The following is a portion of a paper Dr. Straub read at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit last summer (he also read a variation at the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory last May). It appears here with light editing. See Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. -Editor

So what of the future for fundamentalism? Is there hope? (cont.)

3. A more theological view of separation

Third, I think we need to work toward better approach to separation. Our practice is often weak and sloppy. This is because our thinking is weak and sloppy. We don’t read widely or think deeply about much of anything. Theological reflection is rare among us. We want simple answers to complex questions.

This sloppiness may be seen in the way we practice separation. It is often harsh and inconsistent. It lacks thoughtful reflection and purposeful expression. But we are not alone in our weak view of separation. I think evangelicals are also weak in this area. They actually do practice secondary separation but they do so inconsistently.

The following is a portion of a paper Dr. Straub read at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit last summer (he also read a variation at the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory last May). It appears here with light editing. The paper will appear here in four parts. See Part 1 and Part 2. -Editor

So what of the future for fundamentalism? Is there hope?

Having defined fundamentalism and having set it in the context of the evangelical right, I will devote the rest of this presentation to discussing where fundamentalism is going and what its future may be. We are less than a decade into the new millennium. It’s impossible to predict where we will be at the end of the century, but I am not too optimistic. A few months back I said some disparaging remarks about the current state of fundamentalism on a semi-private listserve I moderate. Word of what I said got out to a well-respected pastor in our circles and he contacted me to encourage me to be careful about dissing fundamentalism. He felt that I might hurt myself and ultimately Central Seminary. My response? I am a historian. We look at the past to understand the present. We look at the present to suggest what the future might be. Arnold Toynbee said once that “the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.” I think we need to be honest with our past, realistic about our present and reflective about our future. Only then can we hope to remain faithful to God. I did not create the state that fundamentalism is in, but I think that glossing over our problems will help no one. Young men will continue to leave and the old men will continue to sit smug in self-denial. A real future demands serious reflection.

So what about historic fundamentalism in the 21^st century? Do we have a future? Last May, my son graduated from Central with his M.Div. He is currently enrolled in our ThM program. When he finishes, he will go out into the Lord’s work. I wonder where he will land? What movement will he identify with in the next decade, or 30 years? Will he follow my path and remain within this movement called fundamentalism? Will there even be a fundamentalism as we know it? Some of these questions, I cannot answer. But the one I raised in my subtitle—Does Fundamentalism Have a Future?—I do wish to try to answer.

The following is a portion of a paper Dr. Straub read at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit last summer (he also read a variation at the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory last May). It appears here with light editing. The paper will appear here in four parts. See Part 1. -Editor

New-Image Fundamentalism (continued)

So if hyper-fundamentalism adds to the essential core, should we then speak of hypo-fundamentalism? Well, maybe, but I think “new-image” is a better term. A new-image fundamentalist does not like the negative image that older fundamentalism carries and wants to create a new category that will allow them to be seen in a better light by their fellow evangelicals.¹ As such, some of the things that have given other parts of fundamentalism a bad image are jettisoned outright or quietly abandoned.

What are the characteristics of a new-image fundamentalist? Well clearly new-image men are evangelical in the classic sense of the term—committed to the core of Reformation truth summarized at least by the five solas: Scriptura, fides, gratis, Christus, and Deo Gloria. Part of the new image is pointing out their close affinity with other evangelicals in these important doctrinal views. “We believe what you believe—we cannot be that bad!” By saying this, I am not at this point meaning to exclude non-Calvinists necessarily from the term evangelical. But I am suggesting that there is, despite current revisionist notions within evangelicalism to the contrary, an essential body of truths that represent historic evangelicalism, including the nature of God, the reality and eternality of eternal punishment, etc. Little separates the new-image men who sometimes self-identify as fundamentalist from their conservative evangelical cousins. Both hold to some level of separation, primary at least, and even to some extent, so-called secondary separation. But the new-image men are tired of the hyper-fundamentalists and are looking desperately for something more balanced. They find that balance in the evangelical right.

The following is a paper Dr. Straub read at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit last summer (He also read a variation at the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory last May). It appears here with light editing. The paper will appear here in four parts. -Editor

Today I wish to address fundamentalism at the beginning of the 21^st century.

The Social Shift

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9.

To hell with the Twentieth Century!
—Billy Sunday, New York City, April 15, 1917

Ideas always precede movements. Movements (by which I mean large numbers of people sharing a common set of concerns and working together toward a common goal) grow out of ideas. As the idea turns into the movement, however, other ideas and influences get mixed in. The result is that movements rarely or never reflect purely the ideas that produced them.

The Fundamentalist Movement embodies the Fundamentalist idea only imperfectly. One of the most common mistakes in discussing Fundamentalism is to confuse the two, to speak of the movement as if it were the idea or vice versa. The idea of Fundamentalism (which we have not yet discussed) is certainly a component in the Fundamentalist movement, but Fundamentalism as a movement has also assimilated other ideas and ceded to other influences.

