Theology Thursday - Carnell on the "Perils" of Fundamentalism (Part 1)

Image

Edward J. Carnell was a major figure in the evangelical world in the 1950s. He became President of Fuller Theological Seminary in 1957, and wrote a little book entitled The Case for Orthodox Theology two years later. At only 168 pages, this was a short, introductory book intended for an interested, but general audience. In a chapter from this book, which he ominously entitled “Perils,” Carnell unleashed a pitiless broadside against fundamentalism.

In this article and the next, I’ve included nearly his entire chapter. It provides a fascinating look into what a conservative evangelical thought about fundamentalism at mid-century. Carnell writes with passion; indeed, at some points his passion gives way to scornful contempt. Some of his critiques still sting today.1

Orthodoxy is plagued by perils as well as difficulties, and the perils are even more disturbing than the difficulties. When orthodoxy slights its difficulties, it elicits criticism; but when it slights its perils, it elicits scorn. The perils are of two sorts; general and specific. The general perils include ideological thinking, a highly censorious spirit, and a curious tendency to separate from the life of the church. The specific peril is the with which orthodoxy converts to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is orthodoxy gone cultic.

Fundamentalism

When we speak of fundamentalism, however, we must distinguish between the movement and the mentality. The fundamentalist movement was organized shortly after the turn of the twentieth century. When the tidal wave of German higher criticism engulfed the church, a large company of orthodox scholars rose to the occasion. They sought to prove that modernism and Biblical Christianity were incompatible. In this way, the fundamentalist movement preserved the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Its “rugged bursts of individualism” were among the finest fruits of the Reformation.

But the fundamentalist movement made at least one capital mistake, and this is why it converted from a movement to a mentality. Unlike the Continental Reformers and the English Dissenters, the fundamentalists failed to connect their convictions with the classical creeds of the church. Therefore, when modernism collapsed, the fundamentalist movement became an army without a cause. Nothing was left but the mentality of fundamentalism, and this mentality Is orthodoxy’s gravest peril.

The mentality of fundamentalism is dominated by ideological thinking. Ideological thinking is rigid, intolerant and doctrinaire; it sees principles everywhere, and all principles come in clear tones of black and white. It exempts itself from the limits that original sin places on history; it wages holy wars without acknowledging the elements of pride and personal interest that prompt the call to battle; it creates new evils while trying to correct old one.

The fundamentalists’ crusade against the Revised Standard Version illustrates the point. The fury did not stem from a scholarly conviction that the version offends Hebrew and Greek Idioms, for ideological thinking operates on far simpler criteria. First, there were modernists on the translation committee, and modernists corrupt whatever they touch. It does not occur to fundamentalism that translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship. Secondly, the Revised Standard Version’s copyright is held by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. If a fundamentalist used the new version, he might give aid and comfort to the National Council; and that, on his principles, would be sin. By the same token, of course, a fundamentalist could not even buy groceries from a modernist. But ideological thinking is never celebrated for its consistency.

Dispensationalism

Having drifted from the classical creeds of the church, the separatist is prey to theological novelty. Most of Machen’s immediate disciples were shielded from this threat by their orientation in Calvinism, but fundamentalism in general did not fare so well. Dispensationalism filled the vacuum created by the loss of the historic creeds.

Dispensationalism was formulated by one of the nineteenth-century separatist movements, the Plymouth Brethren. Hitherto, all Christians had believed that the church fulfills the prophecies of the Old Testament, and that the future of saved Jews falls within the general life of the church.

Dispensationalism overturned this time-tested confession by contending that the church is only an interim period between two Jewish economies, the Old Testament and the millennium. While dispensationalism sincerely tries to honor the distinctives of Christianity, in practice it often honors the distinctives of Judaism. This is an ironic reversal …

Having withdrawn from the general theological dialogue, the dispensationalist has few active checks against the pretense of ideological pride. As a result, he imagines that the distinctives of dispensationalism are more firmly established than they really are. This illusion prompts him to fight major battles over minor issues. If it comes to it, he is not unwilling to divide the church on whether the rapture occurs before or after the tribulation. This is straight-line cultic conduct, for a cursory examination of Philip Schaff’s “Creeds of Christendom” will show that the church has never made the details of eschatology a test of Christian fellowship.

The dispensationalist is willing to go it alone because he is prompted by the counsels of ideological thinking. He compares Biblical doctrines to a line of standing dominoes: topple any one domino and the entire line falls. On such a scheme the time of the rapture is as crucial to faith as the substitutionary atonement, for any one doctrine analytically includes all other doctrines.

