The Roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism)

Fundamentalism is not a monolithic movement. Baptists often, perhaps unconsciously, try to “own” the movement. They do not. When you think about holiness theology and its influence on fundamentalism, you inevitably have to consider, “well, it depends on which flavor of fundamentalism you’re talking about!” You also have to consider that many conservative theologians and movements today that fight against liberalism and revisionism perpetuate the ethos of the movement, but would never “self-identify” with the movement today because of its unfortunate excesses over the past 70 years.

Just as there is a spectrum of evangelicalism (and a nifty book about the subject), there is also a spectrum of fundamentalism.

Tyler wrote:

Fundamentalism is not a monolithic movement. Baptists often, perhaps unconsciously, try to “own” the movement. They do not.

TYLER: Some truth in those words. I have known my share of independent Baptists who don’t consider IFCA, Grace Brethren, and sometimes even GARBs as true fundamentalists. But that’s a problem with about every term. Some try to hog the term, others define themselves in or out of it. We punish those we don’t like by saying they are or are not the term.

But the whole holiness thing, let me opine. A lot of my theological heritage arose from the Bible conference movement, which tended to be multi-denominational in its draw. I think the holiness and deeper life stuff does have roots to Wesley. If one thing is certain in certain in the history of Christianity in the U.S. (at least) is that everyone influences everyone else. The diversity of sources of our hymns is an evidence of it. But how can it not be? We visit churches or join one and leave another and bring what we believe to be the best of those churches with us.

D.L. Moody, for example, had his second blessing (baptism of the Spirit) and rolled around or whatever. When Moody would evangelize, R.A. Torrey would follow up and tell people who to receive the Holy Spirit. Later, Torrey realized he was in error and apologized for his inaccurate teaching.

Right there, you see what happened: originally the Wesleyan doctrine had great sway, but then, as the fundamentalist/modernist controversy was fueled, some fundamentalists who had been revivalists started paying more attention to doctrine. It took a long time for all this to work its way down to all the ranks, however.

DON, a question for you. I would add that on this site, at least, most of us are not into revival or revivalism (based on previous polls I conducted). So if fundamentalism is the merging of orthodox doctrine with revivalism, are we not to be considered fundamentalists?

Don wrote:

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.

I am genuinely confused about your point (and Olson’s). Are you saying that, for example, Al Mohler and D.A. Carson are post-conservative evangelicals if they don’t self-identify as fundamentalists (according to how you and Olson define the term)? Is Olson writing from the perspective that Mohler (et al) are fundamentalists? If so, I would agree! So did Frances Fitzgerald.

To clarify, I meant I don’t self-identify as a “fundamentalist” as Baptist fundamentalists like the FBFI define the term.

This is in regard to the Holiness movement and its influence on hymns/gospel songs used in the Fundamentalist movement. As mentioned earlier in the comments, one need not look any further than Fanny Crosby to find a very successful author of gospel songs who was also greatly influenced by the 19th century Holiness movement. She was a close friend to Phoebe Palmer Knapp who wrote the music for “Blessed Assurance” and was active in the late 19th century Holiness movement. (Check out the Wikipedia entry on “Blessed Assurance”.) Mrs. Knapp was the daughter of Phoebe Palmer who was one of the best-known Wesleyan-Holiness proponents of her day. Phoebe Palmer herself authored “The Cleansing Stream” which is definitely a Holiness gospel song and has been used some within Fundamentalism over the years. Just one other example would be “The Old Rugged Cross” which was written by Charles Bennard. He was a Holiness pastor within the northern Methodist Church around the turn of the last century. The list could go on I’m sure.

I believe the earlier comments were primarily dealing with music influences from the 19th and 20th centuries. However, it should not be overlooked that the Wesleys of the 18th century left a heritage of hymnody that has proven to be of enduring significance across Protestantism.

