Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither? Part 11
The Social Shift, Continued
Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, and Part 10.
The Fundamentalist movement emerged from a broader, “proto-Fundamentalist” evangelicalism in about 1920. It was the result of a combination of influences, some social, some philosophical, and some theological. For the most part, Fundamentalism drew on a version of Christianity that was firmly committed to the popular culture of late Victorianism.
Fundamentalism arose on the cusp of a significant cultural shift. America was moving out of Victorianism and into the Jazz Age. For a while, Fundamentalist leaders like Billy Sunday were able to use this transition to their advantage. Many Americans faced the new direction with anxiety. By mixing their religious appeal with nostalgia for the fading values and fashions of Victorianism, Fundamentalists were able to tap into this anxiety and to rally the dispossessed.
Unfortunately for Fundamentalism, this tactic could succeed only as long as there were Victorians to rally. By the 1930s, however, the Jazz Age had lost some of its rough edges, and its values were quickly being adopted by the nation. Even Fundamentalist churches were beginning to feel the pressure of new perspectives.
The rapid transition was due partly to the dominance of three new technologies: the phonograph, the radio, and the motion picture. Popular culture is commercial culture, and these media made it possible to market the product more widely and effectively than ever before. Entertainment was fast becoming an industry, and the industry sold its mores with its culture. The new media were especially influential among the young, generating an entire youth movement within American culture. Indeed, it is possible to argue that the teenager was an invention of the Jazz Age.
Fundamentalism was committed to popular culture, but the social shift was rapidly making Fundamentalist culture obsolete. Victorianism was no longer culturally relevant: Fundamentalists might as well have been singing Gregorian chants as Rodeheaver songs. In fact, they might have done better, for Gregorian chants could still be taken seriously, while Rodeheaver and his kind seemed increasingly quaint (perhaps even eccentric) to everyone except Fundamentalists.
If it was to survive, Fundamentalism needed to adapt to the new culture. The trick for Fundamentalists was to make this change while not appearing to abandon their older commitments. Their answer was to create a kind of replacement culture within Fundamentalism, a culture that would parallel the secular popular trends but that would eliminate their most obnoxious features.
One of the earliest manifestations of change within Fundamentalism was the invention of the Singspiration. A Chicago Tribune headline from 1941 announced, “Church Folks Blend Voices in Pep Choruses: Singspirations Strike a Popular Chord.” The article went on to say that the new kind of choruses were to church what boogie woogie was to swing.
The analogy is telling. This was the era during which crowds were flocking to the Savoy Ballroom and the Cotton Club. It was the era of big bands, when broadcasts and recordings of Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Bennie Goodman, the Andrews Sisters, the Dorseys, and especially Glenn Miller were played in nearly every household. The music was pure energy: raucous, defiant, often flirtatious, and always full of life. By the end of the 1930s it had become mainstream and extremely popular: every high school had its own swing band.
This was also the golden age of Hollywood movies. With the ascendance of the talking motion picture, a new kind of celebrity was invented: the movie star. Film music also provided another musical idiom that inundated American culture. The music of the movies contrasted with the jazz of the clubs. It was lush, typically orchestral, emotionally overwhelming, and rather operatic. Along with jazz, this was music to which American young people were widely and frequently exposed.
The Singspiration took the place of movies and dances for Fundamentalist teenagers. It gave them music that was peppy and current enough to be cool, or lush enough to be dreamy, while packing less of a hormonal charge than the secular equivalents. It was an alternative to jazz clubs and theaters, and it was so much fun that teenagers could take a date or even invite an unsaved friend.
Quickly the Sinspiration became institutionalized. Two students at Wheaton College, Al Smith and Billy Graham, collaborated to start a ministry that would publish Singspiration-style music. They named the ministry after the phenomenon.
At almost the same moment, a young trombonist who had once led a dance band was emerging as a Fundamentalist leader. Jack Wyrtzen was more-or-less the Fundamentalist answer to Glenn Miller. His organization, Word of Life, became a major front for the growing evangelical youth movement.
In their attempt to reach teenagers, Fundamentalists went popular culture one better. Wyrtzen developed the idea of conducting “youth campaigns.” The idea was picked up by Al Smith and Billy Graham, who were joined by George Beverly Shea. Together they started a series of youth rallies in Chicago under the sponsorship of Torrey Johnson. As the idea spread, the nationwide “Youth for Christ” organization was established.
