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
One good commentary may be worth a dozen seminary classes, since the commentary will last and have broader reach than even a hundred seminarians.
I think this underestimates the power of life on life teaching and discipleship. A book won’t sit and cry with you. It won’t call you on the phone or take your calls. It won’t laugh when you laugh. Commentaries are good, but they are of limited use. Future pastors are made by pastors and churches, not by books. Few people look back and say the greatest influence on their life was a book. In almost all cases, it is a person.
That’s not to underestimate the power of books. They are good and helpful. And surely more could be done to publish books, but remember publishing is a business. It takes buyers to publish books. So it’s not as easy as simply writing, even writing well. It takes more.
I have posted here before about why Fundamentalists historically did not publish more academic works - a lot of it had to do with a priority about writing Christian school textbooks, which I think is ingenious. Those who would normally write for a wider audience were busy providing books for schools. Now that the foundation is laid for that, other opportunities are open.
I had Dr. Charles Smith for at least 3 classes: NT Survey, Romans, Matthew in Greek. He could quote Dana & Mantey by page number. Very good teacher & preacher. Learned a lot from him. However, the reasons posted here for his leaving BJU are not entirely correct. There was more involved than what has been mentioned. Even when at Masters College, he never finished his systematic theology book, so I doubt the “Calvinist” reason given here is the real reason.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[Larry]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?
I’d argue that God decided this when He told Paul to tell Timothy to put elders in place, and when Paul told Timothy to continue following his example. For that matter, the very relationships between Christ and the apostles, and between the apostles and the early pastors, seem to resemble (in my view) little so much as the relationships between masters, journeymen, and apprentices. The goal in this process is to create those with mastery, those who are capable of working independently and training others to do the same, which is of course exactly what Paul says about the matter, and quite frankly is about what Jesus says in Matthew 28.
Now when we put that in light of 66 books of Scripture, some appearing to say things at least differently than others—e.g. James 2:14-16 vs. Ephesians 2:8-9—and in light of the fact that few of us are native speakers of koine Greek or classical Hebrew, let along Aramaic—and in light of the fact that we’ve got 20 centuries of commentary on these books, you have a situation that is tailor made to be addressed in something that at least resembles an academic setting. This is especially the case when we consider that we Baptistic fundamentalists are separating from the “main stream” of Christian thought regarding ordinances/sacraments, the priority of tradition, and the like. We simply can’t afford to let John MacArthur and John Piper do all the work in this area, and we’ve learned the hard way what happens when a significant portion of us let John R. Rice, Jack Hyles, or Curtis Hutson do this work.
For that matter, we might even argue that Paul himself appears to have been taken out of day by day pastoral ministry for the express purpose of giving him a lot of time thinking things through and writing. It’s not said explicitly in Scripture, but that is about what happened, no?
More or less, my take is that a few years of Bible college, especially one where the smarter students note that they’re being taught what to think instead of how to think (a friend of mine’s comment about Moody), does not match what Paul and Christ are telling us to to in Scripture.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I think BJU has done a great job with their publishing work. Very, very good stuff. Peter Steveson’s commentaries are very good, especially Daniel. They have lots of good stuff. I plan on grabbing Steveson’s book on evangelism soon.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Bert Perry] 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.
The system is broke, I agree. There are few PhD programs left within Fundamentalism (although we don’t really need PhD programs in fundamentalism itself). Central’s program is being phased out (I’ll likely be the last to graduate, if I finish the dissertation). DMin programs abound, but the DMin isn’t a scholar’s program - it’s a professional degree (research and professional degrees are recognized in the academic world as different). BJ and Piedmont’s PhDs are built on an MA, not an MDiv (the MA/PhD is the credit equivalent of a seminary MDiv, i.e. 90 credits„ as opposed to an PhD of 60 credits built on an MDiv of 90+ credits). If we want an intellectually solid fundamentalism it isn’t going to happen on the institutional level without a solid influx of capital. Bauder is an exception to the rule, but the seminaries still aren’t giving sabbaticals to their professors. And for the guys who have finished or are finishing their PhDs, there are few if any teaching/research positions available within the fundamentalist institutions. So they are relegated to working IT in the local community college system, selling curricula, making videos or writing for Logos, finding a job in one of the publishing houses, working in a factory, or delivering packages (all real individuals with PhDs or finishing PhDs). Got any rich friends that would be willing to put up money for research chairs in the various institutions?