This argument, of course, is a tissue of fallacies. It violates the most elementary canons of Biblical hermeneutics. When separatists flee from the tyranny of the church, they end up with a new tyranny all their own; for there is always a demagogue on hand to decide who is virtuous and who is not. His strategies are pathetically familiar: “Things are in terrible shape; errorists are everywhere. The true faith is being threatened; my own life is in danger. Something must be done; some courageous person must volunteer. I’m free; I’m ready; I’m willing … Oh, yes, you may subscribe to my paper and keep up with the real truth. Three dollars will enroll you in my movement, and for $5.00 you may have a copy of my latest book.”

Intellectual Stagnation

When orthodoxy says that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, the fundamentalist promptly concludes that everything worth knowing is in the Bible. The result is a withdrawal from the dialogue of man as man. Nothing can be learned from general wisdom, says the fundamentalist, for the natural man is wrong in starting point, method, and conclusion. When the natural man says, “This is a rose,” he means “This is a not-made-by-the-triune-God rose.” Everything he says is blasphemy.

It is non-sequitur reasoning of this sort which places fundamentalism at the extreme right in the theological spectrum. Classical orthodoxy says that God is revealed in general as well as in special revelation. The Bible completes the witness of God in nature; it does not negate it.

Since the fundamentalist belittles the value of general wisdom, he is often content with an educational system that substitutes piety for scholarship. High standards of education might tempt the students to trust in the arm of flesh. Moreover, if the students are exposed to damaging as well as to supporting evidences, their faith might be threatened. As a result, the students do not earn their right to believe, and they are filled with pride because they do not sense their deficiency.

The intellectual stagnation of fundamentalism can easily be illustrated. Knowing little about the canons of lower criticism, and less about the relation between language and culture, the fundamentalist has no norm by which to classify the relative merits of Biblical translations. As a result, he identifies the Word of God with the seventeenth-century language forms of the King James Version. Since other versions sound unfamiliar to him, he concludes that someone is tampering with the Word of God.

This stagnation explains why the fundamentalist is not disturbed by the difficulties in orthodoxy. Faithful to ideological thinking, he simply denies that there are any difficulties. To admit a difficulty would imply a lack of faith, and a lack of faith is sin.

… to be continued

Notes

1 Edward J. Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1959), 114-119.

Discussion

Haven’t read MacLachlan’s book (yet). But pray tell, what was the reaction among the glitterati to his ideas?

John B. Lee

Bauder has begun a response to Roger Olson and Carnell. He wrote:

In sum, Carnell did not simply disagree with certain fundamentalist eccentricities. He rejected the fundamentalist understanding of the Church. This difference lay behind his castigation of fundamentalism as “cultic orthodoxy.” Only if Carnell was right about the Church was he right about fundamentalism. That is the point that Olson has not established—but more about that next week.

Next week, I plan to include Carnell’s objection to Machan’s separation from the PCA on ecclesiastical grounds. In its sequence in Carnell’s original work, the Machan objection would have been included in this excerpt - but for reasons of space, I delayed it until next week.

Off the cuff, perhaps it is better to say Carnell rejected Baptist ecclesiology, not fundamentalist ecclesiology. Fundamentalism and Baptist are not synonyms. Given the “big-tent” understanding of fundamentalism (a view certainly not shared by everybody), I’m not sure you can really speak of a “fundamentalist ecclesiology” in a systematic sense at all. If somebody objects to separating from a church or denomination over clear doctrinal heresy, then the real issues are probably:

  1. your basic polity,
  2. your understanding of church membership as a covenant (or not!),
  3. your stance on creeds and confessions. That is, are you “confessional?” Should church members be held accountable to confess and believe a doctrinal statement/creed/confession?
  4. your understanding of church discipline

In this sense, there is a “fundamentalist ecclesiology” (e.g. Larry Oats’ recent work The Church of the Fundamentalists). But, that is not the same as a formal, systematic doctrine of the church.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

This was an interesting chapter. Without a doubt Carnell was being very honest. His statements also reflect the opinions of many, if not most, main-stream Evangelicals. There is not question that there is a strong element of legitimacy in the criticism. I have spent nearly fifty years in the movement and I think I have seen it all.

We should also remember that the mainstream Evangelicals are viewing the world from their own fishbowl, and this naturally colors their understanding of things. And many of them are as accomplished at hurling invective as the worst of the fundamentalists. Roger Olson was suggested as an example earlier in the thread, and in may ways, he is a very good one. In many ways he takes a very reasoned approach to his theology and practices — you may not agree with him, but you can understand where he is coming from (mostly). But, when involved in discourse involving fellowship / separation, he points to Al Mohler and says words to the effect, “Well, you’re really a fundamentalist.” There was a point he was trying to make, but it came across as a pejorative, because I believe he really does think of fundamentalism in those terms.

