Should We Abandon The Term ‘Fundamentalist’?

The Fundamentalist Standard of standing for the truth and separating from apostasy may have been raised as early as Spurgeon but seemed to have gained its historical form in the early 20th Century. In those days the standard was raised for Biblical truth and the primary enemy were men like Harry Emerson Fosdick. Much of today’s fundamentalism seems to consider disobedient brethren the primary enemy; treating them like apostates. Consider that a brother like Al Mohler could challenge and evict the apostates from a Southern Baptist Seminary and during and after his battle the only words from fundamentalism were criticisms of other aspects of his ministry. Did anyone in fundamentalism encourage him during his battle? Did anyone even mention his accomplishment?

From my aged perspective, a lot of today’s fundamentalism is known more for its stands against disobedient brethren (with no desire for reconciliation or restoration), “bad” music, their personal definitions of worldliness. Doctrinally, they seem to have elevated dispensationalism and one view of eschatology to the level of fundamentals of the faith. I wonder if they’d have room for an unenlightened cigar-smoking, wine sipping, amillenialist, Calvinist like Spurgeon.

Spurgeon was premill.

I agree.

I understand the hesitancy. At the same time, there are those whose actions and emphases reflect badly on the Baptist label. Outside of Christianity, there have been those recently who have tried to hijack the label “American” to reflect a particular ideology. The point is, labels are useful, but if one relies on the label alone as an identifier, it can be a problem.

Not much good is going to come out of whether or not we use the term, in my assessment. John MacArthur and people associated with him have distanced themselves from the label for some time, but people still apply it to him and associate him with fundamentalist ideas. If you believe in the big idea, someone will eventually apply it to you, whether you like it or not.

The better answer is to model what a good Fundamentalist should look like, regardless of whatever label you apply to yourself or others apply to you.

To whom does the term fundamentalist have meaning?

For the last six years, I’ve been working in the real world and I’ve yet to have found a co-worker, Christian or not, who has ever heard the term applied to a branch of Christianity. In our church we use the term in its historical sense, referring to the battles of the early 20th century and those who hold to the fundamentals of the faith. I am concerned about the brand of fundamentalism that considers the label an essential and has redefined it as: “A Fundamentalist is someone who holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith (including dispensationalism and conservative Christian music) and who practices separation from those who not hold to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith but also will separate quickly from any Christian brother whom we deem disobedient and treat him with the same disdain our predecessors reserved for apostates without any thought or effort of reconciliation.”

I know that that doesn’t define all fundamentalists and I know that the KJVOnlyists and “Calvinism is from the pit” group give everyone a bad name. I guess what I’m saying is that when a label doesn’t have a consistent and clear definition, it may need to be jettisoned.

Personally, I know of nowhere outside of the “fundamental” church where this word would be properly understood or where I would think it would be helpful to use it.

I would not even use it in every church I visited, lest I be misunderstood from one side of the aisle or the other. If or when I do use the term, I tend to add another word with it to make sure it is understood (i.e., “fundamental, orthodox Christianity”).

Perhaps the reason there is no word to replace it is that the movement previously known as fundamentalism no longer exists in the same form, either.

Will there be a point in the future that there will be a need to distinguish Christians who make cessationism a clear line of demarcation? I mean, there are cessationists who do not insist as firmly in areas of fellowship and cooperation as others. As I noted earlier, MacArthur is being called a Fundamentalist because of his willingness to make the hard distinctions. Obviously, it is being used derisively. But is it a label that could eventually be embraced by those who wished to identify with such an articulation?

Honestly Greg, I have begun to wonder if the day is coming when we have to abandon the term Christian. It seems increasingly clear that Mormons, Catholics and others are being lumped together with evangelicals under the broad term Christian. In America today, polls say as many as 90% of the population claim to be Christians. That certainly seems to be a term that has lost its true meaning.

Last night, my young teenage daughter tried to tell us that she wanted a nickname, and proposed that we started to call her __________ instead of ______________. Basically, we all just kind of chuckled at her and kept calling her what we’ve always called her.

It’s kind of like that with these labels. They will stick, because for better or worse, it’s what we’ve been assigned.

You can’t exactly leave something formally and officially, because who exactly decides who is Christian, or Fundamentalist, or a “holy roller,” or what have you? Just because you don’t embrace a label doesn’t mean it won’t be applied to you. It’s not as simple as “I’m going to stop being a Methodist and become a Baptist.” There is no organization you can leave, exactly (though I suppose there might be groups you could join if you really wanted to abandon the term, at least in the perception of some….).

In the end, people are mainly going to evaluate you based on your conduct and reputation. What others do is not completely irrelevant, but there is only so much one can do to distance ourselves from those things.

[Greg Linscott] In the end, people are mainly going to evaluate you based on your conduct and reputation. What others do is not completely irrelevant, but there is only so much one can do to distance ourselves from those things.

But that’s part of my point. The conduct and reputation associated with these various labels has been so abused and transformed in recent years that applying the label doesn’t mean what it once did. 100 years ago, conservative Christians decided that term wasn’t sufficient any more and the term fundamentalist was coined. I am thinking we might be at the point where it’s time to coin a new term again.

Occasionally, when discussing “religion” at work, I’ll be asked what I am. I basically tell people that I’m a follower of Jesus Christ who believes the Bible is completely true because God wrote it. This has led to some profitable discussions.

I recently heard a member of Mark Dever’s staff refer to Dever as a fundamentalist. Dever himself even used the term to describe himself. (Someplace now a “true” fundamentalist is having a stroke.)

Maybe fundamentalists need a dividing line. Are you to the right or left of John MacArthur?

Ron,

You said……..”Maybe fundamentalists need a dividing line.”

Ron - good luck with that! Let me know how that works :)

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Joel Tetreau]

Ron,

You said……..”Maybe fundamentalists need a dividing line.”

Ron - good luck with that! Let me know how that works :)

Straight Ahead!

jt

I don’t know. I may have something. As I recall, Phil Johnson’s visit to the frozen north seemed to have a “middling” response.

[Greg Linscott]

Will there be a point in the future that there will be a need to distinguish Christians who make cessationism a clear line of demarcation? I mean, there are cessationists who do not insist as firmly in areas of fellowship and cooperation as others. As I noted earlier, MacArthur is being called a Fundamentalist because of his willingness to make the hard distinctions. Obviously, it is being used derisively. But is it a label that could eventually be embraced by those who wished to identify with such an articulation?

I hold, for the most part, to Wayne Grudem’s view of NT prophecy. I don’t know that fundumantalists are functionally all that cessationist compared to Wayne Grudem’s view.

I have personally abandoned fundamentalist as a layman. It is the same as Calvinist. It is a word and a pejorative one in most circles. It isn’t a biblical word like Calvinism. It smells of all sorts of legalistic, second and third separations and “baptist” popes lording it over their flocks. It smacks of scandals (do I really need to name some?) and it brings association of believers with the Phelps ilk. I’ve no interest in being associated with those groups. Fundamentalists seem to worry about appearances while more liberal brethren tend to feed people and have concerns for the poor. I would refer to our Lord’s word on handing out a cup of water and attending to the poor. What is wrong with “the Way” instead of fundamentalist? Fundamentalism conveys “fight”, “argue”, mean spirited, my college is more fundamental than yours etc. Give it up.