Defining "fundamentalism"

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm by Roger E. Olson

Defining "fundamentalism" 2011-08-18T19:31:36-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

There is no absolute definition of fundamentalism that fits every considered case like a litmus test. Like many other religious labels “fundamentalism” is an essentially contested concept and an indexical one (i.e., meaning depends on a context). Historically, however, American Christian fundamentalism is a movement that has undergone two major transitions that have changed its character. In the beginning (late 19th and early 20th centuries) “fundamentalism” was simply a transdenominational, conservative Protestant attempt to reassert traditional Protestant orthodoxy against the encroachments of liberal theology and higher biblical criticism in the Protestant denominations and seminaries. It was not separatistic (even if some people associated with it did separate from their denominations and institutions).

During the mid-1920s several events influenced the fundamentalist movement that changed its character. For one thing, premillennialism was added to the list of fundamentals of the Christian faith–as a litmus test to discern who is and who is not authentically biblical in theology. One person who did this was the great William Bell Riley of First Baptist Church and the Northwestern Schools in Minneapolis. Together with R. Frank Norris of Fort Worth and others Riley largely succeeded in taking over the fundamentalist movement. Others like J. Gresham Machen (not a premillennialist) continued to call themselves fundamentalists, but not-so-gradually the term came to be associated for the most part with this new, narrower and aggressive approach to defining Protestant orthodoxy.

Evidence of this change can be found in the booklets entitled The Fundamentals published in 1910 and sent free of charge to thousands of pastors, youth workers and YMCA directors. Among the authors were some NOT considered true fundamentalists by later standards: James Orr of Scotland and E. Y. Mullins of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to name two.

Throughout the 1930s, largely as a result of the disastrous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 “fundamentalism” became increasingly militant (not violent) in its anti-modernism and increasingly separatistic from mainstream religion, society and other Christian groups.

When Harold John Ockenga and others formed the National Association of Evangelicals in the 1940s they invited the leading fundamentalist preacher of the day, Carl McIntire, to join, but he refused because the NAE was to include Pentecostals and others he did not consider authentically evangelical. This was the major parting-of-the-ways between fundamentalists and what the fundamentalists called “neo-evangelicals” (which I prefer to call post-fundamentalist evangelicals).

Around this time it became apparent that there was no litmus test for distinguishing between fundamentalists and evangelicals; there was a sense in which both were both. Fundamentalists were evangelicals and evangelicals were fundamentalists–in the broadest senses of the words. However, increasingly, self-identified fundamentalist leaders such as McIntire, Bob Jones and John R. Rice (and later Jerry Falwell) eschewed the “big tent” approach to evangelical ecumenism practiced by Billy Graham, Carl F. H. Henry, Harold John Ockenga and other movers and shakers of the new evangelical coalition.

Several issues seemed to serve as distinguishing characteristics between post-WW2 fundamentalists and post-WW2 postfundamentalist evangelicals. One was evolution; many evangelicals allowed for some degree of evolution and a non-literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis. Bernard Ramm’s 1956 (?) book The Christian View of Science and Scripture was an evangelical manifesto against a completely literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Around the same time Fuller Seminary president E. J. Carnell published The Case for Orthodox Theology in which he labeled fundamentalism “orthodoxy gone cultic.” Increasingly throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s self-proclaimed fundamentalists and self-proclaimed evangelicals sent their separate ways as the former refused to cooperate with Billy Graham crusades, Youth for Christ, etc., because these evangelical organizations were considered too secular or too inclusive.

Biblical inerrancy was another flashpoint of controversy between fundamentalists and evangelicals during this time. Fundamentalists insisted on it as a hallmark of authentic evangelical faith while many, if not most, postfundamentalist evangelicals did not. Carl Henry openly declared that belief in biblical inerrancy was NOT necessary for evangelical faith even as he argued that it is important. The National Association of Evangelicals did not write inerrancy into its statement of faith. In the early 1960s Fuller Seminary dropped inerrancy from its statement of faith.

