Why Fundamentalism
Sometimes in Life a Battle of Ideas is Necessary
The fourth key doctrinal distinctive I identify with is fundamentalism. Right from the beginning, I need to acknowledge the perspective of non-religious people on this subject. I happened to run across recently a booklet from Oxford titled Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction from the mid-2000s. This booklet, written from probably an outsider and non-conservative (in any sense) perspective, shows in its table of contents how they perceived religious fundamentalists (not just Christian ones) by referring to (1) literalism, (2) oppression of women, and (3) a reference to nationalism (perhaps emphasizing the perspective that one’s own nation is are the best). This points even from a book over 20 years old point to how it is still perceived. However, these are not entirely accurate in their perception though I do believe in literal interpretation of the Bible and in the view that men have a complementary role to women where in men are the leaders. The best impulse of fundamentalism is not irrational fanaticism. At its best, fundamentalism is, however, militant. It understands that certain doctrines are worth fighting for, even necessary to fight for. However, such fighting is rooted in careful persuasion. Fundamentalism is never about forcing people to adopt the truth against their will. In fact, such an approach would contradict both classic free grace theology (the third distinctive) and Baptist theology (the fifth distinctive).
My History with Fundamentalism
For nearly all my life, I attended conservative (orthodox) churches that believed the Bible and the essential doctrines of Christianity. However, I did not attend fundamentalist church until I was 20 years old. That church I began attending, however, was one I remembered going to as a child for summer Bible programs (called “Vacation Bible School”). In reality, my beginning with fundamental Christianity was present indirectly all throughout my childhood. My parents home-schooled me, and we used with few exceptions textbooks from Bob Jones University Press, one of the most important fundamentalist schools based on Greenville, South Carolina. Without a doubt, though I was raised in a neither a Baptist nor a fundamentalist home, the fundamentalist tone of my school textbooks shaped me. The connection did not stop there. In the church movement my family was most involved in, there was both an emphasis on being militant for the truth and the doctrinal distinctives they held and an emphasis on being careful to evaluate things in the world around me. This was no clearer than the reality that, at times, I remember hearing clear teaching against the errors of Roman Catholicism and against the practices of Billy Graham. Fundamentalists have tended to do both. Eventually, I ended up at a fundamental Baptist church that was not prone to the same excesses as some within the fundamental movement, and later on I ended up going to school where I was taught a theology of fundamentalism. I came to realize that this is what I really was. In truth, my wife (raised in fundamental Baptist churches, her father is a pastor) tells me that when she met me she saw the fundamentalist spirit in me. I just did not know it yet. Admittedly, I may have been spared from some of the more extreme forms of so-called “independent Baptist fundamentalism.”
What is Fundamentalism?
There are a few areas I think of as I think about fundamentalism. These include the doctrines of true, orthodox Christianity which are sometimes called the fundamentals. I also think of a militant spirit that recognizes the battle for the truth in this world. The concept of separation from the world - both in teaching and in lifestyle - is also important to fundamentalism. This separation from a world that is sinful generally admits that the world is getting worse and worse (along the lines of 2 Timothy 3:1 which refers to the perilous times that will come in the latter days). Separation is not enough, however. I also think of fellowship, the sharing of common beliefs together. This even involves Christian fellowship around not just the fundamentals but around the fullest picture of God and His ways. I will summarize briefly these things.
The Key Fundamentals of Classic Fundamentalism
Certainly, the term “fundamentals” implies something about what is essential for Christian faith. Before the term “fundamentalist” was coined, there was a historic series of booked written titled “The Fundamentals.” The essays in these books were erudite, and dealt with several attacks on Christian faith. However, we can better emphasis that there are certain key beliefs that make-up the bare-necessity doctrines of Christian beliefs. Lists are formulated differently, but here is a sample list:
The Bible’s truthfulness in all it says (inerrancy).
The deity of Jesus Christ (he was truly God and man).
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ (he was truly miraculously born as a human).
The death of Jesus Christ for our sins (his death was not just an example of how to suffer well).
The physical resurrection of Jesus in the past (he had victory over the grave and lives today at the right hand of God).
The physical second coming of Jesus Christ in the future (he will have victory over his enemies on earth).
Most fundamentalists saw that without these exclusive beliefs, one could not be a Christian. Indeed, J. Gresham Machen argued in a classic book Christianity and Liberalism that liberal Christianity was not just another form of Christianity. If you deny these kinds of basic truths, you can claim the name Christian but you are really just holding to another religion. Non-fundamentalists may believe these things too within the broader Protestant evangelical movement. However, fundamentalism goes further than just affirming these truths.
