Historical Framework — Fundamentalism developed out of “controversy”

How you look at a picture is determinate on ’what’ you will take away from it. Many historians, such as Marsden, look at movements of men to evaluate the origin or characteristics of such movements. If one was to do this with Fundamentalism, it can be easily noted that its roots are in evangelicalism. Marsden demonstrates this in his book Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. In his perspective, one cannot understand fundamentalism without understanding evangelicalism. They do relate with one another and even to this day there is affinity between them. However, if one looks at fundamentalism as a commitment to a core set of beliefs, the picture of Christian fundamentalism is viewed a little differently. This characture is the way that I view fundamentalism and it was also the way J.I. Packer viewed it in when he wrote  Fundamentalism and the Word of God; however, he wouldn’t use the term for himself because of the inconsistencies with their belief system and practice. It seemed to him that the movement during his day allowed practice to trump reason & belief. In one example, he states, ‘fundamentalists’ do in fact tell men to crucify their reason from their technique of evangelism, which if you know anything about some of the modern day models to evangelism one can understand what Packer meant. (p. 13) 

Was this a result of the extreme growth that took place within the movement as a whole? In America, evangelicalism and fundamentalism of the 40’s and 50’s became an industry that was focused on a technique rather than their core set of beliefs. If this is true, one might be able to understand ‘why’ fundamentalism became notorious — could it have been due to the growth and apparent success of evangelicalism? Packer states that is exactly the case, it became notorious because of the growth of evangelicalism in the 40’s and 50’s and the leaders within it made the fundmentalism (the movement) a subject of general interest. He states, once it became a subject of general interest ‘anti-fundamentalism’ became “a widespread fashion.” (p. 9) Such perceptions ebbed and flowed on the basis of the common perception. The perception of fundamentalism in the 1900-20’s in contrast to the perception of the 1930’s and 40’s, which saw a group specified as the new evangelicals break from the fundamentalism, is considered by many conservative evangelicals and fundmentalists today to be its glory years, but again this analysis is based solely on the  cultural perception of that day.

Therefore, to understand the historical framework of the movement, it becomes extremely important to understand ‘how’ it developed. Both generational (1900’s and the 1940’s) elements of fundamentalism grew out of controversy rooted within a similar belief system, but consider what the critics during the 1950’s said of the movement — “they note that the word ‘Fundamentalism” is a twentieth-century coinage, and conclude that the thing is as new as its name.” (p. 11) They mounted their argument around ‘what’ fundamentalism was against not what they held the doctrine of inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. They said they were against literary and historical criticism and deduced such individuals were closed mind men who prevented the progress of knowledge and adhered to a doctrine that was academically or scientifically dishonest. Such a caricature would prevent anyone from wanting to adhere to a certain movement, it even prevented J.I. Packer from using the ‘term’ to classify himself. Such negativity paints a picture that no one wants to look at, which is exactly what liberals like to do to win an argument.

 It worked with J.I. Packer, but I would say their arguments are exactly what they claim about fundamentalists — academically dishonest. They had varying views on what it is — a movement identified around a theological pecularity associated to Scripture or a theological peculiarity associated to practical theology. (p. 10-11) This lack of consensus on ‘what’ it is, clearly helps them win the argument and castigate those who associate with any of it. It enables them to bolster their argument with regard to length so they silence their audience. So, those who saw the peculiarity of fundamentalism associated to Scripture, viewed this movement as associated to either its pecular views  on  (1) the origin of the Bible; or (2) the nature of the Bible; or (3) the interpretation of the Bible.

Those who saw the pecularity associated to practical theology, consistently understood fundamentalists as holding a supernatural view of Scripture, but they saw it as untenable since it denies the human element of Scripture. Therefore, they classified them as denying the human element and adhering to the penal doctrine of atonement, which resulted in two peculiar habits (1) appealing for immediate decision at the close of evangelistic services; (2) churchmanship and sacraments as superfluous, since they believed in an individualistic doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s work in the believer. 

I wonder, if this research was based purely on their assumption about the belief system rather than personal interaction with fundamentalists who believed such doctrines lead them to a superfluous view of the sacraments. Whatever the basis is not the issue in this post, but one thing can be drawn from this picture — fundamentalism as a movement was born out of controversy. Such controversy, however, has enabled non-adherents of the belief system to castigate it as a viable movement. In my view, the movement itself doesn’t have to be viable because historic fundamentalism has never been about the movement or its techniques, but it has always been about certain core beliefs.

Machen on the barrier of Religious Principle?

Are our thoughts so permeated with natural thinking, so the advancement of the gospel is hindered?  In J. Gresham Machen’s book The Origen of Paul’s Religion, he asks the question what was Paul’s distinctive achievement? Pondering this question is important for our day because many Christian leaders measure achievement solely on the basis of visible expansion. Paul stood head and shoulders above any of his contemporaries with regard to advancing the name of Christ across the frontiers of the first century, but Machen states as important as that was his greatest achievement was in a totally different realm — the hidden realm of thought (a hidden expansion of the mind – expanding men’s mind so they could change their thoughts about God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Isn’t this related to the theological term ‘repentance’). This is the area that Paul advanced beyond his contemporaries and made him stand head and shoulders above his contemporaries. His energy in this area was not for vanity, but it resulted with gospel expansion both visibly and invisibly.  This is totally contrary from a liberal perspective, they seek to conquer the world by squelching thought or temporarily invalidate a certain tradition (whether it be from God or man). Listen and read what Machen has to say about these opposing perspectives.