There was no secular equivalent to the Youth for Christ campaigns. These campaigns built on the success of the Singspiration idea, but size of the crowd was multiplied exponentially. They were like a Christian variety show, to which was added the rapid-fire pulpit delivery of some very dynamic young preachers.
These young preachers abandoned the oratorical preaching style of the older Fundamentalists. To a generation whose ears were tuned to the cadences of radio, the older oratory seemed ponderous. These young firebrands modeled themselves on the speech patterns of radio announcers. The effect was riveting to their audiences. Names like Jack Wyrtzen, Charles Templeton, and especially Billy Graham became celebrities within the new Fundamentalist youth culture.
At about the same time, John W. Peterson was writing music that imitated the Hollywood sound. His songs, choruses, and cantatas (a term that he applied rather loosely) took the place of traditional hymns, and even of Victorian gospel songs, in thousands of Fundamentalist churches. Fundamentalism not only had its equivalent to the jazz club, it also had its answer to the Big Show.
Speaking of Hollywood, Fundamentalists did more than copy the music. They also tried to adopt the medium, albeit clumsily. In 1949, Ken Anderson launched Gospel Films. Billy Graham’s World Wide Pictures was formed soon afterward, releasing Mr. Texas in 1951, followed by Oiltown U.S.A. in 1954.
After Billy Graham’s 1949 crusade in Los Angeles, Fundamentalism’s celebrity status began to spill over into the culture at large. On the one hand, newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst sent out the order to “puff Graham,” turning the evangelist into a religious superstar almost overnight. On the other hand, the conversion of Stuart Hamblen during that crusade gave Fundamentalism a new recruit with real celebrity status. Other secular celebrities soon followed suit, and Fundamentalists discovered that these were people who could draw a crowd.
By the mid-1950s, Fundamentalism had shown that it could successfully negotiate the modified popular culture. Its tactics had changed, however. Under Victorianism, the popular culture of the society and the popular culture of the churches had been one and the same. With the transition to the Jazz Age, Fundamentalists opted against full participation in the broader culture. Instead, they created a parallel culture within their own movement: a culture that imitated popular trends while eliminating their most obviously offensive aspects.
This cultural adaptation produced several results in the next generation of Christians, the generation that was born after World War II and grew up bathed in the Fundamentalist subculture. First, that generation was highly youth-oriented and expected a Christian answer to every popular trend. Indeed, Christian Baby Boomers came to feel a sense of entitlement to some “Christian alternative” for every activity and pleasure that their world could offer.
Second, the generation of Singspiration and youth rallies became unable to distinguish Christianity from amusement. As the culture of Youth for Christ worked its way into the churches, they became highly entertainment-oriented. To a larger extent than ever before, worship became a product that had to be packaged to appeal to the consumer. Out of this milieu emerged a myriad of ostensibly Christian recording labels, film production companies, and distribution centers.
Third, the Fundamentalism of the Jazz Age and after developed a fascination with celebrity. Secular celebrities who professed conversion (however vaguely defined) were granted almost automatic status as leaders within popular Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists also developed their own celebrities—sometimes preachers or missionaries, but more often musicians, athletes, or actors.
Fourth, while the parallel culture of Fundamentalism was supposed to protect youth from their popular culture, it had almost the opposite effect. In the eyes of teenagers, the fact that churches made so many concessions to the popular culture meant that it was authorizing that culture. After all, if one could watch movies in church on Sunday night, then why not in the movie theater on Saturday night? If one could listen to the White Sisters, then why not the Andrews Sisters?
Fundamentalists set out to offer an alternative to what they called “worldly entertainment.” In effect, however, they merely offered less of the same. The result was a generation of young people more attuned to popular culture than any of their forebears. Not only that, Christian teenagers became connoisseurs of popular culture—and at some point they realized that what was done amateurishly in the churches was done skillfully by the world. Once they had developed an appetite for amusement and a sense of entitlement to it, it was difficult to keep them from full participation in the popular culture of the day.
Fundamentalism adapted itself to the culture of youth, jazz, and Hollywood. As that adaptation neared its completion, however, yet another cultural shift was beginning in American society. Jazz culture was no longer new, and in some circles it was simply passé. By the mid-1950s, names like Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and especially Elvis Presley had become the harbingers of an entirely new direction. Soon, Fundamentalism would find itself faced with the same dilemma all over again. Would it adapt to the counter-culture of the 1960s or would it abandon its attachment to popular culture?