The Militant Spirit of Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism also developed a militant spirit in its advocacy. As Jude 3 says, they concluded they had to “contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all.” This word has in mind the kind of spirit that goes along with fighting in a war (i.e. military is a group of units who are fighting a war, and so militant is applied to anything that acts like he is fighting in a war). The context of fighting for truth does not, however, imply that we take physical guns and other weapons to play. No, we fight for truth by teaching, by resisting bad teaching in organizations, and by building churches and other institutions as needed! I appreciate this about the movement, We are dealing with some of the most important things in the world, and some things are worth fighting for.
Another way militancy shows up is a more focused lifestyle. A soldier has his entire life managed by the authority that conscripted him or accepted his voluntary enlistment. This focus helps situate that the fundamentalist is to be primarily about the cause of God in this world. There is certainly a place for recreation, and one may have responsibilities to his or her family. Even in a military you have opportunities for leave. So, this is not to suggest that in our warfare we have to get so narrowly focused that we neglect proper rest or that we don’t give some attention to some lesser but still important things. But, the spirit of militancy is something I strive to rightly apply.
Among polite society, warfare-like language is avoided—and with some justification. Typically, this is a reflection of (1) the confidence that we could avoid physical wars if we would just “talk” to each other, and (2) the assumption that all religious beliefs are equally valid. These perspectives are not true. But, caution is needed concerning militancy. Not everything must be fought over, however. I recognize this militancy can be applied in ways that are not pleasing to the Lord. We are in a battle for the truth. The very foundations of faith are criticized, even attacked militantly by our opponents. However, one must make sure that the carnal spirit of pride or even anger does not take one over. This militancy led to the key tactical manuever that fundamentalists argued for, and that was the need to separate from false teaching and worldliness.
The Doctrine of Separation
Fundamentalists argue that we should not, indeed cannot before the Lord, tolerate serious error within churches and religious organizations. Thus, when the fundamentals were being denied, they fought to resist those who were denying the faith. 1 Timothy 5:22 may be applied to this point as it commanded “don’t share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.” The command to not share in sins of concerns specifically concerned the ordination of a new pastor. Thus, it has relevance to the issue of giving approval to churches or other religious institutions that may be entering into serious error.
Fundamentalists tried to put out the false teaching in the mainline denominations. When, in the providence of God, their efforts were unsuccessful, they separated. They started new churches. Thus, most conservative churches in New York are less than 100 years old--they started as the true believers separated from the mainline churches.
As time went on, the issue of separation flared up to even more serious concerns concerning Billy Graham. The problem, as we saw it, was that this evangelical preacher would involve churches denying key fundamentals, including Roman Catholics, in the crusades he did - starting in the 1950s and into the future. We understand the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants to be too serious to ignore, though we recognize individuals within the Roman Church could come to simple faith in Christ apart from leaving that church.
As time went on, fundamentalism did embrace a concept that we should even separate from those who don’t separate (called “secondary separation”). As a theoretical principle and as a tactical maneuver of the times, I appreciate why it was emphasized so much for a time. However, I do seriously question whether morally it is as serious of an issue that merits the same response that is warranted when someone denies the fundamental doctrines themselves.
In addition to separation from doctrinal error, we also take seriously the need to separate from moral filth. The key verse on this is 1 John 2:15 “Do not love the world or the things in the world.” This does not mean we don’t care for people or what happens on this earth, but to not loving the world system and the culture that is opposed to God. We must be careful to not look at sinful things though the world may celebrate it. Still, we can try to enjoy the good gifts of God through God’s common grace as may find evidence in culture (e.g. good literature and entertainment). We should not celebrate what the world does, and thus remain separate. It is just always remembering that this world is not our home, and not acting like it. We also must be vigilant to not allow ourselves to fall into defilement of lust or greed or any number of worldly things. James 1:27 tells us: “Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this...to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
Levels of Fellowship and Levels of Separation
Applying the concept of separation is a challenge as the religious landscape has changed. I do believe some lines should be maintained - thus I avoid direct association, for example, with the Southern Baptist Convention. However, I do use resources from Southern Baptists and other conservative evangelicals. I attended a fundamentalists Baptist school for a few years before my doctoral program. There, I was taught the concept of levels of fellowship (Larry Oats came up with this concept). The doctrines of fellowship and doctrines of separation were seen as flipside of the same coin. What this observes is that if another individual is a brother in Christ because he is believed the true gospel, we immediately have some kind fellowship with this person. We have the Spirit living in us. However, such an individual would not then be permitted to speak in my church even if he is a pastor of some kind. A greater level of shared belief is needed as you move to the local church level, the most focused expression of fellowship.