Attempting to tell the story of Fundamentalism, I have tried to describe some of the intellectual and social influences that shaped the early Fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism emerged as an identifiable movement around 1920, but it came from and displayed the characteristics of an earlier American evangelicalism. I have suggested that this earlier evangelicalism was deeply influenced by at least three trends: Scottish Common Sense Realism, populism, and sentimentalism. Though not alone in succumbing to these influences, Fundamentalists certainly did evidence them.

My thesis has been that the early Fundamentalist movement was deeply influenced by Common Sense Realism, populism, and sentimentalism. Over the past several essays I have taken a digression, answering certain objections to this thesis. First, I tried to show how Common Sense Realism represented a metaphysical dream that differed substantively from the metaphysical dream of premodernity. Second, I tried to demonstrate how a genuinely historical-grammatical (literal) hermeneutic need not rely upon either Common Sense or populism. Finally, I attempted to explain the difference between congregational polity and that version of church democracy that grows out of American populism.

Because of these three influences, the Fundamentalist movement was never dedicated purely to defending the faith. To some extent, its defense of the faith always presumed and included a defense of the ideals of Common Sense, populism, and sentimentalism. In other words, the early Fundamentalists were men of their times, reflecting their own situatedness and displaying the concerns not only of historic Christianity but also of their own intellectual and social location.

Fundamentalism as Defined by Fundamentalists

In 1920 Curtis Lee Laws, editor of the Northern Baptist paper The Watchman-Examiner, coined the word “Fundamentalists” to describe those “who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal” against theological liberalism. Laws’ definition of Fundamentalism was essentially theological, concerned with preserving orthodox doctrine. Yet within sixty years Fundamentalism had become a word to describe religious extremism of every kind. Fundamentalism is no longer a label for only orthodox American Protestants; today, Islamic terrorists, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and Hindu extremists are all considered Fundamentalists by the popular media, academics, and even many religious historians. “Fundamentalism” has become a catch-all term for any religious “dangerous other.”

Fundamentalism as Defined by Modernists

Unsurprisingly, theological modernists in the 1920s and 30s contested the meaning of Fundamentalism. Rather than seeing Fundamentalists as heroic preservers of sound doctrine, modernists accused Fundamentalists of being narrow-minded, backward pedants who obstinately refused to update Christianity to reflect modern times. In his famous 1922 sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” Harry Emerson Fosdick, modernist pastor of New York’s First Presbyterian Church, argued that “we must be able to think our modern life clear through in Christian terms, and to do that we also must be able to think our Christian faith clear through in modern terms.” Modernists believed that Fundamentalism was a movement at the cultural margins of early twentieth century America. Thus Fosdick had noted that the strength of Fundamentalism lay in the “Middle West.” The 1925 Scopes Trial, and the coverage of the trial by influential Northeastern reporters like H. L. Mencken, encouraged this perception of Fundamentalism. So despite the fact that Fundamentalism was actually a predominately middle class, urban movement, H. Richard Niebuhr’s 1937 entry on “Fundamentalism” in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (vol 5, New York City: MacMillan) declared that “in the social sources from which it drew its strength Fundamentalism was closely related to the conflict between rural and urban cultures in America.” Niebuhr believed that it was modernism that found “its strength in the cities and in the churches supported by the urban middle classes.”

Fundamentalism and Populism

Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Prior to Thomas Reid and Scottish Common Sense Realism, people typically recognized a distinction between appearances (whether understood as perceptions, phenomena, or, in Locke’s case, ideas) and reality. From antiquity until the late Middle Ages, this distinction had produced two effects upon the way that most people thought about reality. First, they reckoned that whatever reality they encountered had to be interpreted—and not everyone was in an equally good position to do the interpreting. Second, they believed that reality possessed dimensions of meaning or significance that stretched well beyond sensory awareness. Grasping those levels of meaning was also something that not everyone was equally qualified to do.

Common Sense Realists denied the distinction between appearance and reality. They insisted that perceiving subjects have direct and unmediated access to reality itself. Consequently, reality does not need to be interpreted—it is as it appears to be. This move had the effect of placing every person on an equal footing for understanding any aspect of reality.

As presented by people like Reid and Dugald Stewart, Common Sense Realism was a responsible if misguided academic option. Ironically, however, many of the people who appropriated and applied Reid’s conclusions would not have been capable of understanding his arguments. Chief among them were Americans.

Even before Reid, Americans had begun to affirm the competence of the ordinary person in all matters. This perspective is called populism. The harshness of the American frontier and the necessity of individual accomplishment tended to negate aristocratic influences. The sense that they were starting anew gave Americans an antipathy toward traditions. The arrival of Common Sense Realism confirmed the populist prejudice and opened the throttle for its acceleration. This process continued throughout the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian periods.