The late 1970s witnessed two turning points in this story. Formerly separatistic fundamentalists began to call themselves evangelicals and insert themselves into the conservative ranks of evangelicals. They were welcomed in by many conservative evangelicals. One notable example is Jerry Falwell who previously had practiced “biblical separation” from fellow Christians who did not believe and practice exactly as he did. He brought some of that separatistic approach with him as he entered the evangelical world and began announcing himself as an evangelical spokesman.

Another turning point was the publication of The Battle for the Bible by former Fuller Seminary professor and Christianity Today editor Harold Lindsell (1976). This was a harsh polemic against evangelicals who did not affirm biblical inerrancy in the way he meant it. Lindsell criticized Robert Mounce, among others, for qualifying inerrancy in a way that the Chicago Statement later qualified it. (Mounce’s articles about inerrancy were published in Eternity magazine in the early and mid-1970s.) Lindsell’s book launched a purge of evangelical colleges, denominations and seminaries over the issue of inerrancy. Even Carl Henry took strong exception to making inerrancy a litmus test of authentic evangelicalism.

Beginning with Lindsell’s book “big tent” evangelicalism underwent (and is still undergoing) a series of heresy hunts–attempts by conservative evangelicals acting like fundamentalists to oust fellow evangelicals from the movement. One was the attempt to strip Westmont New Testament scholar Robert Gundry of his membership in the Evangelical Theological Society even though he wholeheartedly signed its statement of faith. He resigned his membership instead of putting the ETS through a series of trials. It was at that time I was on the cusp of joining the ETS and backed away. Around the same time Gundry’s brother Stan was harshly criticized because his wife published a book advocating equality of women with men in home and church and society. Gundry taught at Moody Bible Institute and he resigned rather than put the Institute through a long, protracted battle over this issue. Other, similar heresy-hunts ensued with the result that many of us became convinced that the spirit of Carl McIntire was winning within the evangelical movement. This became especially apparent when the Southern Baptist International Mission Board required all emplyees including missionaries to sign a statement that they do not speak in tongues even in private.

What has become apparent to some of us is that gradually, since 1976, people with a fundamentalist approach to fellow Christians, including fellow evangelicals, has invaded and gained power within the evangelical movement. In some cases this has included unethical treatment of fellow evangelicals. I have been subjected to this on several occasions when, for example, I have been misquoted or words have been put in my mouth by conservative evangelicals. People who know I am not an open theist have publicly labeled me one just because I have argued that open theism is not a heresy. In one case that I know of (and can prove) a fundamentalist evangelical invented a quote and attributed it to me and disseminated it to Southern Baptist state newspapers. When I challenged him to show where I ever said or wrote it, he could not, but he would not apologize or withdraw it.

During the long and protracted and very nasty battle over open theism in the Baptist General Conference and at Bethel College and Seminary one leading anti-open theism pastor told me to my face that he would get me fired if I did not stand with him against my colleague Greg Boyd and help him get Boyd fired. Unfortunately, at that time, Bethel did not have real tenure (it had five year contracts called “tenure”) and I felt very vulnerable. This pastor told me our face-to-face conversation was “not an inquisition” but later reported on it to the group of anti-open theism pastors of which he was a part.

When I talk about “fundamentalism” within evangelical circles I am referring primarily to a certain attitude and approach which, in my view, is more consistent with the narrow, harsh and even separatistic mentality of the fundamentalism that stayed out of the NAE when it was formed in the 1940s. And when I talk about “evangelicalism” I am usually referring to the “big tent” NAE-style evangelicalism of the 1940s through the 1970s that nurtured and shaped me. It still exists, but is embattled.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 7, 2010

Donald Bloesch, Arminianism and open theism

Next Post

October 12, 2010 Forthcoming book on evangelicalism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Revelation, what is the correct sequence of events in the End Times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, false prophet rises from earth, mark of the beast given False prophet rises, dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, mark of the beast given Mark of the beast given, dragon cast to earth, beast rises, false prophet rises Beast rises from sea, dragon cast to earth, mark of the beast given, false prophet rises