I would say that the music of Pentecostalism probably had much less overlap with Fundamentalism. For one thing, the Pentecostal movement came along considerably later than the Wesleyan-Holiness movement. Also, the style of Pentecostal music was considerably less similar to the standard fare in either Holiness or Fundamentalist churches. Even so, the shaped-note “Church Hymnal” (published by the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee) could be (can be?) found in lots of Baptist churches (both IFB and SBC) in the South. Interestingly, the COG-Cleveland purchased the campus of Bob Jones College when the school moved to SC after WWII. That campus today is the location of their flagship denominational school, Lee University. I think it is also interesting that Lee is now considerably larger than BJU.

I do have some familiarity with the specific overlap/interaction between Bob Jones University and both the Holiness and Pentecostal movements. That will have to wait for another time! (Sorry that this got so long!)

[Ed Vasicek]

DON, a question for you. I would add that on this site, at least, most of us are not into revival or revivalism (based on previous polls I conducted). So if fundamentalism is the merging of orthodox doctrine with revivalism, are we not to be considered fundamentalists?

I think you might be missing something in my point (or my discussion of Olson’s point). His book is a history of evangelical theology. His thesis is that present day evangelicalism draws from eight major threads of theology to form its own theology. Fundamentalism shares ALL of those threads (in my opinion) except that it is one of the eight shaping evangelicalism.

So in general evangelicals AND fundamentalists draw things from revivalism in their theological mix. Fundamentalism and evangelicalism are not simply revivalism made over into something else, but they share values, practices, culture and theology from revivalism. They are distinct movements, with overlap.

I would say that those who disdain revivalism are in denial about their own history. Revivalism has some problems, as all movements do, but God used it to further his kingdom in many ways. Many faithful men, who we all admire to one extent or another, were part of the mix. So I kind of laugh at the disdain people have for revivalism. It seems overblown to me.

If you are an evangelical or a fundamentalist, your heritage includes revivalism and you share some characteristics with it.

[TylerR]

Don wrote:

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.

I am genuinely confused about your point (and Olson’s). Are you saying that, for example, Al Mohler and D.A. Carson are post-conservative evangelicals if they don’t self-identify as fundamentalists (according to how you and Olson define the term)? Is Olson writing from the perspective that Mohler (et al) are fundamentalists? If so, I would agree! So did Frances Fitzgerald.

To clarify, I meant I don’t self-identify as a “fundamentalist” as Baptist fundamentalists like the FBFI define the term.

Oops! I mistyped. Sorry for the confusion. I should have left “post-” off that sentence.

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

My bad. Thanks for the correction.

I think what darm says echoes what I’ve sort of “sensed” as the background. It’s not my area of interest at all. After two years of piano lessons, I went crying to my dad and got him to get me out of it. My musical daughter asked me if I regretted that decision. Nope!

Got it. I absolutely agree with this:

The fact of a conservative theologian who doesn’t want to be identified as a fundamentalist is pretty well the textbook definition of a conservative evangelical.

This is me - 100000%.

Tyler’s statement - “Reformed folks have never bought into higher life versions of sanctification.” - is certainly debatable. Andrew Murray, Reformed minister from South Africa, was an early participant in the Keswick conventions. In recent years Don Carson and Alistair Begg (both of whom would, I believe, self-describe as Reformed) have been principal speakers at the conventions. I feel certain that these are not isolated examples. Remember that the founders of the Keswick movement were typically not Arminians in the Wesleyan/Methodist sense.

A contemporary example would be Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International University) which has historically identified with Keswick-style theology. Presbyterians were among the early leaders there and continued to have influence over the years.

I’m not sure whether you would include the New Calvinists, who are often continuationists and Charismatic, in the Higher Life camp. I suppose not. But if they seek after spectacular sign gifts (a la John Piper?) it would not be surprising that at least some of them have embraced Higher Life theology.

Broad statements often have exceptions. Certainly that is the case here.

I should have said that Reformed denominations have never bought into higher life sanctification. They’re confessional in a way Baptists are not. Of course, individuals in the Reformed tradition have done all sorts of things. Murray is certainly an example. Carson is a soft continuationist, I believe - but he teaches at an Evangelical Free seminary and I’m not aware of what kind of church he goes to. Piper is just, well … Piper.