Without a doubt, Carnell is correct in highlighting the inability of many (or possibly most) fundamentalists to differentiate between Biblical Fundamentalism and Cultural Fundamentalism. But, in terms of having a “teaching moment,” I would suggest the he better illustrates an example of what Kevin Bauder called Indifferentism. He was far kinder in his interactions with theological liberals than he was with misguided brethren. And in that, he was not so very different from the fundamentalists.

FWIW,

MM

Tyler,

Thanks for responding and I see what you are saying. It just seems like the pendulum has swung too far on SI into self-loathing.

As far as the guys you mentioned, I respect them all and benefit greatly from them. That being said, with the possible exception of Dever, they would not accept your label fundamentalist for themselves . They likely would not accept the understanding of the term at the top of the page on SI and that’s ok. We disagree. We don’t have to demonize them (as you rightly point out is common). Im all for a “big tent” but they don’t want to be in the tent.

I’m guessing if we sat down for lunch we would be in agreement. It’s just an emphasis thing for me. I don’t care much about liberals because they are unbelievers and therefore not related to me in any way. I do recognize their threat. The same goes for a lot of hyper-fundamentalism.

Tyler,

You have been specific in your criticism, but not in an action plan. If you were to take a pastorate today, how would you apply your statements:
“Instead, I seek to persuade younger men to cast off the rusty fetters of a dead-end and harmful approach, and embrace the philosophy of fundamentalism as it was originally known. Elsewhere(link is external) I defined fundamentalism as: “a philosophy of ministry characterized by a militant apologetic defense and passionate, unashamed proclamation of the Christian faith from the Scriptures in the face of pagan unbelief, liberal theology and compromise.” And, by “compromise,” I mean real ​compromise …

I want to persuade younger men to do battle against liberal “Christianity,” and secular humanism. I want to persuade men to read Matthew Vines’ book and interact with him, for the sake of our teenagers. I want to persuade younger men to read about rationale for the transgender movement, and refute it. I want our younger men to read about the rationale for abortion, and refute it. I want our younger men to read NT Wright on justification, and write against his views.”

Note: I write this having taken a pastorate in October, and being a young fundamentalist (34), I attend the local meetings of the ministerial association, and found that I have more in common with the LCMS pastor than the ELCA pastor, and that in many areas, the EFree guy and I agree on a lot (but not everything). MN has also recently put out a “toolkit” for school districts in dealing with the transgender issue - so I wrote a 1400 word article on the issue for the newspaper (published last week). There was a response article written (this week), and next week I plan on writing a surrejoinder. But I think from a level of practical ministry - we need to do more than write. We need to sit down with a transgendered person and explain to them that, in order to get saved, they need to find their identity in Christ instead of a gender (real conversation). We need to sit down with a homosexual college student over dinner at Denney’s, open a Bible, and explain what the Bible really says about sexuality and gender (real conversation), and how that individual can find their satisfaction and joy in Christ instead of in a relationship.

I’m wrapping up my lunch break, so I’ll be brief. I agree with your action plan.

My own experiences as a pastor in this arena:

  1. Many of the the pastors at the local fellowship came from hard-right fundamentalism, and wanted nothing to do with the label ever again.
  2. Most church members don’t know or case about the label “fundamentalist” at all.
  3. Most people in the community don’t know or care about the label “fundamentalist” at all.
  4. The only people who do know or care about the label fundamentalist” are other people who know or care about the label
  5. This mean, basically, that nobody cares about fundamentalism

This is why I, too, really don’t care about the “fundamentalist movement” per se. I do care about the philosophy of ministry behind the idea of fundamentalism. This means that, within my sphere of influence as a leader, I will always (for example):

  1. seek to equip Christians against the “gay Christian” agenda, not with bigotry, but with biblical instruction. Here are the arguments, and this is why they’re wrong, and this is the way we should show Christ to them.
  2. seek to equip Christians against intermediate steps towards theological compromise on important issues
  3. seek to equip Christians to understand the dangers of certain current issues
  4. direct Christians to resources which can help them in their own spiritual walk, the vast majority of which are written by conservative evangelicals