If the church I’m pastoring ever gets a budget large enough for a second man, I would like to hire a scholar-in-residence (I’ve already told this to my people). Give him adult Sunday School, a small research budget, and let him read, research, write, and publish.
He states his reason for leaving BJU in his commencement address and I choose to take him at his word. I realize that rumors and hearsay exist, but his own words are enough for me. As to the systematic theology, his work was done on the university’s “dime” and therefore it was their property and he couldn’t take it with him.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I would add to that, that for students going into a PhD program, it would be good to offer the best, most promising students tuition and living stipends. I know some students who would be fantastic scholars, but as married parents with two children, they find themselves needing to work rather than do research. Had such funding been available when I started my program, I would have finished a long time ago. But when working 2+ jobs, it is difficult to take a full load, as well as have time to do quality research.
[Ron Bean]He states his reason for leaving BJU in his commencement address and I choose to take him at his word. I realize that rumors and hearsay exist, but his own words are enough for me. As to the systematic theology, his work was done on the university’s “dime” and therefore it was their property and he couldn’t take it with him.
I listened to that message a few years ago. Dr. Smith was a favorite when I was in school at BJU, very much enjoyed his teaching. Thought his exit address at Masters tarnished his image, however. What did his BJU experience contribute to those graduating from Masters? Why bring it up? Seemed kind of classless and bitter to me. After all those years, he should have just let it go.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
It sounds like you’ve been reading The Pastor Theologian … :)
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I read it earlier in the year. I would like to make it to their conference this year in October (on the creation account - I don’t think there are any young-earth conservatives actually speaking there - it would be interesting) if I can afford to go. My church clerk is a former member of the church, and has several connections where I might be able to get free housing. Although my wife just got a job with Americorp (teaching reading) in order to get to know people within the local school, so that complicates things as well.
Don, first of all, perhaps C.W. should have dropped the issue when BJU apologized for the slander, but to my knowledge, no apology has been issued. Therefore Smith was just as free to comment on the matter as Paul was to mention Alexander the Coppersmith, and just as free as John was to mention Diotrephes by name. No?
And the simple fact of the matter is that Paul and John did mention these men by name. We therefore cannot assume that it is Biblical to hold back on these things when no apology has been issued. There are a lot of people who suffered the same fate in the Scriptures—of being remembered for grievous sins. Would we tell the Holy Spirit to “let it go”, or does He have a reason for letting us know this?
Second of all, it’s not as if astute graduates of TMU were unaware of why C.W. Smith came there, and moreover what he went through has a lot of life lessons for any believer. There are simply some times when respected institutions mess up so badly that it is imperative to leave them, and it’s important to let young people know that it’s OK to do this. Smith did this admirably, in my view. Too much damage has been done when fundamental (and other) institutions “close ranks” and “circle the wagons” instead of taking action.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Dr. Smith was an excellent teacher, and I admired him in many ways. Not finishing the systematic theology had nothing to do with BJU “owning” the material. I asked an administrator at TMS about it - he said Dr. Smith never finished it. Had nothing to do with BJU. Again, there were other reasons than posted here about why he left BJU. But, hey guys, the man is with the Lord now. The end.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Does anyone know how busy the writers “on the other side” are compared to fundamentalists?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I think they’re just as busy.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Ron: It’s hard to gauge the load on professors from aggregate stats, but just for kicks, you could take a look at evangelical schools vs. fundamental on U.S. News. I checked out Faith, Maranatha, BJU, Cedarville, Taylor, and Trinity, and I’m not seeing any obvious discrepancies except that as a rule, the fundamental schools are cheaper. One thing you’ll notice is the relative youth of both groups of schools, so both sides of the divide are learning the ropes of higher education at about the same time, the evangelicals perhaps with a little head start in terms of time and attitude.
Speaking of attitude, a number of comments here confirm this is part of the issue. Not trying to “pick on” anyone here, but if we prioritize school textbooks (e.g. a beka) over systematics, and even wonder why it’s important to do them, we’re going to have trouble sustaining ourselves.
It’s like a place where I used to work that prioritized daily shipments over warranty work and ISO to the point that engineers were painting and deburring parts, and then they wondered why customers rated them just about last in the industry. At a certain point, you’ve got to do what’s important (ISO, quality, systematics) and then weigh the urgent in the light of what you’ve learned.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion