rise of fundamentalism
DESCRIPTION
This research covers, as the title says, the rise of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism wasn't conceived in a box, but was a reaction to the theological and philosophical ideas of the late 19th century.TRANSCRIPT
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
THE RISE OF FUNDAMENTALISM:
A REACTION WITH A PURPOSE
A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. MANN
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE COURSE CHHI 525
LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
BY
JOEL ALAN DORMAN
LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 18, 2009
i.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Background ......................................................................................................................................1
Evangelicalism .......................................................................................................................1
Social......................................................................................................................................2
Theological ............................................................................................................................3
Modernism ...............................................................................................................4
Liberalism ................................................................................................................4
Neo-Orthodoxy ........................................................................................................5
Conservatism............................................................................................................6
The Response of Fundamentalism ...................................................................................................6
Social.....................................................................................................................................8
Theological ...........................................................................................................................9
Dispensational Premillennialism ............................................................................9
Holiness Movement ..............................................................................................10
Pentecostalism......................................................................................................11
Final Thoughts ...............................................................................................................................12
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................13
1
It has been written, “a fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something”.1
Although used by fundamentalists as tongue-in-cheek, it certainly sets the mind to an image of
someone whose description is summarized in a single word: intense. The goal of this research,
consequently, is to provide a background of this movement, traced through its evangelical roots,
in the social and theological environments of the United States at the time while presenting this
movement as what it is: a response to other theological worldviews. Included in this response
are the specific theological characteristics separating this group from others.
Background
In terms of definition, Fundamentalism is a relative newcomer in the world of theological
distinctives as it formed in the late nineteenth century.2 Those holding to this persuasion would
immediate argue with this statement as they view themselves, as a movement, not as new but
old; insisting they are teaching and living in a manner consistent with the teachings of Jesus and
the Apostles. Aside from this point of argument, Fundamentalism exists as a branch on the
evangelical tree.
Evangelicalism
While possible for one to be an evangelical without being a fundamentalist, it is not
possible to be a fundamentalist without being an evangelical. Noll writes of the foundations of
the evangelical movement as one where “changing the world was never as important for the
early evangelists as changing the self or as fashioning spiritual communities in which changed
selves could grow in grace.”3
1 George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1991), 1.
2 Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, volume 2, The Reformation to the Present Day (New York:
HarperCollins, 1985), 255.
3 Mark Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys. (Downers
Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 262.
2
Evangelicalism found its expression in the revivals beginning in the eighteenth century.
Desperately needed in New England, revival sparked in response to a lack of spiritual leadership
that had few opportunities to educate the few spiritual leaders it had. Furthermore, the second
and third generations of settlers in the American colonies had lost the intent of their ancestors in
settling the new world. This was the First Great Awakening: the days of Jonathan Edwards, John
and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield. As the fires of revival were spreading through the
American Colonies, there was a call for religion to move from the head to the heart. An
indication of its achievement, among many others, was the conversion of souls and society.4
In addition to conversions, Evangelicalism was, almost by definition, a movement against
the establishment. This movement boldly pressed its influenced in the culture for education,
women’s rights, renewed interest and learning of theology, and hymn writing.5 Upon this
foundation, construction began on many rooms, including, in time, Fundamentalism.6
Social
Although secularists would disagree, American Evangelicals in 1870 perceived the
United States as a Christian nation. Evangelicalism observed remarkable progress through the
nineteenth century and its development seemed to have no boundaries.7 Ironically, this led to a
certain degree of complacency as Evangelicals believed they had reached a pinnacle from which
they could not removed. Reality reflected a different situation.
The United States, having been founded during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth
century, had a “reverence for science as the way to understand all aspects of reality”8 which
4 James P. Eckman, Exploring Church History (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002), 84.
5 Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism, 262-278.
6 Further information about Evangelicalism can be found in Mark Noll’s five-volume set, A History of
Evangelicalism: People, Movements, and Ideas in the English-Speaking World.
7 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2
nd ed (New York: Oxford University Press,
2006), 11.
