In a recent sermon, a local pastor suggested that contemporary American evangelicalism dwells in two camps. One is the so-called “progressive evangelical” camp; it is supposedly open and accepting and places a high value on works of social justice. The other is the “rabid conservative fundamentalist” camp; he described it as primarily concerned with culture war issues (abortion and homosexuality) and judgment. The pastor opined that it didn’t take too much to recognize which of the two camps presented the more attractive option to an unsaved world.
His comments triggered a flood of thoughts in me, but one of the first was, ‘What’s so wrong with being a fundamentalist?’ Now, lest you think I’ve completely lost my mind, I am fully aware of the trip fundamentalism took down the road to provincialism and anti-intellectualism. Finding themselves outmatched by the scholarship and rhetoric of their opposition, fundamentalists withdrew into a subculture characterized by a rejection of all things modern and a suspicion of reason, education and intellect. They met their waterloo at their battle against the natural sciences. Their defeat in that arena was absolute, and they crawled off into ignominy, becoming the objects of ridicule and being rendered irrelevant.
Yet what brought fundamentalism to the fore—a desire to guard the content of the historic Christian faith from liberal revision—was, and continues to be, a worthy calling. Fundamentalism grew in response to the serious attack on the historic Christian faith by liberals in the early 20th century. Liberal theologians began with the premise that religion was merely a human phenomenon; Christianity was no different, it too was just a human attempt to understand life. As a result, liberals removed the supernatural from Christianity, explaining it as an accretion from a less intelligent, more superstitious time. These liberal theologians presented a new understanding of God, man, sin, Jesus, Calvary and love. Their gospel was no longer about redemption from sin; instead it was an encouragement for humanity to love each other. Sin did not break humanity’s relationship to God; to the contrary, every human being is a child of God, and all humanity brothers or sisters. God loves each and every one tenderly and compassionately.
For the liberal theologian of the early 20th century, Jesus was not a supernatural wonder-worker, but simply a man in touch with the divine spark resident in every person. His death was neither substitutionary nor sacrificial, but exemplary—not designed to pay the penalty of sin, but to offer humanity an example to imitate. The new life spoken of in the New Testament was not some supernatural impartation as a result of repentance and faith, but a conscious decision to amend one’s behavior. The Bible was not the inspired, authoritative word of God, but a composite of human wisdom and reflection. These liberal theologians held to a view of humanity as essentially good, but in need of some instruction or coaching. With the right kind of environment, humans could create God’s kingdom on earth.
It was the incursion of this theology into the protestant church that gave birth to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was not a reaction to or rejection of modern culture but a reaction to the heterodox theology of liberalism. The name came from a series of articles defending the historic, evangelical faith published in volumes titled The Fundamentals. The articles dealt with the inspiration and authority of Scripture; the deity, virgin birth, and supernatural works of Jesus; and the nature and significance of Christ’s death, resurrection and imminent return. Additional articles addressed the reality of sin; the necessity of salvation by faith; the teaching of the new birth; the power of prayer and the obligation of evangelism. In time, anyone who sought to defend the historic, orthodox Christian faith was called a fundamentalist.
Not surprisingly the term fundamentalist came to be redefined by the culture and turned into an insult. The world and its media despise orthodox Christianity. What is surprising is that pastors would adopt the world’s definition and malign fundamentalism even while standing in a conservative evangelical pulpit. A pastor should stand as a prophetic witness against the lies of the world. They should teach truth, which involves teaching the true meanings of words.
But then again, perhaps it is not surprising. For today we in the protestant church are under another assault by the forces of theological liberalism, although this time their attack is more devious. Theological liberalism now presents itself in the guise of the seeker-sensitive, market-driven church movement. Their ecclesiology strips the church of its supernatural character and encourages its leaders to a practical atheism. Market-driven ministry operates under the assumption that it is its responsibility to build and preserve the Church. Both market-driven and emergent church leaders market Christianity as an experience to be shared and/or a feeling to be caught, rather than a truth to be accepted. They avoid the preaching of sin, holiness, the Law, eternal damnation and salvation. That is ‘churchy’ language that the denizens of the 21st century have evolved beyond. Instead, they magnify feel good solutions to the life-style problems of their congregants. In far too many of these churches, the essential tenets of the historic Christian faith are being forgotten. Biblical literacy is disappearing. Theology is optional. So why be surprised if these pastors use the language of the world? It is the world’s theology that they’re preaching, the world’s salvation they are offering. They are building churches in the world and of the world. But are they birthing Christians?
It may be time for a new fundamentalism, a new effort launched to reclaim and restore historic protestant orthodoxy to the evangelical church in North America. I for one make no apologies for calling myself a fundamentalist—I hold to and am ready to defend the essentials of the faith. Has there been error associated with the name fundamentalist? Of course there has; no human activity is devoid of imperfection and error. Yet I would rather be on the side of those holding to generations of truth, than to be numbered among those who think they need to reinvent the truth for their generation. Selah.
