So how do you define Fundamentalism?
Which of the following definitions seems correct to you? Which one raises your eyebrows?
1) Fundamentalism is a movement of likeminded people and churches who “still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal” against theological liberalism. (quote from Curtis Lee Laws in 1920)
2) Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific, fundamental, theological doctrines typically in reaction against Modernist theology.
3) The word fundamental means, one who holds to the original faith and practice of a movement…. A fundamental Baptist church is a church whose faith and practice goes back to 31 A.D. to Jesus. You can be a fundamental Methodist and go back to Wesley. You can be a fundamental Presbyterian and go back to Calvin or Zwingli. You can be a fundamental Lutheran and go back to Luther. You can be a fundamental Catholic and go back to Constantine, but you cannot be a real Bible fundamentalist unless you go back to Jesus. (quote from Jack Hyles taken from his book The Church)
4) Fundamentalism is “a combination of psuedo-religious legalism with endless man-made rules given Ten Commandment-status, religious hypocrisy, extreme sectarianism, religious pride, and pervasive intellectual, ecclesiastic, ethical corruption and dishonesty all ruled over by a few men who embodied the worst qualities of the original Pharisees and whose teachings and actions cannot be questioned.” (quote from this anti-fundamentalist blog)
The fundamentalism I identify with is #1 or #2 above. I abhor the #4 type. In my experience, however, the #4 type is most pervasive and most common. The #3 mentality is also common among fundamental Baptists. They have an exclusive hold on the truth, or so they think. Check out this website for another example of this thinking. I am suspicious of this #3 mentality, but many good people are caught up in that kind of thinking.
Alright, what about you? What is your take on these four definitions of fundamentalism? Do you have a better definition? Join the discussion below.
I relate to numbers 1 and 2, most of my youth was spent in churches that were rather moderate, and were nothing like 3 or 4. I didn’t get involved in one of those until I was well into my 20’s. I could only take 9 years of dangling over the fringe before the Lord in his mercy catapulted me all the way over into the clutches of those “fundamental Presbyterians who go back to Calvin.” 😉
As for my own definition, I dare not attempt to do so, lest I let it get out of hand the way #4 did. I consider it what Ruckman used to call “editorial restraint.”
But seriously, I’ve never really seen a Fundamental Baptist Church in which people actually interacted with theological liberalism the way my new OPC brethren do–and they don’t want to be called fundamentalists, but I still tease them about it anyway. To them, the theological divide shouldn’t be between Fundamentalist, or Evangelical vs. Liberalism, but rather, Confessionalism versus a “Liberalism” which comprises all but those who are confessional–apparently, this would include fundamentalists and evangelicals.
Thanks for chiming in, John. Excellent analysis. Interesting to see their desire to define things by confessionalism. Many self-avowed fundamentalists deserve to be outside the scope of confessionalism, for sure. They don’t have a good handle on doctrine.
I hear that this Confessional/Liberal dichotomy was argued for by Daryl G. Hart in The Lost Soul of American Protestantism (2002, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), but I don’t know how widespread that attitude is really. Hart is considered one of the most authoritative Machen scholars, and at his Old Life Theological Society blog, he pretty much seems to be trying to channel (read: emulate) Machen while otherwise arguing for the Two Kingdom approach to the relationship between the Church and Culture. It is, however, one way of making the point of how unfaithful even fundies and evangelicals can be to historic Protestant, Biblical orthodoxy.
Number 3 made me chuckle. I wonder how many fundy baptists realize that John Wesley lived and died an Anglican.
Regarding #4, I think it’s the sin that the 1’s and 2’s fall into when they lose focus on Christ. Each group has its own besetting sins. #4 is the besetting sin of even the good fundamentalist world.
You are right, Shayne. Oftentimes the “good fundamentalist world” acts as if they are so far from #4 that they are immune to that reality. I think the fundamentalist DNA makes you predisposed to this kind of problem. The guys on top are defended and never questioned, and their rules are nearly equated with Scripture and Scriptural principles. The pride, hypocrisy and sectarianism don’t have to be there, but can be lurking at the door. This goes for people that shun the label fundamentalist too, I’m thinking of some of John MacArthur’s recent pronouncements against the YRR movement. It can smack of this #4 mentality.