In other words, I’d do the very same things you’re already doing, and lead my congregation to have a “militant apologetic defense and passionate, unashamed proclamation of the Christian faith from the Scriptures in the face of pagan unbelief, liberal theology and compromise.” I’d spend my time teaching my congregation who and what the real enemies of the faith are, and how to defend against their harmful ideas. I would not spend my time:

  1. attacking on Dever, Mohler, Piper, et al as “compromisers”
  2. protecting the “brand” of fundamentalism, as if the “movement” actually means anything
  3. preaching and focusing on separation in an unbalanced and unhealthy way

In short, I’d implement “fundamentalism” as a philosophy which informs how I do ministry. I would not see fundamentalism as a “movement” which functions as a pseudo-denomination. I’m not interested in movement politics or movement “activism” at the association level; Bauder’s recent series on the FBFI, CBA (etc.) is a depressing reminder of how well that often goes.

Instead, I’m interested in passionate defense and proclamation of the faith - not in attacking and criticizing my brothers.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

I was reading some FB comments this week, and I came across this line:

“Why should we (Christians) accept the transgender people if they can’t accept themselves?”

I was furious, since I knew that there were Trans people reading that thread, and started to write a reply but decided to hold off on it. Thank you, CAWatson, for restoring my faith in other believers by writing the following:

“But I think from a level of practical ministry - we need to do more than write. We need to sit down with a transgendered person and explain to them that, in order to get saved, they need to find their identity in Christ instead of a gender (real conversation). We need to sit down with a homosexual college student over dinner at Denney’s, open a Bible, and explain what the Bible really says about sexuality and gender (real conversation), and how that individual can find their satisfaction and joy in Christ instead of in a relationship. “

I needed that piece of encouragement today.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

I’m going to be talking about that very thing in Sunday School this week, as I discuss what it means to be a holy priest for God (cf. 1 Pet 2:9-10)!

CAWatson - I think you’re on the right track. I agree. I’m in Olympia, where liberalism knows no bounds. This is good stuff.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Tyler,

Tiny town in West-Central Minnesota here. If you are ever passing between Minneapolis and Fargo, stop on by. We are only 20 miles off the highway.

From my observation Tyler IS an historic fundamentalist. I am too!

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

I would highly recommend this short booklet from someone who was heavily involved in the new evangelical movement and was delivered from it. It is published in its entirety in its entirety in 3 installments at the site below:

http://www.theprojector.org/Authors/helgerson.c.htm

This man was my pastor from my youth to my late teens. He was a tremendous servant of God who was highly regarded within the New England region back in the day.

First of all, when people pick on EJ Carnell for his death from an overdose of barbiturates prescribed by his doctors, they’re ironically confirming Carnell’s first criticism of the fundamental movement; that many so-called “theological” arguments are really just cleverly disguised (or not disguised at all) personal attacks. I agree 100% with this criticism by Carnell—it creeps up in just about every fundamental venue I’ve ever seen. This has a LOT to do with intellectual stagnation in fundamentalism—way too much reliance on nonsense argumentation techniques, most rooted in the variants of the genetic fallacy.

It’s worth noting as well that picking on him for long-term depression and insomnia is just plain petty. Yes, mental illness is sometimes the result of one’s own sin, but sometimes it’s not, so to simply assume sin goes way beyond the evidence we’ve got here.

Where I disagree with Carnell is in his criticism of dispensationalism as just being “new” without stating why it is wrong. While it’s certainly true that one ought to have very good evidence when one is disagreeing with long-standing intellectual and theological traditions, I simply don’t think he really makes his case.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Thomas Ice did a good journal series about the historic roots on premillennialism. So did a guy at Masters Seminary (not Vlach), but I can’t remember who. My impression of the overall case for premillennialism from these series was that the historical case was weak and fleeting. I suspect Carnell was really arguing against a mania for prophetic speculations from some dispensationalists. That is a valid criticism.

It is also valid to note that covenant theologians often pay little attention to prophesy at all. Look at Hodge’s discussion on eschatology from his systematic (hint - there’s not much there!).

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

As I have stated in other threads, the now-infamous Carnell articles will be followed by some blistering critiques of evangelicals from a well-known and articulate mid-century fundamentalist. The evangelicals will get their turn. You must be patient …

I direct any concerned readers to the recent series of six articles about different perspectives on the text of the NT. Poor Bro. Brandenburg graciously allowed me to post two excerpts from his book, advocating a TR position - even though he knew he’d be eviscerated by critics. I followed that by a MT and then CT perspective. I was fair. I’ll be fair here, too.

We can only present one perspective at a time. I encourage everybody to wait one more week, and then you’ll have your chance to read criticisms about evangelicals.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.