Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism

Truthfully, I’m not sure how many times I’ve attended Northland’s Heart Conference over the past decade. I’m sure it’s upwards of half-a-dozen. Sometimes I’ve gone as a speaker, sometimes as an exhibitor (representing Central Seminary), sometimes alone, and sometimes with companions. Rarely have I been able to stay for the entire conference—more frequently I’m there for a day or two. Never have I gone away feeling that my time has been wasted.

The key to understanding Heart Conference is in its name. It is not an ecclesiastical meeting. It is not a conference that focuses on current events and passes resolutions. It is not an assembly that is trying to change the world, not even the world of fundamentalism. It is a conference about the Christian’s personal relationship with God and growth in grace.

Heart Conference draws attendees from a variety of church fellowships throughout the United States. Most of the attendees, however, seem to come from the upper Midwest—Iowa, Minnesota, and the Dakotas—with many from Michigan and Illinois. Of course, Wisconsin is probably best represented. The crowd includes many pastors and other Christian workers, but Heart Conference is not just for ministers. It is mainly intended to help ordinary church members.

This mix of individuals makes for some remarkable fellowship. One of the strengths of the event is that it provides an opportunity to meet and interact with many others of like precious faith. The informal atmosphere tends to lend itself to transparency. Pastors get to introduce their church members to other pastors and Christian leaders, or they get to unburden themselves to their peers about their current challenges in ministry. It is not uncommon to see small, private conversations of two or three in which counsel is being sought or intercession being offered.

In a recent blog post, self-admitted post-conservative evangelical theologian Roger Olson passed along an essay by a Baylor colleague, Mark Clawson, entitled “Neo-Fundamentalism.” Clawson compared and contrasted late 19th and early 20th century fundamentalism with the recent conservative evangelical luminaries like John Piper and Al Mohler, both of whom serve as exemplars of Clawson’s neo-fundamentalism.

Clawson suggests several reasons why it may be useful to delineate these men as neo-fundamentalists. Significantly, this comparison with the older movement, if carefully handled, can be useful “in predicting possible future developments and trajectories for the movement. It will be interesting to see, for instance, whether neo-fundamentalists will in fact follow the separatist path of their fundamentalist forbears—creating new institutions separate from the mainstream of evangelicalism, or whether they will find a way to remain within the evangelical movement even while critiquing it. If current trends hold, they may even become the dominant force within North American evangelicalism over the next decade and beyond.”

In response to Clawson, I suggest that it is naïve (at best) to think that fundamentalism is ever likely to die out and go away. Clawson never directly advances this particular thesis; he is simply comparing two movements and attempting to disparage the conservative evangelicals by associating them with others that deserve unbridled opprobrium. This is a common ploy among the theological left (and the right, for that matter): simply call your opponent a fundamentalist (or a liberal) and then dismiss his entire argument. In the recent Southern Baptist controversy, Al Mohler and his conservative colleagues have been regularly dubbed fundamentalists, though this is not a moniker they would ever take for themselves.