8 Ibid, 15.
3
situates itself in direct opposition to the expression in Scripture that “in Him we live and move
and have our being”.9 This respect for science resulted in the questioning of the supernatural
parts of the Bible. Evolution, for example, became the accepted scientific and social explanation
for the creation of the planet and of species.10
The emphasis of missions also had an unintended side effect: no longer did the cultures
many hundreds or thousands of miles away seem so distant and strange. World travel also
increased in the late nineteenth century resulting in American exposure to other religions and
cultures. A debate erupted then (and continues today) around a simple and significant question:
is Christianity the only way to Heaven?11
These ideas of the Enlightenment caused a general questioning of the Bible itself. If
evolution was correct, could the rest of the details of the Bible be accurate? If Jesus is not the
only way to heaven, was He a liar for saying, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through me.”12
This, obviously, caused a high amount of tension
between the Evangelical Protestantism of the day and the social and cultural realities surrounding
America.
Theological
Christianity’s response to the social issues of the nineteenth century manifested
themselves in various theological schools of thought represented in most, if not all,
denominations. All of these theological perspectives contributed to the growing restlessness in
conservative Evangelical spheres.13
9 Acts 17:28, NIV
10
Carl Diemer, CHHI 525: History of Christianity 2, Lesson 23, prod and dir by Liberty University School
of Religion Distance Learning Program, 45 minutes, 2009, DVD.
11
Ibid.
12
John 14:6, NIV.
13
Peter Lineham, "The fundamentalist agenda and its chances." Stimulus 14, no. 3 (August 2006): 2-14.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 4, 2009).
4
Modernism
Faced with science challenging Scriptural thought, a small number of liberal theologians
turned to Modernism. Modernism was a harmonization between secular science, Christianity,
and the Enlightenment.14
However, if science or reason appeared to contradict orthodoxy,
orthodoxy was dismissed. The harmonization focused on culture, not faith. Carl Diemer stated
that Modernism is “as far left as you can get and still be called, in some way, Christian”.15
This melding of religion and contemporary culture makes it difficult to define specific
theological beliefs as they shifted based on what found acceptance in science or culture at the
time. Generally, a Modernists believes God’s kingdom advances by the progress of culture and
not the direct influence of the Almighty.16
This is why modernists are postmillennialists or,
more often, amillennialists.17
Against this movement, James M. Gray, president of Moody Bible
Institute from 1904-1934, stated, “Modernism is as revolt against the God of Christianity”.18
Liberalism
As a theological perspective, Liberalism did not go to as many extremes as Modernism.
As opposed to rejecting orthodox beliefs in the face of apparent contradiction, liberals would
attempt to find a new way to interpret Scriptures to remove the contradiction.19
There are many,
especially those in conservative and fundamental groups, who would use the terms “modernist”
14
Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing
Company, 1994), 101.
15
Diemer, Lesson 23.
16
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 146.
17
Postmillennialists and amillennialists base their eschatological understanding of the “Millennium” on an
allegorical understanding of Revelation 20:1-6. Postmillennialists believe Jesus will return after the 1,000-year
Kingdom while amillennialists do not believe in a literal 1,000-year Kingdom at all. Both views tend to view
eschatological progression as a gradual advance of society towards the virtues of the Kingdom of God thereby
ushering in the Kingdom. See Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), s.v. “millennium”.
18
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 3-4.
19
Diemer, Lesson 23.
5
and “liberal” interchangeably.20
They were both attempts to “save” Protestantism from the
attacks of Darwinian evolution and historical criticisms of the Scriptures. Additionally,
liberalism attempted to balance the “historical, sociological, and Freudian psychological ways of
thinking…revolutionizing thought at almost every level”.21
Liberalism endeavored to provide freedom from what they saw as superstitions held by
conservative Protestants and Evangelicals. The dedication of Liberals is what drove them to
challenge this intellectual assault on Christianity. As such, this movement was most prominent
in the middle and upper classes who met the confrontation of intellectual issues on a more
regular basis than did the lower classes.22
Neo-Orthodoxy
Moving more towards the conservative end of the spectrum was the group who called
themselves Neo-Orthodox—“new orthodox”. The labeled themselves “orthodox” due to their
adherence to Reformed Theology. Calling themselves “new” implies their awareness of
contemporary issues of culture. This group was born in response to modernism and liberalism.
