Has Fundamentalism Become Secularized, Part 5

Rescuing Fundamentalism from Secularization

^{See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.}
The question of whether Fundamentalism has become secularized has been answered in the first four parts of this essay with a clear “yes.” As a movement, Fundamentalism has been deeply affected by the forces of modernization, has accommodated to culture more than it likes to admit, and as a result has lost a sense of self-awareness. Some may take this development as a sign that all forms of Fundamentalism and the ideals of the early fundamentalists are dead and no longer of any value to a twenty-first century Christian. Nothing could be farther from the truth, however. Only in the ideals of a certain kind of Fundamentalism do we find any hope for remaining faithful to Scripture while engaging our world with the gospel.

Fundamentalists like myself are not the only ones saying so. Recently, a growing number of voices among conservative evangelicals are praising the ideals of Fundamentalism. R.C. Sproul has expressed a desire for a double portion of the spirit of the early fundamentalists. In some contexts, when the term is properly defined, Mark Dever calls himself a fundamentalist. Al Mohler has repeatedly demonstrated his respect for the ideals of Fundamentalism in articles. Contrary to the evaluations of many, John MacArthur has done more to promote the spirit of historic Fundamentalism than the many aberrations who have risen claiming to bear the torch of true Fundamentalism. Finally, John Piper’s recent articles about Fundamentalism show a deep-seated respect for Fundamentalism when it is characterized by faithfulness to Scripture. While some fundamentalists may find these endorsements inconsequential or hypocritical, I believe they reveal the common commitment to contending for the faith that some fundamentalists and evangelicals share. I say some because too many fundamentalists are contending for things other than the faith, and too many evangelicals don’t contend for much of anything.

What is the way out of the morass in which Fundamentalism finds itself? How do fundamentalists shake off the secularization that has so easily beset them? Let me retrace my steps in the first four essays and propose some answers.

Engagement with Culture

First, contrary to Berger’s (and many fundamentalists’) two ways of dealing with culture, accommodation to or entrenchment against, a third way of dealing with culture exists. I propose an apologetic engagement with culture that pays attention to culture where it intersects with life, analyzes culture from a biblical perspective, and understands culture as an expression of the image of God in man, with the inherent ability to both reflect the glory of God or distort it through the corruption of sin. This is not as simple an approach to culture as the first two proposals. It is rather difficult, somewhat subjective and local, and requires careful thinking and speaking. For this reason alone, some will reject it. It is much easier to stand against culture in its entirety in order to preserve black and white categories that preclude the need for thought.

It has already been shown in this series of essays, however, how deeply Fundamentalism has been affected by the culture. Entrenchment against culture has miserably failed Fundamentalism. On one hand, it has produced an unnaturally strong attraction to culture while providing no guidance for interaction with it. On the other hand, it has created a counter-culture that is thin, shallow, and hypersensitive to any “contamination” from the greater culture. It seems that, for example, whenever a Christian college performs a play by a less-than-saintly playwright or has a non-Christian artist in for an artist series, the anti-cultural bloodhounds start baying.

The way forward, I believe, is to engage culture by talking about those elements of the culture that impact the lives of believers and utilizing those elements that can be used positively to interest people in the gospel and illustrate biblical truth. This is not a call to transform the culture in some misguided postmillennial sense. While the gospel does transform lives and institutions where Christians are living it faithfully, only the return of Christ will usher in the kingdom predicted by so many social gospel types.

The kind of engagement of which I am speaking is an acceptance of the concept of common grace—the idea that God gives all people, regenerated and lost, the ability to produce laudable (not meritorious) expressions of culture that are commendable, able to be enjoyed and appropriated by all. The key word is “ability,” for of course much culture is infected with the spirit of the cosmos and cannot be accepted or appropriated by Christians. We know that culture can be acceptable intuitively when we listen to a sonata written by an unbeliever or use technology for the sake of convenience. These are products of culture that we assume are innocent, neutral, and acceptable. My contention is that there are many more aspects of culture than fundamentalists have commonly accepted that can be used to communicate and illustrate truth. In addition, there are cultural expressions used and accepted by fundamentalists that perhaps should not be.

Only when culture is engaged through a biblical lens can fundamentalists discern ways in which their thinking has been secularized. The need to cleanse our thinking of secularized elements is an urgent one, for this influence has been choking us for some time.