The answer is that Fundamentalists refused to do either. Instead of either moving ahead or going back, they attempted to hold themselves suspended in mid-air by a sheer act of will. But that is another story for another time.
Prayer for Purity
Nicolaus Ludwig Von Zinzendorf (1700-1760)
Tr. John Wesley (1703-1791)
O Thou, to whose all-searching sight
The darkness shineth as the light,
Search, prove my heart, it pants for Thee,
O burst these bonds, and set it free!
Wash out its stains, refine its dross,
Nail my affections to the Cross;
Hallow each thought; let all within
Be clean, as Thou, my Lord, art clean!
If in this darksome wild I stray,
Be Thou my Light, be Thou my Way;
No foes, no violence I fear,
No fraud, while Thou, my God, art near.
When rising floods my soul o’erflow,
When sinks my heart in waves of woe,
Jesus, Thy timely aid impart,
And raise my head and cheer my heart.
Saviour, where’er Thy steps I see,
Dauntless, untired, I follow Thee;
O let thy hand support me still,
And lead me to Thy holy hill!
If rough and thorny be the way,
My strength proportion to my day;
Till toil, and grief, and pain shall cease,
Where all is calm, and joy, and peace.
- 22 views
Anyway, Fundamentalism has long had a strand with a strongly anabaptist view of “the world” (officially, though it had actually accommodated the culture quite a bit already). By “anabaptist” I mean a view of “the world” that applies the most strongly worded negative things Scripture says about “the world” to basically all of society (with arbitrary exceptions). So the attitude is: “We’re just stuck here until Christ takes us away and we have to reach as many individuals with the gospel as we can, but there is no hope at all for society and we shouldn’t bother to try.”
But Fundamentalism has also had variations of other views, including a few of the post-mil.-and-similar that see the church as having a mandate to transform the world by its influence. It should be possible for respectful (and even stimulating and interesting) disagreement to co-exist on the subject.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I do believe that both the church and the world, from all appearances, are entering into their end-time apostasy. I am not for jettisoning the good things that remain or becoming detached from society, but my hope in government to reclaim the Christian West is, well, zero.
Going back to my post #30, the real issue is whether we are in the Kingdom or not. As you point out, Fundamentalists have been all across the board on these issues of eschatology.
That is the point I was making: it is hard for “Fundamentalists” to engage the culture when all of us would not have the same theological commitment or reasons for doing so.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Whether or not cultural engagement results in the West returning to a more biblical ethic is beside the point. The question is how I respond to the command to be salt and light. What are the implications and applications of the command to be salt and light? As Ed says, are they limited to conversions or even disciple-making, or is there a more comprehensive intent? Yes, we need to base our engagement on theology. What is the theology of the command to be salt and light?
With all due respect, Paul Scharf’s post #28 is exactly the type of thinking I’m arguing against. We are called to be faithful in the situations we find ourselves. Whether or not that faithfulness results in changing the entire world is not my concern. That’s God’s concern. I’m called to understand the will of God as revealed in the Word of God and, through the Spirit’s enabling, live out that will in the most consistent way possible. Am I to withdraw from community institutions because there is no hope of reforming them? How can I be salt and light if I’m not there? No, that Spirit-filled middle school student will not change the whole school. He’s not called to do so. What he is called to do is reflect the character of God to the “world” around him. He’s called to be salt and light. What does that mean and how is that meaning applied in every day living? What are God’s expectations regarding my saltiness in the world?
If you are arguing that reforming the culture may well be unrealistic and unnecessary, but that God still calls us to be good stewards of our opportunities and be witnesses to the culture such as it is — then I can agree with that, and I do not know of anyone who could not.
That, however, is not what Reformed Theologians mean when they talk about engaging the culture. It indeed matters a great deal to them that the Christian West will be restored and the world will truly one day be changed! (Though what that means and how it works out depends on their specific eschatologies — be they partial preterist, full preterist, reconstructionist, etc.)
As a traditional dispensationalist, I am so far from the latter that it is not even funny. I find their position interesting, but I am singing out of a different hymnbook than they are.
My point in post #28 was more to argue that even in the former case the average Christian who is getting the urge to engage the culture thinking he is going to be “salt and light” — whatever that means to him — may be in danger of misusing his time and opportunities.
