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.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 137 views
[TylerR]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!).
For a better researched approach, see William Watson (no relation as far as I know):
https://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Before-Darby-William-Watson/dp…
Thanks. I appreciate it.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
It’s now been over 50 years since New Evangelicalism burst on the ecclesiastical scene.
When you consider all the books that have been published, the articles written, the sermons preached and the time available to consider the history and results of the movement, it’s hardly a “rush to judgement” to evaluate all that against how God says we should respond to such a philosophy of ministry.
I’m against hyper-dispensationalism (btw, it’s overly charitable to claim that this is what Carnell had in mind - he had the entire system in mind not just extremes) and intellectual stagnation, but that’s not really Carnell’s primary target. His target is any fundamentalism that says you ought to separate from modernism and unbelief. That’s not “far right fundamentalism” that’s basic Bible teaching.
On a side note, and this is off-topic, but I’m not sure about the soteriology of the Eastern Orthodox. I admit I don’t know much about them but my family has been exposed a bit this past year due to a home school group that included some Eastern Orthodox teens. My teen daughter spent some time trying to figure out what they believe and if they are truly saved. She never got a good response from her friend regarding repentance or faith alone in Christ for salvation. I would be happy to hear what others have to say regarding this issue.
Really, after over half a century of < 2% retention rates from his crusades, I think it’s safe to say that Graham’s evangelism model is flashy, but not effective. Now “my tribe” has some soul searching to do on how we do things as well, but I think it’s safe to assume that downplaying all theology, even some theology just about any evangelical will concede is heretical, is a model that doesn’t work.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[CAWatson]TylerR wrote:
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!).
For a better researched approach, see William Watson (no relation as far as I know):
https://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Before-Darby-William-Watson/dp/…
I noticed this book last week by way of a blog by William Barrick, a semi-retired OT professor from Master’s seminary. He has a brief review here.
I was looking at the kindle edition here, and noticed you could download a free sample. I am not quite sure how long the sample is, at least the first two chapters. I am about halfway through the second chapter. The book looks very good, thorougly researched and copiously footnoted. It would be nice if Michael Vlach might comment on it, or maybe we could appeal to Paul Hennebury. In any case, I think the book serves as a useful resource and demolishes the idea that dispensationalism (or at least its main ideas) are recent developments.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thanks for the additional endorsement. I’ll take a look at it. Of course, historical pedigree doesn’t necessarily equal unorthodoxy. Eschatology wasn’t systematized for a long time - people were busy with other things, like soteriology and ecclesiology! I think Hodge makes that point in his systematic.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Thanks for the additional endorsement. I’ll take a look at it. Of course, historical pedigree doesn’t necessarily equal unorthodoxy. Eschatology wasn’t systematized for a long time - people were busy with other things, like soteriology and ecclesiology! I think Hodge makes that point in his systematic.
I think the point of this book is to catalog the teachings, not to vouch for the orthodoxy. Some of the men cited were clearly wacko in other ways. However, there are a number of them who were not. The main point is this: these doctrines were taught, going back to the very beginning of the church, and certainly in the reformation/puritan period, well before Darby. BTW, he links the rise of amillennialism and assorted hermeneutical aberrancies with the rise of the Catholic church. He quote Augustine as having once held premillennial views, but having changed later on, to amillennialism. Also cites the availability of the Bible in the vernacular (Geneva Bible, KJV) as a major factor in the recovery of distinctions between Israel and the church, belief in an eventual conversion of the Jewish nation, the restoration of Israel to the land, etc. I think these are all good points.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
E. J. CARNELL REVISITED
Historical events and accompanying documents have a habit of intruding themselves into a present discussion. I, among others here, have the feeling in reading through this blog that the Fundamentalism that Carnell criticized is not what we saw, read about and knew back in the 1950s and ’60s. I will sketch some details.