Restoration of the Text

Fundamentalism has always had an unusual relationship with the text of Scripture. While proclaiming its unparalleled fidelity to the text, those who have preached and taught it have not always been the most faithful with the text. The second step out of the bondage of secularization is a return to careful, passionate expository preaching and teaching where the text of Scripture is the focus of the sermon or lesson.

I believe that many fundamentalists would claim that they are, in fact, doing just this. Yet, the majority of sermons I hear from fundamental preachers are far from this ideal. The text is used, but not exposited. It is mentioned, but not examined. People walk out of church with no better understanding of Scriptures than when they entered.

Part of the problem is that until the 1990’s expository preaching was taught in few places and taught well in even fewer. Today, however, excellent resources abound to help a preacher learn a sound expository method that will not only reconnect the sermon with the text of Scripture, but will also teach churchgoers how to study the Bible. This is the crying need of the hour—diligent, exegetical, theological, and homiletical preparation that leads to a powerful sermon that is not built purely on the personality or passion of the preacher, but on the power of the Word.

While I am exceedingly patient with the young preacher-in-training who needs time to hone his skill, I have no tolerance for the person behind the pulpit who fancies himself a preacher while ignoring, slaughtering, or manipulating the text. It is high time for Fundamentalism to loudly decry this misuse of Scripture. We would never let a liberal get away with misusing Scripture, but we show little alarm when one of our own does it. The sermon that begins with statements like “You are not going to need your Bibles for this one” or “I don’t have any verses that deal directly with this topic” deserves to be walked out on. The sermon that consists almost entirely of anecdotes or quotes by sociologists (read: many sermons on music) does not deserve blind acceptance. I hear too many teenagers wondering out loud if what they hear in their high school Bible classes and chapels is really what the Bible says. College students listen to chapel speakers preach on the sufficiency of the Word while failing to see it practiced in the preaching. Let us be done with the misuse and manipulation of the Word in our preaching.

In as Christlike a way as possible, believers should demand that the preaching to which they submit themselves be thoroughly biblical, shaped primarily by the text at hand and not by the preacher’s own rhetorical skill or personal hobby horse. Paul warned that preaching based on human wisdom and skill nullifies the power of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17-18). In this day of easy technological access to good preaching, if we fail to exalt and practice quality expository preaching, then we should not be surprised if our people depart for greener pastures where the text of Scripture is revered and proclaimed. There is grave concern among many fundamentalists over the lure of Calvinism, yet there are presently many examples of Christ-exalting expository preaching among Calvinists; and we should not be surprised by its attraction. The problem I see among young fundamentalists is not a desire to cast off all theological restraints, but rather a desire for more serious proclamation of the Word instead of the wearisome saber-rattling that is falsely called preaching. The problem is not Calvinism per se (not that there aren’t problems with Calvinism or Arminianism for that matter), but with the weak preaching that leaves people hungry and searching for nourishment.

This means that preachers are going to have to get serious about preaching again, to humble themselves before the text of Scripture, to read new and old books on preaching in order to improve their preaching, and to go fearlessly where the text leads. It means that they are going to have to stop trying to impress people with their fervency and instead instruct them in the powerful, authoritative truths of the Word. It means that they are not going to set standards that are any higher or lower than what the Scripture sets, to stop feeling the need to control behavior by invoking authority, and start impelling change by means of the Spirit. Additionally it means communicating a more transparent and genuine image of sanctification so that unrealistic and unscriptural views of personal holiness are exchanged for realistic and authentic ones. All of these implications of a return to the text reflect faithfulness to the text of Scripture rather than faithfulness to dogma in spite of the text of Scripture. Jesus addressed this very issue with the Pharisees of his day (Mark 7), and their response, rather than humble repentance, was anger and stubborn resistance. I pray that our response will be a humble one.

Return to Sound Theology

It should come as no surprise that a theology professor believes that part of the solution to secularization’s corruption of Fundamentalism is a more sound theology. I believe that the chief culprit behind the present crisis lies in the historical reaction of fundamentalists to the aftermath of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of that climaxed in the 1920’s. When fundamentalists lost influence and control in schools and denominations after the Scopes Trial (1925), they retreated from academia to focus on evangelistic efforts. This proved to be a double-edged sword, for while it resulted in a great harvest of successful evangelistic endeavors, the retreat undermined the future intellectual and theological foundation of the movement. The next generation of fundamentalist leaders were less able to face the challenges of their day than their forefathers (who were intellectual giants) had been. This trend has continued, with each generation less able to fight new and emerging battles and therefore relegated to fighting battles of a bygone era. Fundamentalism survived this trend until about the 1990’s by increasing evangelistic efforts and finding great success therein.

