Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism

The majority of the healthy remnants of historic fundamentalism today have settled into a kind of co-belligerency. That is, the theological sons and grandsons of the first generation of fundamentalism have perched onto one of two branches of the fundamentalist family tree. These two branches are what I call Type B and Type C fundamentalism. I noted several years ago that a third branch, namely the Type A branch often believe and act as if they, and they alone, represent the entire tree! Thankfully more and more are flying over to the part of our ecclesiastical bush that respects a certain heritage while at the same time respects an allowable diversity.

This kind of C/B relationship was on display this last year when Mark Dever shared a platform with leaders such as Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran and Tim Jordan. Another example of how that relationship continues to emerge is the incredible overlap of what a healthy and biblical evangelicalism looks like as defined by Kevin Bauder and then by Al Mohler in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. One more example of this has been the explosion of interaction between Type B and C fundamentalists at conferences such as Shepherds and T4G. Certainly there continues to be a few differences between a Type B and Type C fundamentalists, but frankly there are far more differences between Type A fundamentalism and the B/C co-belligerency than there are differences between the B and C brethren themselves.

Lines in sand

Years ago I developed and presented a kind of taxonomy primarily for those within my own ministry. At the time I was wanting to hold on to the fundamentalist label but, for a variety of reasons, felt I needed to distance myself from many who used the same tag. I believed the taxonomy helped me do that in a way that could be understood by both those who grew up in the movement as well as newcomers (or onlookers). The result was the identification of Type A, B and C fundamentalism. I explored these categories several years ago in a series of articles entitled, “Three Lines in the Sand.” An earlier article entitled, “A Line in the Sand,” focused on the differences between Type A and B fundamentalism. “Three Lines” expanded to include Type C fundamentalism.

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.