Having just come from a city council meeting tonight, I speak with the topic fresh on my mind :)
Would it really be good stewardship for, let’s say, every mature Christian man in America to devote himself to engaging the culture by getting involved in local government with a view to implementing Biblical principles in the culture?
I am not saying that no Christian should run for public office — I thank God for those who do. I also thank God for a Christian plumber, a Christian insurance salesman, etc.
But as a rule, do we not have far more important business to attend to? Many of our churches are lying in ruins. To paraphrase a Christian talkshow host, how are we going to save America when we can’t save the church?
If I were going to attempt to influence people on a massive scale for righteousness (which I am, by the way), my first and only thought would be how to get people into the Bible and then teaching others — not how to engage the culture by having people seek elective office. I believe that is the NT pattern — and it ties directly to dispensational theology and philosophy.
Progressive Dispensationalism, with its fascination on cultural engagement, is attempting to marry a postmillennial worldview of the redemption of culture with a dispensational framework. I do not believe that to be Biblical or even possible.
Perhaps we are each making different points — let me know what you think.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] Ed, thanks for the post. However, I would say that this is precisely where the difference between traditional and progressive dispensationalism is far greater than “slight.”Okay, Paul, apparently I was not reading you right. But you also need to stop believing what traditional dispensationalists say about progressives, and to begin listening to what progressives themselves say. And I am telling you, as a progressive with friends who are progressive, that your characterization is wrong. We are not out to bring back the Christian west — at all. But I — personally — am for participating in the culture (I would not use the term engaging) because I believe that this participation in the culture is part of God’s will for the believer. The goal of this participation is not necessarily to “baptize” the culture.
Some progressive dispensationalists, in their fascination with engagement in culture, are re-examining the centuries-old conundrum of how to deal “redemptively” with this world — except they are now trying to “baptize” that concept into dispensationalism and want to place the burden on the traditionalists to explain why it should not be done. That is a big topic that won’t be solved here in a post or two.
I agree with your use of Matt. 5:16 above and I do not think I am replacing glorifying God with making disciples — but I do think that making disciples (in the fullest sense of those terms) is the major work given by Christ to His church.
I am also arguing against engaging in culture with the hope of bringing back the Christian West, or with the expectation that it is the most useful strategy for the church at the end of the age.
Indeed, it seems to me that the most notable attempts to “bring back the Christian west” were spearheaded by TRADITIONAL dispensationalists, like Jerry Falwell and Beverly (and Tim) LaHaye. Am I wrong about this? If not, I could make the same argument you made, but simply turn the tables. It has been my opinion that many Traditional dispensationalists who reject the Progressive viewpoint are rejecting an inaccurate caricature of the movement. We might be wrong, but we are not what you think we are.
"The Midrash Detective"
To provide a cogent answer, I would say that at the core of the difference between Traditional and Progressive Dispensationalism is the question of whether the Kingdom is “already” or “not yet,” to use the Progressives’ terms.
Stemming closely from that is the question of how the church relates to the culture.
Progressive Dispensationalism, in a manner very similar to Covenant Theology, stresses that the church has some type of incarnational ministry within the world — which currently houses the Kingdom of God. They are very conflicted about it, but that is where their theology is taking them.
(Note: It is impossible to be a Progressive Dispensationalist and a consistent cessationist — Isa. 35.)
Traditional Dispensationalism teaches that the church has a purely proclamational ministry with regard to culture while we call sinners to repent before the Kingdom comes. Thus, our goal as a church, and even as individual believers, is first, foremost and almost purely to make disciples — in the full sense of teaching and training in the whole counsel of God (Matt. 28:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:2).
By the time we get out to the question of how an individual Christian gets involved in culture, we would have traversed a lot of theological ground. Then we end up in a place where we still have lots of common grace and Christian liberty.
Thus, my problem would not be so much with one who engages in the culture, but with the question of why he is doing so and what he believes he can accomplish by doing so.
Do Traditional Dispensationalists engage the culture? All the time. I personally spend 40 hours per week editing a secular newspaper. There is no way to escape engaging the culture — except perhaps in a monastery, and I think that attempt was tried once or twice :)
I will not begin attempting to serve as Falwell’s apologist. I think LU has plenty of paid staff for that :)
As for LaHaye, he has had an interesting career. However, his Biblical positions are clear, and his involvement in public affairs has never been undertaken with the motive of bringing Christ’s Kingdom to earth through political effort.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
That is an interesting approach. Many of us Dispensationalists would still say that our primary goal is glorifying God. One way in which we do that is through making and maturing Christ-like discioles. That is slightly different than what you said, but I think the difference could prove significant. I do interact with culture more than most pastors. I do so to bring honor and glory to God by trying to make and mature Christ-like disciples.
