The Roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism)

There is such a thing as a Reformed fundamentalist. There always have been. Reformed folks have never bought into higher life versions of sanctification. This is the trouble with trying to speak in generalizations about a cross-denominational movement. Machen and the men who founded the OPC, Westminster (etc.) certainly would not agree with Keswick sanctification.

It may be better to say that Baptist fundamentalists, being much less confessional in their theology, have tended towards various flavors of higher life sanctification. I have not, but I grew up as a Christian in circles that did. Many Baptist fundamentalists have a Chaferian sanctification (“carnal Christian,” etc).

I don’t think Keswick theology came out of Pentecostalism, although I am not as up on the history of that movement as others. My impression is that Keswick came before Pentecostalism, first of all. The roots of Keswick are revivalism, I’d say. There is a Holiness branch of revivalism (Methodists, Nazarenes, Church of God [Anderson, Indiana] , etc.) I am not sure if it formed a root for Keswick, or not. Holiness definitely was a root of Pentecostalism. Some early Pentecostals came out of the Church of God, for example.

As I read Olson, I would say that Pentecostalism functioned largely outside of Fundamentalism. They were sort of the red-headed step child of conservative Christianity for their first 50 years or so. When the Charismatic movement began to span denominations (late 60s, early 70s), then it became more mainstream and is now a dominant force in evangelicalism.

I’m still not quite finished with Olson’s little book, blogging as I go. I have to say it is fascinating. I have a lot of problems with Olson’s theology, but he is very insightful as a historian. This little book is well worth picking up if you run across it.

In this kind of discussion, one must distinguish what kind of fundamentalism he is claiming! I will agree to the label “fundamentalist” if one is speaking of the original modernist controversies. If you’re referring to the “fundamentalism” that is characterized by separation and suspicion of evangelicals (i.e. Billy Graham onward), then i want no part of it.

Not sure whether Olson makes that distinction. So, in essence, I claim to be an evangelical. They were the same thing before the Billy Graham break, after all.

Yeah I wasn’t really trying to claim a form of fundamentalism merely pointing out that what most people think of when they hear the term (Olson included it sounds like) may have some sanctification parallels with Pentecostalism. I’m with you though. I accept the term when I can define it. Just had lunch with my pastor on Saturday and he asked me to explain what the term means when I used it.

Just sayin’!!!!

Actually, you probably need to read this book. I don’t think you really understand what fundamentalism is.

Olson is pretty clear about what he is: postfundamentalist evangelical. He mentions the term “new evangelical” which is the same thing, but he claims it is a slur cast by fundamentalists. One mistake he makes! It is their own term.

In any case, there is no such thing as a pre-Billy Graham evangelical. Not anymore, and what we have now didn’t exist pre-Billy Graham. You can’t wind the clock back, you have to deal with history as it is.

If you want to define yourself as “not-fundamentalist” but conservative theologically, you are exactly where Olson is. You may not like where fundamentalism is, or you may not like certain segments of fundamentalism, but fundamentalism really didn’t change in the 1950s. The evangelical wing changed. If that’s what you are, that’s fine, but you don’t really get to define the terms.

The fact of a conservative theologian who doesn’t want to be identified as a fundamentalist is pretty well the textbook definition of a post-conservative evangelical. That’s Olson’s point, which will be the subject of an upcoming post at Oxgoad

Thanks for your kind words. You and I understand fundamentalism very differently. Yours is the organization which published the shameful issue of Frontline. Our public correspondence in the aftermath revealed the profound differences in our understandings of the movement. I do not care about the movement as a movement. I believe it is dying and it will continue to die, despite the best efforts of some very good men.

I do respect and care about the ethos that characterized the original fundamentalists before mission drift set in, and they began to be characterized more by opposition to evangelicals who split from them than by intelligent opposition to theological revisionism. I am a Regular Baptist, which (I believe) is a much, much healthier place for a pastor to be.

I have been enjoying your series. I added Olson’s book to my Amazon cart several days ago, when you first mentioned it. Take care.

We don’t get to define things by our own experience. We are not Humpty Dumpty: “a word means what I choose it to mean” (Lewis Carroll - may not be exactly as quoted).

The history is what it is. I think you’ve misunderstood it.

It is interesting to me that those who claim the “original fundamentalists were different” are those sort of within fundamentalism who don’t want to be characterized by fundamentalists they don’t like. Evangelicals see us much differently than that. My view of the history is shaped especially by what they wrote. Olson is providing a theological take in this book. Marsden provides a historical take. Beale and Moritz play the opposite roles from within fundamentalism. It is very interesting to me that all these works tell the same story. The notion that fundamentalism is substantially different between the present and the 1920s (say) is revisionist. At least according to the histories I’ve read on the subject.

Don,

What are your thoughts on the impact that the American holiness movement had on fundamentalist hymns? We of course have Fanny Crosby, but many others are part of our core set of hymns. You have people like William Kirkpatrick who wrote many of our hymns including, Redeemed, He hideth my soul…..

[dgszweda]

Don,

What are your thoughts on the impact that the American holiness movement had on fundamentalist hymns? We of course have Fanny Crosby, but many others are part of our core set of hymns. You have people like William Kirkpatrick who wrote many of our hymns including, Redeemed, He hideth my soul…..

I’m sure there may be something there. I don’t know the background of a lot of hymn writers (and I am sure some would object to the term “hymns” in this context). I’ve always had it in my head that the “old hymns” are mostly the fruit of revivalism, but I honestly don’t know much about this.

I noticed that you stated that, the “Holiness movement had little influence on fundamentalism”. I am not an expert on hymns, I have just noticed, as I came across it over the years, that much of our hymns from the early 1900’s are from songwriters that were in the Holiness movement, or at least sympathetic to the movement. I do not have a good read on this, but have often wondered on this perspective impacted the movement.