It’s a pitfall but that doesn’t mean we should chuck #1/#2 out with the bathwater, either….
Good thoughts.
Thanks for dropping by.
I agree exactly.
MacArthur is more of a fundamentalist than some fundamentalists if we take #4’s definition, but that’s another discussion. . . oh look there it is!
Thanks.
I have only experienced #4 and therefore i am unable to be as gracious as Bob in my dealing with Fundamentalism. I’d be interested in hearing more about the divide being between Liberalism and Confessionalism.
Read “The Lost Soul of American Protestantism” by Daryl G. Hart. See my latest reply to Bob above. You can buy it at WTSBooks.com. At that site, they include a preview. Here’s a paragraph from the foreword that touches on what I was referring to.
“Hart rejects the standard “two-party” view that is fixed in most histories of American Protestantism–a view that pits liberal Modernists who seek to reform society against convert-seeking Fundamentalists who have, until recently, kept their religion private. Hart insists that both of these parties belong in a mainstream tradition of American Pietism, a tradition that gained the upper hand in American Protestant life through the engine of revivalism and that always has the concept of changing the world at its core. The God of American Pietism is one called upon to do public and private work that always touches on the secular. Pietists rouse God to lay low their enemies at home or abroad, support government and non-government crusades for a better society, fix a bad marriage, and help them lose weight. The important division is between this activist Pietism and Confessional Protestantism, a churchly tradition that challenges Pietism’s emphasis on an individual’s sense of direct experience with God. It makes worship a rigorously private affair among members of a church community bound together by creed.”
Okay, so maybe he’s advocating a Confessional Protestant (i.e., Presbyterian & Reformed, and maybe Lutheran)vs. American (or “Activist”?) Pietism (which encompasses both Lib and Fundy/Evangelical). I haven’t read the book myself yet; my pastor recommends it, though. What I’ve shared, I heard from him.
Would Hart be of the same vein as R. Scott Clark (who used to blog at heidelblog.wordpress.com)? He talks about the QIRC – Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty, and the QIRE – Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Thought provoking stuff, for sure.
I would actually agree with the #3 definition. If we believe what Jesus taught, then we’d be a real fundamentalist. The only problem is, Jack Hyles and people who claim to be be a #3 Fundamentalist are so far from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, but they don’t know it.
William,
In a way you’re right. But in another way, even though we all want to adhere as closely as possible to the teachings of Jesus, we still find those teachings handed down to us in history. There is Christian, then Protestant, then Anglican, then Puritan, then Baptist, then fundamentalist history that these teachings have been painstakingly arrived at. Hyles ignores this vast history and simplifies it into something like “just follow Jesus and everything will be OK.” We shouldn’t be so arrogant as Hyles as to ignore history. We should remember that the right of a church to baptize and admit only Christians was paid for in the blood and treasure of early Baptists. I think that’s an implication of the teachings of Jesus. But it happened in time and history with God’s providential hand. I’m not picking on you at all, but fundamentalists typically discard history for a “its just me and Jesus” style of theology. And I just wanted to make this point.
Shayne
I think Fundamentalism includes a strong commitment to the principle of personal and ecclesiastical separation, and a militant stand against bodies of false dogma (Roman Catholicism, JEDP liberalism, Darwinism, the Charismatic Movement, and cults).
I would have to define Fundamentalism as a Christian movement characterized by a strong standard of doctrinal, ecclesiastical, and personal separation. #1 and #2 are fine definitions, and actually historic. #3 is closer to what we all would really want to be (even though the statement came from Jack Hyles, and yes, I know that the Wesley brothers died as ordained Anglican ministers). #4 is sad. For me, Fundamentalism isn’t “separated” enough. Interesting article.
Good thing we have guys like you to point out the error of John MacArthur pointing out the error of judging others. I am thankful you all are spiritual enough to set the standards.
Are you trying to give me the double talk? No use, I also like satire. Be well.