But, yes - I wish to clarify that I was referring to confessional Reformed denominations as denominations, not necessarily to individuals who happen to cart around a Reformed soteriology.

Tyler wrote:

- I wish to clarify that I was referring to confessional Reformed denominations as denominations, not necessarily to individuals who happen to cart around a Reformed soteriology.

So do the Baptist denominations have this in their doctrinal statements? Groups like the Christian and Missionary Alliance do, but I am not sure how many others (apart from those descending from Wesley) actially have it in their statement of faith. Since I wear orthopedic shoes, I am willing to stand corrected.

Do Baptists have what in their doctrinal statements? My point is that Reformed denominations, in contrast to Baptists, are confessional. Baptists agree on nothing at all except the doctrine of the church, and even then you’ll have some variation. Baptists can hold any position on any area of theology (and have)! There is no real “Baptist position” on anything except the doctrine of the church.

CORRECTION: I now get what you were asking. I’m certain some Baptist groups have it in their statements. The problem is that, given Baptist ecclesiology, you have “quality control” issues from one church to the next and generally less-educated ministers. Some Baptists preachers may not even realize they buy into Keswick sanctification because they don’t even know what it is. I have seen this, firsthand. Their doctrinal statements may be cookie-cutter statements that have no reference with reality. This problem may be exascerbated by the fact that some independent Baptists deliberately cut themselves off from association life and exist in a theological echo-chamber.

One clarification: Carson did speak at Keswick but the theology is now a reformed view of sanctification which Carson also embraces.

The interactions between Bob Jones University and the Pentecostal movement are interesting to say the least. The same could be said about the Wesleyan-Holiness groups/individuals.

Years ago I often heard replays of Dr. Bob Jones, Sr.’s radio talks on the local station. These probably dated from the 50’s and 60’s. At least twice I heard him laud “that dear Black saint Amanda Smith” as a great example of Godliness. I am almost certain that he referred to her as a preacher (which she was!) on one of his programs. Smith was much sought after as a speaker within the Methodist/Holiness/Wesleyan groups in the late 1800’s.

In the early years of Bob Jones College, Dr. Henry Clay Morrison preached from the platform more than once. At the time, Morrison may have been the best-known proponent of Wesleyan Holiness who was still in mainline Methodism. He was always considered an outstanding orator in the old, formal, flowery style.

Later there was platform-level fellowship with Paul S. Rees who had a Pilgrim Holiness pedigree though he eventually joined the Swedish Covenant Church (later renamed Evangelical Covenant.) Rees never really left the Holiness theological position. I believe the BJU Press published a compilation of messages he preached at the University.

In that Bob Jones was himself a Methodist it is understandable that he would have some connections to the Holiness movement or individuals who promoted it. In the past, the University has awarded many degrees to students of that persuasion. They have had graduate assistants and even an occasional faculty member in the School of Religion who were Holiness in their theology. I believe that this reflects the interdenominational position of early Fundamentalism, some of which held over for decades.

A point to consider is that even the prototypical militant, separatist, Fundamentalist institution that Bob Jones University has been was open to interaction/fellowship with those who were very definitely not your typical mid-Calvinist, Baptist folks. It is certainly plausible that these other groups had at least a limited effect on those in Fundamentalism who showed openness to them.

I’ll deal with some of the Pentecostal connections in another comment. To me, they are even more surprising.

Tyler said:

I’m certain some Baptist groups have it in their statements. The problem is that, given Baptist ecclesiology, you have “quality control” issues from one church to the next and generally less-educated ministers.

Here is my point: there is no difference in saying that individual Reformed/Presbyterians went along with Keswick, but not as a movement. The Southern Baptists are the largest Baptist group, and I think the same is true with them. You can parse out the difference between a doctrinal statement and a confession — the point is, they both serve a similar purpose. And if you look at the old Baptist confessions, they do not have a Keswick leaning.

Outside of denominations like CMA or Wesleyan influenced groups, I am not sure how many denominaitons (including Baptists — especially the larger groups) institutionalized Keswick views. If so, then the Reformed confessions made no difference.

This whoo