The New Evangelical formation began as a visible reality in the early 1940s, and began to slide into irrelevancy with its internal doctrinal upheavals within two decades. Some of the movement’s leading lights expressed alarm at the denial of verbal inspiration/inerrancy in the later 1950s. This was abetted by other deviations concerning the lostness of the heathen, eternal punishment, the omniscience of God, relationships with Roman Catholicism, trends toward neo-orthodoxy, et al. In the later 1970s some of the founders of the New Evangelicalism concluded that their original hopes and plans for the movement had failed. E.g., its flagship school, Fuller Theological Seminary, had become a prodigal son in a far country. One of the thinkers in the vanguard of this New Evangelical deterioration was Edward John Carnell. His major contribution thereof was The Case for Orthodox Theology (Westminster Press, 1959). His book was part of a triology by Westminster: The Case for Theology in Liberal Perspective by L. Harold DeWolf and The Case for A New Reformation Theology by William Hordern.
Carnell was a New Evangelical thoroughbred who exhibited some of its worst problems. To call him a “conservative evangelical” is highly anachronistic in view of present day nomenclature. Similarly, the historical atmosphere of the Fundamentalist-New Evangelical controversy of the 1950s was much different than the milieu today so that invoking Carnell’s anti-Fundamentalist rhetoric isn’t very helpful sixty years later. The Fundamentalism then was not nearly as darksome as those accused today; it wasn’t even what Carnell said it was back then. Did any of his accusations have some kind of a historic context? Yes, of course. No one ever accused him of being a pathological liar. Did the incidents occur as he stated them. No, of course not. His descriptions were literary hyperbolical exaggerations at best, as nonsensical as they may appear. A few of the incidents he cited may have occurred in some basically isolated circumstances.
Carnell’s Case book was not well-received (putting it mildly) among some of his New Evangelical and Fundamentalist contemporaries. This was mainly because of his refusal to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and his elevation of Galatians and [chiefly] Romans over the Chronicler in trustworthiness. The book was very controversial so that a roundtable discussion was held at Wheaton College in December 1959 to discuss the book and the aberrant bibliology it promoted. The panel consisted of George E. Ladd (Fuller Seminary), Arthur Holmes, Robert D. Culver, Samuel J. Shultz (Wheaton College) and John C. Whitcomb (Grace Seminary), all respectable scholars. The Grace faculty also had its own evaluation session in December 1959 and concluded that Carnell’s Case book was “inadequate and disappointing.” Scholarly negative reviews were written by Robert E. Nicholas in the Westminster Theological Journal, J. Oliver Buswell in the Bible Presbyterian Reporter and John F. Walvoord in the Moody Monthly—all likewise respectable scholars in trusted publications. Cornelius Van Til was so displeased with the Case book that he wrote a book in response entitled The Case for Calvinism. Even non-evangelical scholars (Liberal, Neo-Orthodox) noted these deviations from orthodox theology, scholars such as L. Harold DeWolf, William Hordern, John B. Cobb, Jr). Carnell’s intemperate, caustic sallies against Fundamentalists were horribly inappropriate if not incendiary. At one point he ridiculed Fundamentalists’ lack of social concern (I think it was) because “they were too busy painting ‘Jesus Saves’ on rocks in public parks.” I don’t think he apologized for or rescinded any of this kind of extreme animosity. Such language doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion; it is simply unacceptable. As far as I know he carried this bitterness to his grave. He died in 1967 at age forty-seven. Edward John Carnell is nothing but a broken reed for use in current anti-Fundamentalist prescriptions.
In that light, I propose that a public apology and retraction be extended to the ACCC for the recent bellicose broadside against it on SI. It slanders its current Executive Secretary, Pastor Dan Greenfield, its former Executive Secretary, Dr. Ralph Colas, who had served for decades, and the many Fundamentalist pastors, missionaries and Christian workers who have held the line against unbelief and compromise since its inception in 1941. Like any organization, it probably has had more than its share of problems, but is still undeserving of an essential tirade against it.
