The Need for Healthy Fundamentalism

The article does a great job of summarizing Olson’s perspective on evangelicalism, but does little to allay concerns that fundamentalism is failing.

The truth is that individual churches (whether labeled evangelical or fundamental) may be succeeding or failing (neither to 100%, but mostly), but the combined average, in my view, is that we are on a downward path.

I view the job of future pastors to take the pieces that are still relatively undamaged and create an island of Biblical submission in the sea of man-centered religion, whatever the label. I compare the task of new pastors like that of rebuilding Jerusalem in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, The focus was on godliness and obedience and thus building a generic temple (the best they could do) — but with devoted worshippers. This stands in contrast to Solomon’s beautiful temple, often populated by compromised worshippers. Which pleases God more? That is at the crux of the issue.

First-stage fundamentalism was built on advocating for a broad biblical orthodoxy in the face of apostasy. It’s heirs are the conservative evangelicals. It’s why the people who still do this today are evangelicals.

Second-stage fundamentalism is what we typically mean when we use the term, and its ethos is on separation from conservatives who aren’t conservative enough. That is why second-stage fundamentalism is a cut-flower movement that’s dying in the vase on the countertop. It has no real distinctive, positive presentation other than separation. Ask a self-described fundamentalist why he’s not an evangelical and he’ll say “separation.” There is your proof.

Properly understood, fundamentalists should be conservative evangelicals. I discuss here. Finis.

One problem w modern fundamentalism is in definitions. Specifically what does it mean to be a “Fundamentalist”

I’m actually in agreement with Joos on a lot of this, as the extent of “touchy feely” lyrics in today’s CCM does seem to derive from the same (perhaps to a lesser extent) in camp meeting songs. That noted, I’m at a loss to name an old school fundamental church that doesn’t use a TON of those camp meeting songs, to the point where I’d have to suggest that when many in the fundamental or “old music” camps talk about “hymns”, they’re really talking more about revivalistic songs instead of the hymns I grew up with as a Methodist, which are in general a century older and more theologically robust.

That said, I’m with Tyler on what a “real” fundamentalist is, and calls himself, these days; “conservative evangelical”. I use the fundamental name because of the historic five fundamentals and scholarship that initially supported it, but there are times I also understand peoples’ reluctance to use it because of the baggage connected with it.

[Bert Perry]

I’m actually in agreement with Joos on a lot of this, as the extent of “touchy feely” lyrics in today’s CCM does seem to derive from the same (perhaps to a lesser extent) in camp meeting songs. That noted, I’m at a loss to name an old school fundamental church that doesn’t use a TON of those camp meeting songs, to the point where I’d have to suggest that when many in the fundamental or “old music” camps talk about “hymns”, they’re really talking more about revivalistic songs instead of the hymns I grew up with as a Methodist, which are in general a century older and more theologically robust.

That said, I’m with Tyler on what a “real” fundamentalist is, and calls himself, these days; “conservative evangelical”. I use the fundamental name because of the historic five fundamentals and scholarship that initially supported it, but there are times I also understand peoples’ reluctance to use it because of the baggage connected with it.

I identify as a “conservative evangelical”. I could say “historical fundamentalist” but most don’t know what that means. I appreciate P&D and Don Johnson and the like.

This is a great article. I also commend the desire to drive and sustain a more robust fundamentalist movement that addresses Olsen’s concern.

My fear, that any type of fundamentalism like that is only left in pockets. I live in a fairly large city and in the end practically every “fundamentalist” institution is aligned to the problems that Olsen highlights. It is getting very, very hard to find a good one.

I’ve seen this come full circle in my lifetime. When I was very little our church in PA was truly independent. It was full of noncollege educated coal miners but still knew alot of theology because they fervently read the Bible. They were fundamentalist, without knowing they were fundamentalists. Never part of any denomination, college group, or association. Then their kids, like me, when off to Bible college, pastors came in from those colleges and all of a sudden we were part of certain fundamental camp based on a Christian college. It was really the college that dictated our separation standards, who we associated with, etc. rather than being determined from within like it used to be. Our fundamentalism was centralized.

Now, with the breakdown and weakening of all these institutions, including those in the evangelical camp, churches are now back to charting their own individual course based on their study of scripture, etc. Not pegging themselves as fundamentalist this or evangelical that.