Roger Carlson, PastorBerean Baptist Church
But — I think we have come to the point where most of us would affirm that, all across the whole Dispensational/Covenant perspective. The question is what that looks like on the horizontal level.
I was assuming that we are to glorify God but going to the next level of “how” in post #36 when I said that: “our goal as a church, and even as individual believers, is first, foremost and almost purely to make disciples.”
Thus, I am not sure that we disagree. Nor did I leave wiggle room for someone to say, “Since the glory of God is our goal, therefore we have to reclaim the culture for Him…”
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
My initial post was a response to Bauder’s view that Fundamentalists withdrew from culture by creating parallel cultures that provided everything the world was providing, albeit in a sanitized reality. If we continue to create those parallel cultures, resulting in our spending all our time at the church instead of in the world, how will the world ever witness authentic Christianity?
My list of activities in response to your question about what engaging the culture looks like was not intended to imply anything more than encouraging us to not only be good stewards of opportunities, but to be more proactive regarding putting ourselves in those opportunities. Creating parallel cultures removes us from those opportunities. Maybe the church is in ruin because we are all fat from spending our time around the table (parallel cultures) without going into the fields (the world). The pattern for biblical Christianity is most clearly seen when that Christianity is being lived in proximity to the world, thereby creating an observable contrast. According to Bauder, we removed the proximity (and the contrast?) when we created those parallel cultures. I’m not arguing for believers to start going to bars and drink Coke to create proximity and contrast. There does seem to be a gross lack of participation, though.
Yes, it would be fantastic stewardship for every mature Christian man to get involved in local government - not to implement biblical principles in the culture, but to be salt and light to those in attendance. There does seem to be a difference between being a Christian plumber and being a Christian involved in community service. Volunteer community service carries a default servant attitude we Fundamentalists seem to avoid. It’s this missing in action trend I’m challenging. We should compare notes on city council meetings sometime.
I appreciate the interaction.
Yes! I do believe that Scripture has one meaning!!
I said “whatever that means to him” about “salt and light” because it seems like that little phrase can give cover to just about any activity under heaven — from woodworking to playing basketball to sending kids to State U.
I agree that the phrase has valid application for us today (and I have preached on it), but it indeed has a very strict meaning within the Sermon on the Mount — which Dr. McCune calls “The Platform of the Kingdom.” Its original meaning related to how Jesus’ physical disciples were to navigate as they physically went through Israel proclaiming the presence of the King and the need for repentance.
I agree, most of the rest is probably semantics. SORRY FOR OVERREACTING!!!!!!!!! :)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
There is lots of food for thought in your last post, and I am afraid that I am going to have to curtail my participation in the discussion. You raise lots of good questions, and I could go on for a long time giving answers.
But I guess what I would say primarily is — let’s get the theology and the exposition of these various texts right, and then we can worry about how to deal with the culture, and how to correct what fundamentalists did wrong in previous generations.
Also, it is a question of motives — do we help the fatherless and widows because we are committed to wiping out orphanhood and widowhood in the culture (an impossible dream); or to show the love of Christ and gain a hearing for the gospel??
Again, there is going to be some overlap in what this will look like in practicality — even if we are comparing a post-mill reconstructionist with a pre-mill dispensationalist!
However, these are areas where there has been so much confusion in the church (as you mentioned, with the social gospel) — and in government!! — that I personally am not going to give much wiggle room in the terminology I use about it.
No — I do not see the church as having any ministry to the culture which is commanded in Scripture other than the proclamation of truth. If there is one — think about it, we better find out what it is and get busy!!
(BTW — I see this whole “creation of parallel cultures” as a bit of a side issue. They are related, but that is opening other cans of worms. Also, some of those “parallel cultures” were used to draw the world into the church, and thus were ALSO part of the social gospel. So it is not just a black and white issue…)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
(Success is mighty unlikely but where’s the harm in trying? Seems better than the alternatives. If I ever have any, I’d love for my grandkids to live in such a place)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion