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
Chick tracts, KJVO, Dr. Dino, SOTL, “worship wars” over music, anything out of 1st Baptist in Hammond or Fairhaven in Chesterton, various policies out of BJU (e.g. interracial dating), etc..
We might note that other people are similarly guilty of the barrage of genetic fallacies “our tribe” has historically indulged, especially in politics, but the ugly fact of the matter is that “we” are the movement “we” are most interested in, and unfortunately it’s our reputation that we must deal with.
That can start, I believe, with making (see Larry’s comment on the logic thread) logic a required freshman level class at as many Christian colleges and universities as possible, not an optional junior level class that’s not even being taught this year at BJU.
It can continue, really, with simply admitting that yes, “we” have had some problems, and we’re working to correct the situations that led to them. No need to be defensive—we can let the chaff blow away and keep the wheat of our history, no?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Tyler:
As to why I noted Carnell’s death in 1967 at age 47, I think I copied it out of a book on New Evangelicalism I have on a shelf. I repent of the plagiarism. As to why the author of the book put it in there, I presume because it was part of a long list of events within the New Evangelical-Fundamentalist controversy (1942-2003) that also recorded several other deaths and their ages at demise. I should remember to find out if the author had some dark, occult, nefarious motive in listing the deaths and the expiration dates thereof, especially Carnell’s. Stay tuned. Thanks for Olson’s article.
PS: I could give some historical back ground and reasons for the New Evangelicalism’s virulent antipathy to dispensationalism. Maybe I will if I ever feel led to do so.
Rolland McCune
Evangelicalism is much more multi-faceted than fundamentalism. There are clear excesses, errors and mistakes; indeed, an entire philosophy, that is unhelpful there and should be avoided. These are well-known and have been pointed out by many people, including fundamentalists and evangelicals. More on these dangers in the next few weeks, from Theology Thursday.
But, introspection is good. Is there a point to running Carnell’s critique? Some claim there is no point. I think there is, and I am convinced that criticisms Carnell levels are worth considering. I know some disagree, and object that Carnell’s three critiques from this piece (a cultic mentality, intellectual stagnation, aand an overemphasis on dispensationalism) have nothing to do with their experience in fundametnalism. I was surprised to hear that, but I suspect that is a minority experience.
We ought not assume introspective criticism is bad, and dismiss Carnell. i thionk the best critiques sometimes come from far outside ourown orbit. Often these same people see things much clearer than we do. Of course, Carnell had issues. We all do. His criticism sdeserve to be considered.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Bert Perry]It can continue, really, with simply admitting that yes, “we” have had some problems, and we’re working to correct the situations that led to them. No need to be defensive—we can let the chaff blow away and keep the wheat of our history, no?
Bert, as someone who has actually attended BJU, and has interacted with it in close-up fashion in the last few years (by virtue of knowing some of the faculty, having had a couple kids attend there, and still going there for some events), I can tell you that in spite of what happened in the past, this is an institution that is attempting to do exactly what you write here.
No doubt, a lot of what happened there while I was there in the 80’s would be things I don’t agree with, both in things said from the pulpit as well as rules, philosophy, etc. There were also a number of faculty and staff that had too much of a “gotcha” and adversarial relationship with the students. HOWEVER, there were also quite a number of faculty and staff that were NOT that way, were truly trying to have a godly influence on the students, and they did greatly influence me, and made my overall experience (looking back) a good one vs. a bad one.
More recently, starting under Stephen Jones, but continuing under Steve Pettit, the university has gone a long way to apologize for past failures, change policies to better reflect biblical principles, and overall be the kind of institution it was originally envisioned to be. It’s not perfect, and it may still have some changing to do, but deaf to constructive criticism it isn’t. Steve Pettit himself has held a number of QA sessions with alumni, parents of students/prospective students, and has been quite open and approachable, something that was a bit lacking in the past.
Also, there are indeed plenty of us who attend healthy, fundamental (but not as a primary identity) churches. My church is pastored by a a man who, though certainly through his lineage came through some of the unhealthy times and examples of fundamentalism (3rd generation child of BJU faculty), is looking to walk the line you are referring to. In many ways, he would be a “historical” fundamentalist, but it doesn’t bother him at all to read, attend conferences with, and quote in sermons many of the men who would now be considered conservative evangelical. In other words, he knows that movement fundamentalism is not the source of all truth. In fact, every year since he’s been the pastor, he takes a group of our members to Southeastern seminary for the 9Marks conference each year.
I don’t know the types of fundamentalists you interact with, but there are quite a number now who admit the mistakes of the past, and don’t fit the Carnell caricature. I’ve had my interaction with a number of those in the past, but even in the years since SI has been around (since 2005), it’s been pretty easy to find fundamental churches that are healthy and are not only willing to take criticism, but act on it as well. In fact, I’d venture to say that very few of the regulars here would attend the type of church that is completely resistant to self-examination.
Dave Barnhart
…just as I was to see people reporting actually studying logic in that thread. My experience is mostly, like yours, in the better regions of fundamentalism, with one exception of a “closet” KJVO church. That noted, what I see when I scratch the surface even in “my” current camp is that you’ll find hints of the old fundamentalism in a lot of weird places.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[TylerR]Nobody in this thread has done this - they simply dismiss Carnell because of who he was. That is troubling to me.
Tyler - I attempted to at least give a brief answer to the “intellectual stagnation” argument. I wouldn’t say “nobody.” If I can speak frankly, you are seeing people who disagree with the criticisms as unwilling to hear the criticisms. Most of us are looking around saying, “we hear you, but we don’t see what you are talking about.”
Instead of arguing that we ought to look at the criticisms seriously - why don’t you look at the criticisms seriously and give concrete examples of where you see these criticisms apply.
I was in seminary at BJU in the early 80’s and had done my undergrad at a state university. A professor evidently saw that I, as an older student, had some questions about what I was seeing and hearing. He took me in his office and used this illustration: “This place is like a lumber yard where you buy wood to build your house. You are not obligated to use every board they send you. If you do, you’ll have a monstrosity. Some of the boards you get will need to be cut and planed….do that with discernment and build your own house. And IF, and I say IF, they send you boards that are useless, send them back and demand replacements or take your business somewhere else.”
The last sentence was somewhat prophetic when he resigned his long time professorship over the slander of John MacArthur. He went on to finish a 50 years teaching career at Master’s where they named a residence hall after him.
I’m thankful for the “boards” I got at BJU and I am even more thankful at the changes that have taken place that I see when I walk on campus.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[TylerR]
- 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.
Tyler,
Most fundamentalist scholars haven’t had the time or resources to write/publish. I’ve known professors who were teaching 16+ credits per semester in Bible college. Those men don’t have time to write well. Writing takes leisure, and costs money to publish. It doesn’t mean they are intellectually stagnant, it simply means that the movement was too small and fragmented or lacked the resources to offer sabbaticals, or to have enough professors to teach different classes.
A few things:
- If you’ve never experienced the kind of fundamentalism that I’m speaking against (that is, you’ve not witnessed persistent problems with [1] intellectual stagnation, [2] a cultic mentality, or [3] an overemphasis on dispensationalism), then you’re not my audience, and count yourself particularly blessed. Honestly.
- About the general lack of published works. BJU Press has some very good stuff, and some wonderful authors. The rest of fundamentalism has produced very little. I’m not simply referring to “scholarly” works, but to relevant topics (e.g. Matthew Vines, new atheists, transgender issues, gay marriage). I’m not referring to Frontline or Baptist Bulletin articles - I’m referring to book-length treatment to militantly combat error. What we do have is a lot of books about separation. The appeal to being “busy” is meaningless to me. Of course we’re all busy. It’s not gonna change. Not convinced that is a valid excuse. I’ve heard it often. I’m not simply referring to “scholars;” I’m talking about fundamentalist leaders in general.
If fundamentalists pride ourselves on being a pure movement concerned with orthodoxy and doctrine, out of love for Christ and His church, then why has our movement produced so little substantive work? I contend one reason is because the larger forces, organizations and personalities in our movement have spent too much energy pursuing unfruitful matters.
Let me mention again, BJU Press is one shining example of some real good work from some good people. So is Regular Baptist Press, though their non-curriculum offerings are rather slim, they have good stuff. But, proportionally, we haven’t done much as a movement:
- Where are the exegetical commentaries?
- Where is the substantive theology texts?
- Where are the timely, relevant book-length treatments on cultural issues?
- Where are the scholarly responses to pressing scholarly issues?
By and large, conservative evangelicals have the corner on all this. With respect to combating theological compromise and heresy, they’re often the fundamentalists. There are plenty of younger fundamentalists with solid theological training, who can write. We can do better. I’m personally writing a catechism from the 1833 NHCF, and doing my own translation and exegesis of 1 Peter. I have no idea if these will ever see the light of day - but I’m plugging away at some stuff.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’ve known professors who were teaching 16+ credits per semester in Bible college. Those men don’t have time to write well. Writing takes leisure, and costs money to publish. It doesn’t mean they are intellectually stagnant, it simply means that the movement was too small and fragmented or lacked the resources to offer sabbaticals, or to have enough professors to teach different classes.
Don’t you get what you value?
I understand that there are classes to teach and ministers to train, but at some point we have to stop being penny-wise and pound-foolish. One good commentary may be worth a dozen seminary classes, since the commentary will last and have broader reach than even a hundred seminarians.
And if we are too small and too fragmented - then maybe we need to take a hard look at ourselves and what we’re doing. But again, there doesn’t seem to be much interest in that.
"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
[CAWatson]TylerR wrote:
Tyler,
Most fundamentalist scholars haven't had the time or resources to write/publish. I've known professors who were teaching 16+ credits per semester in Bible college. Those men don't have time to write well. Writing takes leisure, and costs money to publish. It doesn't mean they are intellectually stagnant, it simply means that the movement was too small and fragmented or lacked the resources to offer sabbaticals, or to have enough professors to teach different classes.
OK, let's walk through this. I know from experience what happens with overwork; the important things don't get done, but rather just the urgent. In this case, what's important is
- Creating an intellectual foundation and infrastructure for fundamentalism
- Training new fundamental scholars (masters’ / doctorate)
- Training new professors to teach young fundamentalists
In a nutshell, our system sets up a vicious cycle—we preclude intellectual endeavors by the schedule and then wonder why our professors and leaders aren’t intellectuals—and then we wonder why we get a reputation for anti-intellectualism. As Deming said, “Your system is perfectly designed to give you exactly the results you’re getting.” It’s the college/university equivalent of telling a pastor he’s got to teach/preach four times a week, and then wondering why he’s not doing so hot at making disciples.
Thankfully it’s changing to a degree with accreditation, genuine doctoral programs at BJU/Maranatha/elsewhere, and Dr. Bauder’s position as more of a scholar, but there’s a real question of whether it’s going to be too little, too late. It’s worth noting that even in the evangelical/Reformed world, Doug Wilson is seeking to accelerate the process of recovering intellectual credibility by walking students through a real liberal arts education at New Saint Andrews.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Ron Bean]I was in seminary at BJU in the early 80’s and had done my undergrad at a state university. A professor evidently saw that I, as an older student, had some questions about what I was seeing and hearing. He took me in his office and used this illustration: “This place is like a lumber yard where you buy wood to build your house. You are not obligated to use every board they send you. If you do, you’ll have a monstrosity. Some of the boards you get will need to be cut and planed….do that with discernment and build your own house. And IF, and I say IF, they send you boards that are useless, send them back and demand replacements or take your business somewhere else.”
The last sentence was somewhat prophetic when he resigned his long time professorship over the slander of John MacArthur. He went on to finish a 50 years teaching career at Master’s where they named a residence hall after him.
I’m thankful for the “boards” I got at BJU and I am even more thankful at the changes that have taken place that I see when I walk on campus.
I can’t help but wondering if the reference was to Dr. Smith with this white-hair mane (I still imitate the hand movement to this day although I’m bald). An outstanding professor who never seemed to quite fit in. My first Bible class at BJ was with him, NT Survey.
Tyler quotes Carnell about the overemphasis on Dispensationalism at he time Carnell wrote. I’m not sure when that overemphasis happened in Fundamentalism. In my 4 years at BJ I don’t remember being taught Dispensationlism. I did not leave there a dispensationalist. That did not happen until I attended an IFB seminary and I began moving away after attending RTS. In my experience the overemphasis was in IFB Fundamentalism which became the prominent stream in the movement. Looking back I think BJ was much more balanced in some areas since they were not beholden to IFB. If I remember right one of my favorite professors, Mr. Jesse Boyd, seemed closer to CT in some ways. I also believe he held to the Genesis Gap Theory. At least that’s the impression I have now from classes I took with him. In any case, Dispensationalism was not essential to BJ interdenominational Fundamentalism at the time. Neither was Young Earth Creationism. That may’ve changed as IFB became dominant in the student body later on. BJ majored on the fundamentals of the faith. I think BJ had it right and IFB had it wrong, not in believing what they did, but in the overemphasis. It’s really strange that I sense more kinship with BJ past than with IFB present in those areas.
…is that yes, it was C.W. Smith. Here’s the dorm at Master’s University named after him. Co-ed, even.
Regarding dispensationalism, I can’t affirm Carnell’s critique, but I have seen a huge number of prophecy charts, “Left Behind” books and videos, and even John Hagee’s stuff in some volume. So one could be forgiven for thinking that a fairly extreme version of dispensationalism was one of the five fundamentals when one looks in a lot of church libraries and the bookshelves of fellow Baptistic believers. But again, not what Carnell said in this bit of his book.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Yes, it was Dr. Charles Smith. He gave the Commencement adress at Master’s in 2002, shortly before he died. It’s worth a listen.
http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2002/Spring-‘02/20020512-CWSmith-mp3
“Before he retired but after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he gave the 2002 Commencement Address with the memorable line “These are the things for the past 50 years I’ve tried to give my students to teach them how to live…and now it is time to teach you how to die.” He dedicated 50 years of his life to educating Christian young people, 35 years at Bob Jones University and the last 15 years at The Master’s University.”
BTW, it is my understanding that BJU asked Dr. Smith to write a systematic theology that they could publish but it kept getting kicked back because it was too Calvinistic in soteriology and not dogmatic enough on a pre-millenial pre-tribulational eschatology.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
In this case, what’s important is
- Creating an intellectual foundation and infrastructure for fundamentalism
- Training new fundamental scholars (masters’ / doctorate)
- Training new professors to teach young fundamentalists
Who decided this was important? And what Scripture is this based on?
Discussion