Specifically, they viewed that it was unnecessary to use historical data to attempt to validate the
actions documented in Scripture since ultimately the Scriptures were about God’s revelation to
humans not a document of humanity’s self-discovery.23
This school of theology, therefore, emphasizes the absolute transcendence of God. This
philosophy holds that ultimately God does not bring comfort but crisis. This crisis leads humans
20
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 32.
21
Ibid.
22
González, 256.
23
Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), 456
6
to see their need for a Savior. Karl Barth, a German who was the prominent Protestant
theologian of the twentieth century, receives recognition for this theological school.24
Conservatism
Similar to the Neo-Orthodox school of thought, Conservatism was a reaction against the
liberalism that had spread through the schools and culture in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. According to Ferguson and Packer,
‘Conservatism’, when used, signifies a rejection of the liberal outlook as a
provincial aberration, neither objective nor scientific nor rational in any
significant sense, and with this a conservationist purpose of handing on the
doctrines and disciplines of historic Christianity intact and undiluted…
Conservatism in this sense implies no particular political stance or eschatological
expectation, though the contrary is often alleged. 25
When conservatism first began to emerge, it was a reaction to Darwinism and to
modernists and liberals which were perceived as “selling out” Christianity to heresy.26
More
than a mere rejection of evolution, which was certainly the most publicized issue about which
conservatives reacted, was the concern with the authority of the Scriptures. Their rationale for
defending the Bible grew from history: sola scriptura was the cry of the Reformation. Their
concern was straightforward and profound: if Scripture was not the underpinnings for truth, what
would be? The potential and frightening answers to that question were a collective summons for
conservatives who viewed themselves as descendants of the Reformers to stand against this
heresy.27
The Response of Fundamentalism
Some conservatives viewed the Conservatism reaction as too weak. This wing of
Conservatism defined themselves “as militants willing to do 'battle royal' to preserve the
24
González, 363.
25
Ferguson and Packer, 385.
26
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 36.
27
Ibid, 36-38.
7
'fundamentals' of the Christian faith from the evolutionists and biblical critics infecting mainline
seminaries and colleges.”28
These theologians desired to boldly defend the fundamentals of
Christianity—those issues for which there was no discussion and no compromise. These
fundamentals were “inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ death on
the cross as a substitute for our sins, and his physical resurrection and impending return”.29
Fundamentalism, then, is a distinctly American, reactionist movement.
The name had its origins in a ten-volume set called The Fundamentals written by R.A.
Torrey and A.C. Dixon. Between the years of 1909 and 1912, copies were sent to every pastor
and church in America with the purpose of ensuring the survival of the fundamentals of the
Christian faith.30
The first usage of the name to describe a specific group of people was in 1920
by Curtis Lee Laws. Familiar with The Fundamentals, he used the term “fundamentalists” to
describe his group which were the anti-modernist wing of the Northern Baptist Convention. The
name eventually was used to describe a broader group of Evangelicals “who fought militantly
against modernist (i.e. liberal) theology and against some features of secularization of modern
culture”.31
Throughout the 1920s and the 1930s, the name was used to describe those in the
camps of Laws himself, Bob Jones, Sr., William Jennings Bryan, John R. Rice, and Carl
MacIntyre.32
There have been and remain three prerequisites for one’s title as a Fundamentalist:
1. One must be an Evangelical Protestant,
2. One must be against Modernism, and
28
Paul David Numrich, "Fundamentalisms and American pluralism." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 42,
no. 1 (2007): 9-14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2009).
29
González, 257.
30
Diemer, Lesson 23.
31
Ferguson and Packer, 266.
32
David Harrington Watt, "The meaning and end of fundamentalism." Religious Studies Review 33, no. 4
(October 2007): 269-273. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2009).