Maximal Christian Fellowship
Christian fundamentalism tended to be a cross-denominational movement. As such, it is notable that these kinds of lists imply they did believe in essential and secondary doctrines. However, their approach still has been argued by Kevin Bauder to be a maximal Christian fellowship as opposed to a minimal Christian fellowship (see his chapter in a book titled Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism). I appreciate that he recognizes something import that distinguishes fundamentalism of today. In evangelicalism, there is an impulse to minimize doctrinal teaching to the lowest common denominator. Thus, they may affirm the fundamentals but nothing else. They may come emphasize other descriptions for what makes an evangelical--and a very large body of books have been written talking about what an evangelical is, especially during the last decade of the Trump era in American politics.
I appreciate that there is an impulse in fundamentalist teaching that pursues a maximal fellowship as an ideal around a fully developed doctrine. This is a continuum, thus within a local church there will still be some differences. This concept of maximal Christian fellowship is perhaps the least important for this broader discussion of my views on fundamentalism. However, I believe that it does point to something that is very real in why fundamentalism distinguishes itself from broader evangelicalism.
Critics of Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism has its critics - I have alluded to those from the secular world in the introduction. However, I will now speak briefly to those critics within Christianity. Some ideas have taken root in fundamentalism that are wrong (such as the most dogmatic views about the King James Bible). There may be a tendency to misunderstand certain things as timeless when in fact they are either wrong or may be a temporary matter of wisdom that no longer applies. Certain views are un-biblical and ideally a true fundamentalism that submits to the word will be self-correcting. However, there are still certain things that shouldn’t be changed
Fundamentalism is also criticized for being overly separatist (1) by refusing to recognize genuine believers the way some think they should or (2) by even be in the world for the sake of loving neighbor and/or reaching the lost. Mainstream fundamentalism is not to be identified with being like a monastery. Fundamentalists can be culturally engaged and speak in the public square about issues of right and wrong in society even though they may have less confidence in our potential for success in light of the Lord’s soon return. One of the most notable issues throughout history of fundamentalism was the recreational use of alcohol, but there are surely others. As a Thomist, I believe the natural law tradition helps under-gird public square engagement without contradicting my dispensationalism that views the kingdom as future.
Finally, critics get very direct in criticizing us for the matter I mentioned prior of secondary separation where fundamentalists at times called for separating from other genuine believers who themselves did not separate. I reject that secondary separation is the most important thing, but I do understand that in the judgment of some forebears they thought the battle was such that we had to be so firm. I am not persuaded that moment is anymore. However, some lines are worthy being left in place. But even I recognize the need for some caution and recognition of different perspectives.
Conclusion
The subject of fundamentalism presents several practical problems for this moment in America. It is a movement, and one individual cannot claim to speak for the movement. However, as an ideal I believe it has much going for us in the more intellectual varieties. If we can be continually reforming our movement, I believe we can avoid the errors of the past. I seek to uphold the essentials of the faith, while calling for robust fellowship. I affirm that separation is warranted even from Christians at times. I believe that militancy should be the goal for every Christian. Every person - even those who are not full-time Christian workers - should live our lives seeking to defend and proclaim the truth in accord with the context in which we live. This will look differently in a workplace that is already a part of a fallen world system. However, within the church we should hold our leaders accountable to stay faithful to the truth. The true fundamentalists were the lay people. We must be careful to not give Christian recognition to people who are not actually saved or who are holding to fatal errors. Our battle will not end until Jesus comes back. I aspire to be a faithful fundamentalist.
Books on Fundamentalism
I may receive an affiliate commission from purchasing using any links below. You support The New York Theologian by purchasing using these links
Fred Moritz, Be Ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation (out of print)
Ernest Pickering Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church (Amazon paperback).
Larry Oats, The Church of the Fundamentalists: An Examination of Ecclesiastical Separation in the Twentieth Century (Amazon paperback and Kindle. The Kindle is available in Kindle Unlimited).
Larry Oats, For the Faith: A History of the Foundations Baptist Fellowship International (Amazon paperback and Kindle. The Kindle version is available in Kindle Unlimited).
Kevin Bauder, “Fundamentalism” in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, eds. Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen (Amazon paperback and Kindle).
Madison Trammel Fundamentalists in the Public Square: Evolution, Alcohol, and Culture Wars After the Scopes Trial (Amazon paperback and Kindle).