Rolland McCune
Dr. McCune:
I edited the comment you referred to and inserted this at the top:
Note: I edited this comment to remove some of the more unfortunate, caustic comments I originally included. They weren’t constructure, or fair to the men who labor at the ACCC and I apologize. I still firmly believe a myopic focus against conservative evangelicals (typified by this resolution) is wrongheaded and misguided. I apologize for the tone of my previous comments, not the substance of my objections.
I stand by my objections. I think the tendency from some fundamentalists (and some fundamentalist organizations) to focus relentlessly on the perceived errors and excesses of conservative evangelicals is misguided, misdirected, myopic, shortsighted, often petty and unproductive. Fundamentalist individuals, institutions and organizations have more worthy enemies to combat. The present state of the ACCC and the FBFI is, I believe, partly due to this misguided and short-sighted approach.
You wrote:
Edward John Carnell is nothing but a broken reed for use in current anti-Fundamentalist prescriptions.
You seem to assume I chose Carnell out of some sort of malicious glee. If true, that assumption is incorrect. Roger Olson mentioned him as influential in shaping his own thinking on fundamentalism. There are undoubtedly other scholars who were just as influenced. You wrote:
The Fundamentalism then was not nearly as darksome as those accused today; it wasn’t even what Carnell said it was back then. Did any of his accusations have some kind of a historic context? Yes, of course. No one ever accused him of being a pathological liar. Did the incidents occur as he stated them. No, of course not. His descriptions were literary hyperbolical exaggerations at best, as nonsensical as they may appear. A few of the incidents he cited may have occurred in some basically isolated circumstances.
In this excerpt, Carnell mentions (1) an intellectual stagnation, (2) an imbalance resulting from dispensationalism, and (3) a mentality that is cultic. These are worthy of discussion (pro and con). You don’t discuss them; you just deny them by claiming Carnell painted an inaccurate picture. Your personal feelings about Carnell are irrelevant. I contend your objections to Carnell (and similar objections by others here) are largely reactionary. You don’t like his tone, so you dismiss him and mention his age at death, as though that is relevant. That is illogical and unkind, not to mention irrelevant to the critique he makes.
If you wish to discredit Carnell, you do yourself a disservice by mentioning the manner of (my apologies, you simply mentioned his age) his death. The man was clearly troubled. That is not cause for scornful glee, which is what some fundamentallists seem to have. I am disturbed by how many fundamentalists keep mentioning the manner of his death, or the fact of it. Morbid.
Please engage his critiques. They’re there. They’ll still be there.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]You seem to assume I chose Carnell out of some sort of malicious glee. If true, that assumption is incorrect. Roger Olson mentioned him as influential in shaping his own thinking on fundamentalism. There are undoubtedly other scholars who were just as influenced. Your personal feelings about Carnell are irrelevant. I contend your objections to Carnell (and similar objections by others here) are reactionary. You don’t like his tone, so you dismiss him and toss in a few choice facts about the circumstances of his death. That is illogical and unkind, not to mention irrelevant to the critique he makes.
If you wish to discredit Carnell, you do yourself a disservice by mentioning the manner of his death. The man was clearly troubled. That is not cause for scornful glee. I am disturbed by how many fundamentalists keep mentioning the manner of his death. Morbid.
Please engage his critiques. They’re there. They’ll still be there.
Dr. McCune didn’t mention the manner of his death, simply noting his age at death. You are reading what you want to see into his comments.
Dr. McCune isn’t arguing on his “feelings”, but citing the observations of contemporaries. Carnell was widely seen to have serious doctrinal flaws. His critique can’t be taken seriously. Roger Olsen’s comments say more about his prejudices than they do about Carnell’s credibility, he is often much more careful than that in his examinations of historical theology.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
You wrote:
Carnell was widely seen to have serious doctrinal flaws. His critique can’t be taken seriously.
I’m disappointed, Don. There is no (1) intellectual stagnation, (2) overemphasis on dispensationalism, or (3) cultic mentality among fundamentalists today? These aren’t dangers we should watch out for in our own personal and ecclesiastical lives?