But the trend seems to have reached its zenith, and the lack of theological strength has finally caught up to fundamentalists. Technology has thrust the final dagger into weak forms of Fundamentalism as people who were at one time isolated from other perspectives now have full access to many branches of Evangelicalism that are luring hungry souls away. Evangelical and emerging churches are filling up with former fundamentalists who have become disillusioned either with the weakness of fundamentalist preaching and ministry or its entrenchment against culture. These departures are something to mourn, for they are unnecessary. If fundamentalists would only recognize these failures brought on by the corruption of secularization, they could correct them and find revitalization, as many conservative evangelicals have done.

My fear, however, is that too many fundamentalists are afraid of taking a long look in the mirror. One conference on Fundamentalism of which I am aware is known primarily as an exercise in self-congratulation. This is a great temptation, somewhat like the blindness that David experienced after Absalom’s rebellion, when David could not view the situation objectively and consequently ordered those who were risking their lives to spare the one man who was destroying the nation (2 Sam. 18:5). I believe too many fundamentalists feel a loyalty to an idealized “movement,” and so will not fearlessly evaluate and change what has been corrupted over time. As a result, we run the risk of losing those who have been the most loyal (2 Sam. 19:7).

I believe the key to casting off this fear is to engross ourselves once more in the glory of the living God through sound theology. Theology itself is not the answer, as if we all just needed to read more books and be intellectual. Rather, a theology that consists of a deep and thoughtful consideration of God through the Scriptures will transform us from being fearful, self-righteous “seclusionists,” intent on self-protection into bold, grace-filled evangelists intent on proclamation. Only a robust theology can bring about such a transformation, and it is hard work. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, “It’s not that theology has been tried and found wanting, but that theology has been found hard and left untried.” Both pastor and parishioner need to recommit to serious study of quality theological writing, old and new, with the intention of becoming able once more to face and overcome the intellectual, theological, and cultural challenges of our day. This revitalization at the very roots of the faith will cause a flood of health that will impact the fruits of the faith—including ministry, evangelism, and missions.

Conclusion

What does all this mean for the life of the church? My concern is primarily for the church and not colleges, seminaries, mission boards, or other parachurch ministries. Jesus promised to build his church, and these other ministries are only justified and profitable to the extent that they contribute to the growth of the church of Jesus Christ. This includes the seminary where I teach. The church will continue, while schools, missions boards, and ministries will rise and fall. The church will continue, even though individual churches may die and pass off the scene. The church will continue even when Fundamentalism as we have known it has faded away.

If that last sentence surprises you, it shouldn’t. Fundamentalism as we know it today rose at a particular juncture in the late 1800’s in response to a theological and cultural crisis. So for 1,875 years, the church of Jesus Christ existed before Fundamentalism came on the scene. We would be foolish to believe that this unique expression of faithful Christianity will continue indefinitely should the Lord tarry. Rather, we should expect that God will continue to raise up and dismantle movements of theological conservatives around the world as He wills in response to various situations. There will always be faithful believers who are willing to fight and contend for the truth, whether they are called fundamentalists or not.

If we refuse to believe this and continue to try to preserve some mythical “movement” as opposed to the ideals of fundamentalism, we will fulfill the prediction of Al Rogers who said, “In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.”

I have no desire to work to preserve a movement, but I am passionately committed to proclaiming and defending the faith once for all delivered to the saints and to joining with those of like mind. In order to do that as fundamentalists, we must be willing to scrutinize Fundamentalism for the effects of secularization and fearlessly realign ourselves and our ministries with Scripture. While not forgetting the past, neither should we live in it.

Mark Farnham is Assistant Professor of Theology and New Testament at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA). He and his wife, Adrienne, grew up in Connecticut and were married after graduating from Maranatha Baptist Bible College (Watertown, WI). They have two teen daughters and a 10-year-old son. Mark served as director of youth ministries at Positive Action for Christ (Rocky Mount, NC) right out of seminary and pastored for seven years in New London, Connecticut. He holds an M.Div. from Calvary and a Th.M. in New Testament from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA). He is presently a doctoral student at Westminster Theological Seminary (Glenside, PA) in the field of Apologetics.