Evangelicalism

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Inside the Boundary

Fellowship is by definition that which is held in common. Unity is a function of that which unites. The quality of unity is always defined by the thing that unites, and the quality of fellowship is always defined by the nature of the thing that is held in common.

To speak of Christian fellowship and unity is to say that Christians hold something in common and that they are united by something. Christian unity and fellowship are not primarily experiential, but positional. All legitimate experiences and expressions of Christian unity and fellowship grow out of the real unity that exists among them.

The most basic form of Christian fellowship and unity is defined by the gospel. However else they may differ, Christians hold the gospel in common. Christian fellowship and unity are like a circle, and the boundary of the circle is the gospel.

Those who deny the gospel—whether explicitly by flat rejection or implicitly by denying some fundamental doctrine—are outside of the circle. No Christian unity or fellowship exists with someone who denies the gospel. Where no actual unity exists, any pretense of unity is the merest hypocrisy. Therefore, to profess unity or fellowship with someone who denies a fundamental of the gospel is always sinful.

Outside the Boundary

A few months ago I wrote an essay entitled “Let’s Get Clear on This.” That essay argued the following: (1) conservative evangelicals are not neo-evangelicals; (2) conservative evangelicals are making a substantial contribution to the defense and exposition of the Christian faith; (3) substantial differences continue to distinguish conservative evangelicals from fundamentalists; but (4) fundamentalists must not treat conservative evangelicals as enemies or even opponents. These points are, I think, as clear in reality as they were presented to be in the essay.

What “Let’s Get Clear on This” did not do was to explore the differences between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. Such an exploration would have been beside the point in that essay. Nevertheless, those differences remain important. What I have proposed to do is to examine the ways in which fundamentalism differs from conservative evangelicalism.

Partly, this is an empirical evaluation based upon an examination of the two movements as they actually exist at this point in time. But only partly. In my examination of the differences, I am deliberately opting for an a priori definition that excludes some self-identified fundamentalists.

My reason for this decision is simple: words refer to ideas, and ideas are anterior to things. This discussion will recognize as fundamentalists only those who approximate the idea of fundamentalism. Of course, none of us perfectly implements the idea. Whenever ideas are incarnated in human institutions, movements, and persons, they display the effects of human finiteness and fallenness. No ideal fundamentalist (or conservative, or Baptist, or even Christian, for that matter) has ever existed, and none ever will. We judge ourselves by the idea. In the present discussion, I shall consider only those versions of fundamentalism that are closer to the idea.

Why This Discussion?

Some weeks ago I wrote a piece expressing appreciation and even admiration for the contributions that conservative evangelicals are making to the Christian faith. Many people have replied, both publicly and privately, both agreeably and disagreeably. Leaving aside the most hysterical evaluations, responses have generally fallen into four categories.

First, some have questioned whether particular individuals or institutions should have been listed as conservative evangelical. According to this response, some of the evangelicals whom I listed are not so conservative after all. To this criticism I reply that my direct knowledge of some individuals and organizations is less complete than my knowledge of others. It is entirely possible that a few of these people may be less conservative than I had understood them to be.

Since my main concern was with conservative evangelicalism as a movement, however, the inclusion or exclusion of a few names does not fundamentally alter my conclusions. In other words, the first criticism is not directed against the argument itself. The remaining criticisms, however, go to the heart of the matter. Let me put them on the table, and then I can evaluate them together.

Second, some have praised my essay for what they took to be its blanket endorsement of conservative evangelicalism. These respondents seem to believe that no appreciable difference exists between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. In my article they read agreement. They welcomed my observations as a legitimization for abolishing whatever barriers inhibit fundamentalists from fully cooperating with conservative evangelicals.

What follows should not be seen as any kind of “answer” to the essay by Dr. Kevin Bauder we posted here last week (what minor points I differed with him on are already expressed in the comments there).

But it is a reaction of sorts.

Many have been announcing the death of the “Fundamentalist Movement” for some time. And these death knells are coming increasingly from those still inside whatever Fundamentalism now is. I don’t care to argue the question of the movement’s deceased status one way or the other here. But even contemplating its passing stirs me, because Fundamentalism (both the “movement” and the “idea”) has been a source of great blessing to me as God has used it my life.

1. Fundamentalism taught me expository preaching.

From early childhood, I was exposed to a broad spectrum of Fundamentalist preaching. At school, I heard the preaching of passionate evangelists who knew how to penetrate the apathy of hardened Christian school kids’ hearts and move us to walk aisles by the dozens. Sometimes (only God knows how often) the Holy Spirit was at work in these efforts as well and produced His fruit in lives.

A variety of electronic periodicals reach my inbox regularly. One that arrives nearly every day is published by a retired seminary professor. Most days I derive a great deal of pleasure and often profit from glancing through his cogitations.

Today’s number, however, evoked a bit of concern. The dear fellow was reprinting some criticisms that he had received. Here is what they said.

The oft-repeated mantra coming out of Dr. Piper and Dr. Storms is that it is impossible for human beings to enjoy too much pleasure. We are made for pleasure, but it’s the pleasure of enjoying God. These guys are full-bore new evangelicals and Piper is a hard line Calvinist…. Why are you promoting this sort of thing?

While I can appreciate many things coming out of Dr. Piper’s ministry, are you endorsing such a leading New Evangelical with no disclaimer?…I am sure you do not endorse the New Evangelicalism that is Dr. Piper’s ministry, but when we simply laud a New Evangelical by attending his conference and praising it, that is the result at the practical level.

These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.

This binary system of classification is far too simplistic. American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.