“What was really standing in the way of the Gentile mission was not the physical barriers presented by sea and mountain, it was rather the great barrier of religious principle. Particularism was written plain upon the pages of the Old Testament; in emphatic language the Scriptures imposed upon the true Israelite the duty of separateness from the Gentile world. Gentiles might indeed be brought in, but only when they acknowledged the prerogatives of Israel and united themselves with the Jewish nation. If premonitions of a different doctrine were to be found, they were couched in the mysterious language of prophecy; what seemed to be fundamental for the present was the doctrine of the special covenant between Jehovah and His chosen people.

This particularism of the Old Testament might have been overcome by practical considerations, especially by the consideration that since as a matter of fact the Gentiles would never accept circumcision and submit to the Law the only way to carry on the broader work was quietly to keep the more burdensome requirements of the Law in abeyance. This method would have been the method of ‘liberalism.’And it would have been utterly futile. It would have meant an irreparable injury to the religious conscience; it would have sacrificed the good conscience of the missionary and the authoritativeness of his proclamation. Liberalism would never have conquered the world.

 Fortunately liberalism was not the method of Paul. Paul was not a practical Christian who regarded life as superior to doctrine, and practice as superior to principle. On the contrary, he overcame the principle of Jewish particularism in the only way in which it could be overcome; he overcame principle by principle. It was not Paul the practical missionary, but Paul the theologian, who was the real apostle to the Gentiles” (p. 17)

This analysis raises several other questions that are just as pertinent for our day. Is life (physical or spiritual) superior to doctrine? How would our Heavenly Father answer this question? He has life, which definitely is eternal, but isn’t his life lived according to some principle? Or might it be that ‘practice’ (whatever works for me) was his principle? Oh, I don’t think so for if it was ‘how’ did such perfection in this world become imperfection. So, practice cannot be the standard of his life, could it be the standard of his principle? No, he follows the same method as Paul — he overcomes principle by principle. Thus, he starts with the mind, so he can reach the heart with the truth of the gospel. Neither silence nor abeyance (temporary inactivity) will expand the gospel visibly or invisibly. Where are these men who will be dedicated to the hidden realms of thought, so the gospel can breakdown the various reglious, ethnic, gender barriers in our generation.

What do we hang onto as Fundamental Christians? — Novelty or the Historical Landmarks

In reading Marsden’s book on Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, this question has arisen in my thinking — What do we hang onto as Fundamental Christians? This also raises some other questions – Do we become something new to save what is being lost? Or do we hold on to the historical landmarks to keep what is lost? These questions swirl around modern American Christianity, but in reading Marsden such questions abounded even in the modernist controversy of the early twentieh century. According to Marsden, theological liberalism was a movement designed to save Protestantism. If it was organized for this purpose, what within Protestant teaching needed to be saved? Could it have been the noteriety of the next generation of well-to-do evangelical homes?Is this same thing taking place within modern fundamentalism, do we want to save the noteriety of fundamental homes — say the Bob Jones tradition; or the Charles Steven’s traditon? Or could it be that we want to make a new tradition that resembles that of our fore-fathers?

These are worthy questions to contemplate to gage our motivation for being involved in training up our next generation of leadership. According to Marsden, many notable families lost the next generation because they trained them to not be willing to sacrifice intellectual respectability. There seems to be a similar defection within modern fundamentalism. Consider Rod Bell as an example, I personally do not know ‘why’ he left fundamentalism, but it seems from his teaching that he desires novelty over the historical landmarks. I would assume if you asked him, he would say the historical landmark of Christianity is novelty, which would place his teaching within a long tradition of teaching that probably goes back as far as the cross. So, he would see historical landmarks, but they would be based upon several factors — the deifying of the historical process; placing stress onthe ethical rather than the doctrinal; emphasizes the centrality of religious feeling rather than religious reason, dogma, or literal interpretations of the Bible. Marsden explains that such isn’t just new to our generation, it has a history that was related to the modernist controversy.

In his chapter, “The Rise of Fundamentalism, 1870-1930, he writes about the new departures within evangelicalism. During this time, the ”prevailing mood of Protestants in the era from the Civil War to World War I was one of prosperity, progress, and confidence.” However, within this era, the truth was that “vastly different understandings of the gospel were developing.” These contrary views arose in reaction to the various challenges facing Protestantism between 1865-1917. Biblical authority was being challenged byDarwinism and higher criticism and new ways of thinking (which were related to Freudian psychology). The dominance of the later eroded Protestant teaching. According to Marsden, “this meant that many people brought up to accept unquestioningly the complete authority of the Bible and the sure truths of evangelical teaching found themselves living in a world where such beliefs no longer were considered intellectually acceptable. Such was typical of the personal histories of the leaders of the liberal movement.”(p. 32) This same perspective seems to be true of many liberal leaders today, the only difference is that they came from fundamentalist homes rather than evangelical.

Marsden gives reason for this occurance. Such were “brought up in moderately well-to-do evangelical homes, they formed close attachments to the Christian faith, although usually they did not have a dramatic conversion experience. When they reached the universities, however, they were confronted with a most difficult choice. They could hang on to evangelicalism at the cost of sacrificing the current standards for intellectual respectability. If they were going to retain such intellectual respectability, it seemed they must either abandon Christianity or modify it to meet the standards of the day. For many the latter choice seemed the only live option.” (p. 33) How could this be? What did ‘evangelicalism’ give them during their day? According to Marsden, it was only a well-to-do family background for they were not clearly marked by their conversion experience. Thus, their historical landmark was a ‘well-to-do’ family rather than the historical doctrines, such as the authority of Scripture, that marked evangelicalism. One is marked by a life that is driven or controlled by man; the other is marked by a life that is driven or controlled by God. Which one will we choose? Easier said, than done!!!