8
3. One must be militant about anti-Modernism or in their resistance to undesirable
features of secularization.33
Fundamentalism was more than a school of thought or club. Like the other movements,
Fundamentalism had social and theological influences on the United States that are still
experienced today.
Social
In all likelihood, the most known social impact of the Fundamentalist movement was the
“Scopes Trial” in Tennessee 1925. The trial itself represented the flexing of Fundamentalism’s
muscles in its attempt to ban the teaching of evolution in school and, for a time, it succeeded.34
This, of course, was not the only social contribution of Fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists also found partners with other Protestants (even liberals) in their
successful attempt at prohibition in 1919. Prohibition appealed to Conservatives and
Fundamentalists because it reminded them of years past when America had seemed more
innocent. More moderate and liberal theologians resonated with it since it was a “practical
application of the social gospel”.35
Enforcement of this law was a different issue as the concept
emerged that the government could not create laws concerning the morality of the people. This
and the underground business of alcohol led to this law’s repeal.36
Fundamentalists were calling Christians to be separate from the world in all ways. Using
an extreme form of Paul’s admonition to “not conform any longer to the pattern of this world”,37
Fundamentalists boldly stood against everything considered modern: “higher criticism,
33
Ferguson and Packer, 266.
34
Peter Lineham, "The fundamentalist agenda and its chances." Stimulus 14, no. 3 (August 2006): 2-14.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 4, 2009).
35
González, 373-374.
36
Ibid, 375.
37
Romans 12:2a, NIV
9
evolutionism, the social gospel,” and “rational criticism of any kind”.38
Furthermore, the
theologians of the fundamentalist movement were recognized for their attacks against “worldly
amusements” like dancing and secular entertainment. Their attacks were rooted in specific
interpretations of Biblical texts and an attempt to call Christians and the world away from vices,
which were perceived as being promulgated by modernists and liberals.39
Theological
Fundamentalists were not trying to reverse the tide of social ills; they were trying, in their
view, to return to the use of the Scriptures to enforce a rubric for Christian living. In finding this
rubric, Fundamentalists created several innovations in Biblical interpretation. González finds
historical irony in the fact that Fundamentalists “declared itself a defender of traditional
orthodoxy” while giving “rise to new interpretations of the Bible”.40
Dispensational Premillennialism
In terms of popularity and acceptance, the most successful theological ideology presented
by Fundamentalists was Dispensational Premillennialism, which developed after the Civil War
out of a refreshed attention to Biblical prophecy. Based on an almost completely literal
interpretation of prophetic texts, there are actually two distinct, although related, philosophies
represented in this one title.41
The first part of this idea, dispensationalism, maintains God deals with humanity in
different ways through different, distinct periods of time (dispensations). Through each
dispensation (time-period), the Lord provides a method of grace. Humanity ultimately rejects
this grace and another dispensation begins. This is not to accuse Fundamentalists with claiming
38
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 199.
39
Ibid, 163.
40
González, 257.
41
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 39.
10
more than one method of salvation—quite the contrary. This view merely states that the
“content of faith varies according to the revelation given in each dispensation.” The view of
dispensationalism, and the need to end this current dispensation in favor of the next, gave rise to
the “rapture theory”.42
The second half of this theology, premillennialism, developed in response to the
Modernist and Liberal perspectives of an ever-improving society that would usher in the
Kingdom of Jesus (postmillennialism). By contrast, premillennialism demonstrated a society
getting worse and continuing its downward spiral until Jesus would personally return to establish
His Kingdom. Jesus’ physical return is also a distinctive of premillennialism. This position
helped explain some of the turmoil going on the in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.43
Unfortunately, dispensational premillennialism, “pushed analysis away from the
visible present to the invisible future”.44
Holiness Movement
An interest in the work of the Holy Spirit gave rise in the Fundamentalist circles to the
Holiness Movement. Many of the early leaders of this movement had Calvinistic tendencies and
emphasized the Spirit’s work in the present dispensation. Having its roots in Methodism and the
American revivalism of the nineteenth century, this movement considered itself more pragmatic
than dispensationalism since this view focused on how Christians are to live in the world. The
Holy Spirit’s empowerment was emphasized for conversion, filling, and empowerment for
Christian service.45
42
Ferguson and Packer, 200.
