When one views the decisions that this man has made in recent years with regard to Evangelical and Catholics Together in 1994 and in more recent years with the Manhattan Declaration, one would easily assume that he would like to get as far away from ‘fundamentalism’ as a term. I personally am not fearful of that term, but an article that I was recently exposed to made me realize Colson cherished this term as well in 1992. Obviously, what one previously held, doesn’t necessarily mean he holds it today. But as I read his argument in support of the term, I soon realized he was redefining that term.
Here is a excerpt from The Body (p. 61-62):
“There’s the dreaded word. It conjures up images of uneducated bigots, backward Bible-thumping preachers, and the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni. But it’s a bad rap.
‘Fundamentalism’ is really akin to Lewis’s ‘mere Christianity’ discussed earlier, or the rules of faith in the early church; it means adherence to the fundamental facts — in this case, the fundamental facts of Christianity. It is the term that was once a badge of honor, and we should reclaim it……….
These were then {the historical fundamental tenets; my insertion concerning his argument}, as they are today, the backbone of orthodox Christianity. If a fundamentalist is a person who affirms these truths, then there are fundamentalists in every denomination — Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren, Methodist, Episcopal…. Everyone who believes in orthodox truths about Jesus Christ – in short, every Christian — is a fundamentalist. And we should not shrink from the term nor allow the secular world to distort its meaning.”
I know some would agree with Colson’s rationale for holding the term, but my question is ‘who’ is robbing the term — the bible thumping individuals or those who do not view a true biblical viewpoint on ‘separation.’ It is obvious by the title that his purpose for this book is unity. While a worthy goal for the true church to unify, my question relates to whether all brethren in these denominational traditions can unify around these five fundamentals. It might be achievable, if we seek the lowest number of common denominators — i.e. the five fundamentals; but in actuality the only common denominator for unity in Chuck Colson’s argument is that which concerns Jesus Christ. While all five fundamentals relate to Christ, Christ’s isn’t the only common denominator. One’s view on Scripture, the supernatural in contrast to the natural, eschatological resurrections are also necessary prerequisites for a bond of unity to be achieved.
It seems to me that David Wells, in his book Courage to Be Protestant, testifies, that the attempt by Colson and others in evangelicalism at achieving unity on the basis of the lowest common denominator, has been unsuccessful. His rational for this evaluation has been that believers in the community of faith have been drawn away from the centrality of God’s word and have been moved to other modes of delivery with reference to the dispensing of truth.
I am thankful for the book Contending for the Faith by Fred Moritz, which exposed me to Colson’s writing on this term ‘fundamentalism.’ In it, he demonstrates ‘how’ certain evangelicals from the 80′s and 90′s high-jacked the term from its historical meaning within the evangelical movement itself.
