In previous articles I have tried to address some of the problems with fundamentalism. I have not been—nor should anyone be—afraid to face these hard issues head-on, to admit the difficulties, and to attempt to correct them. Five of the seven churches in Asia Minor had rebuke-worthy faults mingled with virtues in Revelation 2 and 3. The task that the Lord burdened those churches with is the same task that we are burdened with: to recognize our corporate faults and correct them. Failure to do this only compounds our sin.
In analyzing fundamentalism, however, it has not been my intention either to take potshots at or to trash the whole kit-and-caboodle. I am not about to join the band of evangelicals among whom it “has become fashionable … to join in criticism of fundamentalism,” as Iain Murray puts it. Those who do so reveal their own narrow prejudice, identify themselves with other movements with similar faults, and forget that fundamentalism is indeed part of the church of Christ. They may in fact be guilty of what W. H. Griffith Thomas accused B. B. Warfield of when Warfield criticized the Keswick movement:
“the absence of any recognition of the fact that the movement he criticizes and condemns expresses a spiritual experience and not merely a theological theory.”
Over the years there has been some traffic between fundamentalism and the broader evangelical church. Some have left fundamentalism for other groups and some have come into the fundamentalist fold. Of those, some have studied at fundamentalist colleges and universities for an education or a conservative experience that they could not get elsewhere.
In recent years, however, the landscape of evangelical Christianity in North America has changed considerably. The gap between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism is narrowing and a new conservative evangelical identity is beginning to emerge. The defection from fundamentalism continues despite the fact that there is a definite corrective among many fundamentalist leaders. In addition to this, there is a growing tension in the broader evangelical church creating a more conservative right-wing evangelicalism that one writer has identified as a “resurgent fundamentalism.”
Consider, first, the current defection from fundamentalism. The past ten years have witnessed a sharp increase in defections from fundamentalism. Some of them can be chalked up to the general malaise of the church and the trend toward secularization in the west. Much of the bleeding of fundamentalism, however, has been precipitated by the awareness that there are other ways—and better ways—to be a fundamentalist.
… … Buy the book on Kindle
Where has Steve Pettit “acknowledge the corporate fault and recognize that some of the methods and manners of the past were misplaced, over-emphasized, and in some cases downright wrong”? I haven’t seen that.
The article deals with the general trends of fundamentalism, but you ask a fair question. The “acknowledgements,” etc. are evident, in part, in the changes that are being made – small things, perhaps, but significant, and encouraging.
Hi : I found the articles on Fundamentalism both refreshing and helpful. The key to fundamentalisms demise is the way the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation was abused and misused over the years. In may parts of the movement it was simply imbalanced. It did not start out this way with the exception of just a few. This more than anything has prevented the movement as a whole from doing all the good it could have done.
A balanced, thoughtful, and forthright presentation of a difficult subject. You seem to have hit the right stance. Our biggest problem after the return to the theological norms of the Reformed Faith is the that we have yet to discover how much liberty there actually is sin it. We also must face the issue of producing a theology with a future for mankind about to go into space (actually going there, and I mean to other stars, if the truth be told). John Owen mentioned that the atonement of Christ was of such excellency that it could redeem the populaces of many world. And John Robinson of Pilgrim and Dordt fame recognized the asymmetrical nature of the Sovereign Grace motif. There is more, but I am weary.
Nice Job Aaron!
Aaron, really? Courage? Conservative Evangelicals? Baloney. Their kind of courage we can do without. Piper has the courage to mollycoddle the likes of a Mark Driscoll and a Rick Warren and we are supposed to look up to him as a leader? MacArthur joins hands with Mahaney and we are supposed to respect his “strong stand” on charismatism? Give me a break.
The conservative evangelicals talk tough but do nothing. I’m waiting for them to repudiate the pro-homosexual speakers they recently allowed at the ETS meeting. Not holding my breath, though.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I agree with Don.
Best one yet, Aaron!
“Conservative Evangelicals” seems like a broad and undefined label. Many, perhaps most, former Fundamentalist will certainly disagree with a significant segment of those who self identify as conservative and evangelical. There are differing views on Lordship, “gifts”, and cooperation with Catholics even among some of those you have named here. Failing to acknowledge this reeks of the old fundamentalism and makes me wonder just how significant this “change” really is. It seems Fundamentalists have broadened their definition only by a few degrees and made incorrect assumptions about the consistency of views in the broader church.
I am also concerned that the term “conservative evangelical” aligns the church too closely with the GOP. The Old school “God and Country” mentality runs rampant in many conservative and evangelical churches. On the other hand groups like the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission promote a more biblical view of the relationship between faith and politics. This is one group that self identifies as both conservative and evangelical yet doesn’t seem to fit your definition.
Im afraid this group of “Conservative Evangelicals” which the former Fundamentalists have gladly joined hands with is not as broad or unified as they would hope and is mostly a figment of their imagination. Perhaps they are moving in the right direction but they seem to feel like they have already moved as far as they ever will. It’s the same old Fundamentalist mentality with slightly redefined boundaries.
Did you mean Catholic in the sense of universal o?r that actual church itself?
The word “catholic” comes from the Greek meaning “general” or “universal.” This use of the word “catholic” should not be confused with the Roman Catholic Church.
Aaron,
It was interesting reading. Why can’t we be satisfied with a church and obedience to the Word of God? Why does a larger coalition matter so much, that is, conservative evangelicalism or fundamentalism? Is there a s