43
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 39.
44
Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, 133.
45
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 72-73.
11
Stressing the importance of allowing God to remove all sin from the lives of Christians,
this faction sought rigorous pursuit of the “second blessing” of the Holy Spirit and maintaining
custody of it through complete devotion to the Lord. Not to say these Christians are incapable of
imprudent actions, but in their motivation, they considered themselves sinless. Although this
movement eventually morphed into three forms (Wesleyan, Keswick, and Pentecostal), one part
maintained a most dominant independence into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: the
Pentecostal movement.46
Pentecostalism
Pentecostals, being a part of the aforementioned Holiness wing of the Fundamentalists
movement, equated the “second blessing” associated with the Holiness movement with the
baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. As such, Pentecostals believe this kind of second blessing,
or baptism, is evidenced by “speaking in tongues”. This is not to be confused as the languages
the church spoke in Acts 2, but a kind of gibberish that is not understood by anyone except, in
their view, the Holy Spirit. 47
Additionally, their view of this “baptism” does not purge them from sin (as the Holiness
movement in general maintains) but empowers them for worship, service, and a “rigorous
separation from the ways of the world”.48
Pentecostalism is also noted for an effort to restore
New Testament church practices (specifically those mentioned in Acts) including healing,
tongues speaking, and an enjoyment of a special and unique endowment by the Holy Spirit.49
46
Ferguson and Packer, 314.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 43.
12
An additional modification to the Holiness teaching includes a more Reformed view of
sanctification because of this “baptism”. Instead of making the Christian’s motivations sinless,
Pentecostals believe sanctification is an on-going process.50
Final Thoughts
Fundamentalism, like other theological movements through the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, was, and remains, a complex movement. Generally marked by an adherence
to the inerrancy of the entire Bible, a literal interpretation of the Text, dispensational
premillennialism, and a militant defense of those issues deemed fundamental and without chance
of compromise, Fundamentalism has given rise to new conservative scholarship and provided an
answer to questions of liberalism and modernism. Again, their self-description matches that of
Ferguson and Packer, “a fundamentalist, then, is a militantly anti-modernist evangelical.”51
Also akin to the other theological movements, Fundamentalism still exists today. Their
modern development includes a reaction against Fundamentalism by some of their own that
formed a faction loosely described as “neo-evangelical” (“new evangelical”). 52
While having
the same theology, this group believed the Gospel’s power was penetration into the world, not
retreating from it. Billy Graham is a modern example of this ideology.53
There are even more
divisions within this group which also exist far beyond the capacity of this research.
In conclusion, Fundamentalism, like other conservative groups, continues to balance the
tension of not being “yoked together with unbelievers” while at the same time making “disciples
of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.54
50
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 93-94.
51
Ferguson and Packer, 266.
52
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 233.
53
Diemer, Lesson 23.
54
1 Corinthians 6:14, NIV; Matthew 28:19, NIV.
13
Bibliography
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is taken from The Holy Bible: New International Version.
electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 1984.
Diemer, Carl. CHHI 525: History of Christianity 2, Lesson 23, prod and dir by Liberty
University School of Religion Distance Learning Program, 45 minutes, 2009, DVD.
Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History. Wheaton: Crossway, 2002.
Ferguson, Sinclair B. and J.I. Packer. New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, volume 2, The Reformation to the Present Day.
New York: HarperCollins, 1985.
Lineham, Peter. "The fundamentalist agenda and its chances." Stimulus 14, no. 3 (August 2006):
2-14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 4,
2009).
Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. 2nd
ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006.
__________. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1991.
Noll, Mark. The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys.
Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004.
__________. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s
Publishing Company, 1994.
Numrich, Paul David. "Fundamentalisms and American pluralism." Journal of Ecumenical
Studies 42, no. 1 (2007): 9-14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed December 2, 2009).
Watt, David Harrington. "The meaning and end of fundamentalism." Religious Studies Review
33, no. 4 (October 2007): 269-273. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2009).