If we took the “he’s off the reservation, so what he says is irrelevant approach,” then I suppose we wouldn’t need to engage Matthew Vines or Bart Ehrman, right? That sounds like intellectual stagnation and a cultic mentality.
I know you’re a reader, Don. I saw your recent post about how you appreciated Manchester’s (i.e. Reid’s) third volume of his trilogy on Churchill. I liked it, too! You’re an educated and engaged guy. You know you ought not discount a man because he’s allegedly “off the reservation,” and invalidate his criticisms wholesale. The criticisms deserve to be examined. Nobody in this thread has done this - they simply dismiss Carnell because of who he was. That is troubling to me.
Come now, Don - let’s be honest with ourselves … :)
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
See this new article from Roger Olson: If fundamentalism tends to be rigid, dogmatic, contrarian, separatist, liberal Christianity tends to be shallow, insipid, plastic, and fuzzy.
Please comment here.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
TYLER
Thanks for the reply. A few things in response. One: I did not say that you personally chose Carnell’s chapter out of “malicious glee.” I don’t know what your ultimate intent was, nor Olson’s for that matter. To me the imposition of the Case book 60 years after the fact is anachronistic whoever appeals to it. Carnell’s was not a factual description of the Fundamentalist atmosphere in the 1950’s as some of those of us who lived through it recall it. The Case chapter comes across as childish peeves unworthy of a scholar with advanced degrees from Harvard and Boston U. Two: I was thinking mainly of the respondents who were favorable to Carnell being introduced as valid evidence of the hopelessness of Fundamentalism in 2017. It is a 60 year old piece of irrelevance in that regard. Three: Tyler, I challenge you to find ONE SPECK of evidence that I mentioned or alluded to Carnell’s personal life or health. Four: As far as “engaging [Carnell’s] critiques,” I have done that in numerous ways over the decades, and scores of others far greater than I have done so since 1959. I mentioned a few in the article. As Casey Stengel would say, “You can look it up!”
Sorry, I forgot to thank you for at least apologising to the ACCC.
Rolland McCune
Dr. McCune:
- You mentioned that he carried his bitterness to the grave, died at 47, and was a broken reed. I wrongly assumed you were alluding to the manner and circumstances of his unfortunate death. My apologies. Why did you mention that he died at 47, and carried bitterness to the grave?
- Some think fundamentalism is a hopeless approach and philosophy to ministry. I disagree. My critiques are about what I consider to be a misguided, unhealthy and unproductive fixation with criticizing conservative evangelicals, to the detriment of other worthy causes. The fact that your own systematic theology is such a watershed moment in Baptist fundamentalism is proof of the general theological drought (i.e. intellectual stagnation … ?) our movement has been suffering for some time.
- You have indeed written your perspective and critiques about fundamentalism. I wish more people would read them and think about their implications.
In one article, you wrote:
Historically, fundamentalists have held to a certain core of biblical teaching, mainly concerning Christ and the Scriptures, with the added doctrinal distinctive of ecclesiastical separation. These, coupled with the practical distinctive of militancy, have formed the essence of fundamentalism as a movement.
Amen to that. My chief criticism is that some strands of fundamentalism (and, clearly, this is not a monolithic movement - see the various taxonomy charts floating around) prefer to be militant towards conservative evangelicals, instead of the real enemies of the faith. That is, there is a cultic mentality, an intellectual stagnation and dispensationalism often acts as a defacto umbrella for general inclusion (i.e. “if you’re not a dispensationalist, you’re not a fundamentalist”). So-called “historic fundamentalism” is often cast out in favor of “Baptist fundamentalism.”
In other words, the essence of Carnell’s criticisms (at least, from this excerpt - above) are still valid in many strands of modern fundamentalism, particularly Baptist fundamentalism.
P.S. Dr. McCune, I think you’d like Olson’s latest article about “liberal Christianity.”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion