, and respond with unwarranted attacks of 'arrogance' or 'holier than thou attitude.'

However, I think it is also fair to say that some Fundamentalists go over the line in their 'contention for the faith.' It particularly disturbs me when a Christian A attacks another professed CHristian B to such an extent that A claims B is not even a Christian.

I think the 'contention for the faith' verse needs to be balanced with the discussion that Paul gives in Romans Chapter 14. To paraphrase, Paul says 'who are you to judge another man's servant; it is to his own master that he stands or falls, and he will stand for the Lord is able to make him stand.' The passage discusses 'debatable' practices or what might be called honest differences among believers. THe particular examples Paul cites are dietary practices and beliefs concerning the keeping of Holy Days and the Sabbath, but I think the applicability goes certainly beyond these examples. We might differ on the role of baptism, the manifestations of the Spirit (e.g. speaking in toungues), etc., but we are all still Christians and should act for the benefit of each other.

Obviously today evolution is one particularly contentious topic. I can understand why many would feel evolution is 'un-Biblical' and certainly agree the plainest interpretation of scripture seems to be counter to the idea. However, I also think there is ample reason to allow that the plainest interpretation is not necessarily the correct one, both from a theological perspective as well as from a scientific perspective. While I contend strongly that evolution and the Bible are not incompatible, I don't necessarily expect that this idea will be universally accepted among Christians in my lifetime. Mostly, all I ask is that we not throw insulting labels at each other, as I have seen all too often hurled at 'everything evolutionary' (you should read some of the rather vicious anti-evolutionary comments that appear in letters to the editor in my area). I know this is sometimes hard, especially when one feels passionately about a particular view, and I will have to confess that I sometimes make statements that are not in the spirit I am advocating here.

At any rate, you have given us a lot to chew on. Hopefully we will get some good discussion going here.

[hannahjoy]

My own perception, and I don't want to paint with too broad a brush and am not saying this is true of all or necessarily even most Fundamentalists, is that in doing 'battle royale' as it has been referred to here, Fundamentalists sometimes seem to take that attitude that they or their views are somehow inherently better or more Christian than other Christians or the views of other non-Fundamentalist Christians.

Militancy is really an practice rather than an attitude - action rather than emotion. Anyway, I'll go into more detail on this point later.


History

Fundamentalism vs. Modernism (Liberalism)
Fundamentalism as a movement really arose as an opposition to the theological liberalism or modernism which was growing increasingly popular in the late 1800s. The foundations of this modernism were in Rationalism, Higher Criticism, and Evolution (not only in the "origin of species" but also in the Bible, religion, morality, etc.).
The main positions emphasized were: (quoted from J. I. Packer's "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God)

1. God's character is one of pure benevolence - benevolence, that is, without standards. All men are His children, and sin separates no one from His love. The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man are alike universal.
2. There is a divine spark in every man. All men, therefore, are good at heart, and need nothing more than encouragement to allow their natural goodness to express itself.
3. Jesus Christ is man's Saviour only in the sense that He is man's perfect Teacher and Example. . . . He was not divine in any unique sense. . . .He was not born of a virgin; He did not work miracles . . . ; and He did not rise from the dead.
4. Christianity differs from other religions not generically, but merely as the best and highest type of religion that has yet appeared. All religions are forms of the same religion . . .
5. The Bible is not a divine record of religion, but a human testament of religion . . . [N]o doctrinal statements or credal forms . . . are basic or essential to Christianity.

As modernism begin to infiltrate churches, seminaries, and denominations, conservatives began to grow alarmed. They reacted like the Puritans of earlier centuries trying to "purify" these institutions from apostasy, but they found themselves fighting a losing battle. In time, they left to form their own institutions.

The differences with liberals were primarily over doctrine. Later splits were the results of differences over practice, primarily separation and militancy.


Fundamentalism vs. New Evangelicalism
In the 1940s, a new movement arose within Fundamentalism. Harold J. Ockenga coined the term "New Evangelicalism," and he is generally considered the "Father of New Evangelicalism." The basic difference was one of practice or strategy - from separation to infiltration. Ockenga accused Fundamentalists of being too isolated to have the effect they should on the world around them.
If Ockenga was the father, Billy Graham was the prophet of New Evangelicalism. Beginning with accepting the sponsorship of liberals in his campaigns, he took the lead in reuniting with the liberals and apostates that the earlier Fundamentalists had separated from. Seeing this as the kind of situation referred to in such passages as II Thessalonians 3:14-15, Fundamentalists separated from New Evangelicals, not as from false teachers but from disobedient Christian brothers.

Fundamentalism vs. "Neo-Fundamentalism"
In the 1970s a number of Fundamentalists again rejected the practice of separation inherent in Fundamentalism, this time as it was applied to New Evangelicals. Jerry Falwell is one of the leaders of this movement. They have been given a number of labels, with "Neo-Fundamentalist" being the most common. These men still claimed the title of "Fundamentalist" at first (and some still do), but their practice is not that of historic Fundamentalism.

This is a very basic history of Fundamentalism. If anyone is interested in studying it in depth, I would recommend In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 by David O. Beale. Whether you agree with Fundamentalism or not, this book is a well-researched historical discussion, and it has an extensive bibliography for anyone interested in further reading.
Other sources I have used (and will continue to use for this thread) are:
Contending for the Faith and "Be ye holy": The Call to Christian Separation by Fred Moritz
The Dividing Line by Mark Sidwell
"Fundamentalism" and the Word of God by J. I. Packer

Hannah Joy