Like it should be.

This was a good article. Taigen is a good guy. I must say this because we’re DMin students in the same program … ! Olson’s recent articles about his experiences trying to find a new church honestly shock me. Are things REALLY that bad, out there? Scary if true.

It has no real distinctive, positive presentation other than separation. Ask a self-described fundamentalist why he’s not an evangelical and he’ll say “separation.” There is your proof.

I am not sure what a better answer would be to that particular question. Separation is the major distinguishing mark that would put one in one category and not another. There is a more positive presentation, but most evangelicals would largely agree with that positive presentation. It isn’t distinguishing. So when the question is why are you A and not B, you don’t answer with the things A and B have in common but with what distinguishes them from each other.

Remember, historically, the New Evangelicals distinguished itself from the Old Evangelicals (the Fundamentalists) over the relationship with theological liberals or modernists. The NE’s did not want to separate over issue of apostasy and disobedience. So in a sense, separation was a core distinctive of Old Evangelicalism. It is hard to trace the lines exactly, but the conservative evangelicals of today seem to me to be staking out a middle ground between the New Evangelicals and the Old Evangelicals. Historically, the doctrines would have been largely the same. It was the view of culture and relationships that were different.

There were a number of whacky fundamentalists who separated over the wrong things, but that does not impugn the necessity of separation or the distinctiveness of it though it is often, IMO, wrongly applied. KJVO was a troubling doctrine of some of fundamentalism, but is it really more troubling than continuationism? Both are cut from the same cloth. Fundamentalism did have a heavy emphasis on a rejection of certain cultural trends, and there is a good case to be made that, at least in certain areas, time has borne out that they were on the right side. So, IMO, it’s not as cut and dried as some might pretend. Evangelicalism did attempt to maintain relationships with modernism, but is evangelicalism better off because of that?

One of the benefits of the “old days” was that the lines were clearer and the term hadn’t been hijacked both by churches and culture. Now, there is a great deal more fluidity in issues. I think the categories of old are no longer of much help.

The historic fundamentalists emphasized and practiced separation from liberalism and apostasy. Many of today’s fundamentalists are known by their militant separation from other Christians sometimes over their failure to separate from liberalism, apostasy, charismatics. suspected new evangelicals, and convergents. Historic fundamentalists would name apostates like Fosdick and Peale as “dangerous”. Today’s fundamentalist applied the dangerous label to Graham and Falwell.

Historic fundamentalists would name apostates like Fosdick and Peale as “dangerous”. Today’s fundamentalist applied the dangerous label to Graham and Falwell.

While I don’t want to contest your memory on how Fosdick and Peale were labeled :D, I am not sure this is an argument or a valid comparison. There was no Graham or Falwell of the early part of the 20th century, so far as I can recall. They were a product of the New Evangelicalism. So it seems a bit anachronistic to compare these two groups. Secondly, I think Graham (and to perhaps a lesser degree Falwell) were dangerous. Was there anyone in the 20th century who did more to span the gap between Catholicism and Christianity and thus confuse the gospel than Graham?

I benefited from attending BJU for undergrad and first grad degree. I don’t regret it a bit. Would be happy if my children went there too.

Once I left Greenville, I stopped caring about “Fundamentalism” and labels and defining separation.

But I kept caring in a pastoral way. You could say in an “all things are lawful but not all things are expedient” sort of way. The pastoral-care decisions vary on a situation-specific basis depending on the spiritual maturity and theological discernment of the flock. If anything I’ve become more cautious in a context where there are a lot of new believers or believers without good teaching in their background. These are people who require a lot of explanation even to differentiate prosperity teaching from the gospel. Sending mixed signals by using less-than-reliable resources risks setting you back.

I also stopped caring a long time ago. My church has no memory or understanding of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. We don’t self-identify as fundamentalists. We identify as evangelicals, and so does the regional GARBC. The movement forms no part of anything we do. The proper ethos, that of first-stage fundamentalism, does.

I am also a “convergent” who would dearly love to dispense with cultural fundamentalism and second/third degree separation and the like, but it strikes me that even in the best churches, you’ve got cultural fundamentalism going on quietly in certain areas, and it pops up when you’d least expect it. I would dare say some of this needs to be confronted head on if leadership feels that it is wrong.