|
Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism George M. Marsden Book from Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Release date: January, 1991 |
The term "fundamentalist" gets thrown around a lot. Unfortunately, few of the people who are using the term really understand what fundamentalism is, much less what it has become today.
In the 1920s, several conservative theologians got together to clarify what exactly were the basics of orthodox Christianity. The were protesting the increasing modernism in mainline denominations, and wanted to make their positions clear. They published a series of books called The Fundamentals setting forth their doctrinal convictions -- things that they would not compromise on, and things that they thought the modernists had gotten wrong. The fundamentals as published in these books are:
1. The inerrancy of the ScripturesThis list actually leaves a lot of wiggle room, and most conservative evangelicals would be in agreement with all of them. But this fundamentalism is not the fundamentalism that we see in modern society.
2. The Deity of Christ
3. The second coming of Jesus Christ
4. The virgin birth
5. The physical resurrection of the body
6. The substitutionary atonement
7. The total depravity of man - original sin
Modern fundamentalism (which I personally think began in the 1960s as a reaction to several social factors) is distinctive in its doctrine of separation -- specifically the use of secondary, tertiary, etc. separation. The concept can be a bit confusing to those who have never been a part of the movement -- I grew up in it, and I still have a hard time explaining it. But here goes:
Primary separation involves separating from those who practice false doctrine. This isn't social, economic, political separation -- it's ecclesial separation. Interact with them in every other way, but don't worship with them. This is actually a Biblical idea, and is practiced by most conservative churches today.
Secondary separation means that you don't have anything to do with the people who don't do primary separation. A recent example is the conservative/moderate/liberal fight in the Southern Baptist Convention. There were those who left the convention because of what they saw as theological apostasy (primary separation). There were those who stayed and fought for the "heart and soul" of the convention. Those who left stopped having anything to do with the people who stayed because of this idea of secondary separation. That's why you have people like David Cloud talking trash about the SBC even today. David Cloud, incidentally, is a great example of modern fundamentalism. Read what he has to say about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and you'll understand more about why I laugh when people call them fundamentalists. Read more, and you might frighten yourself.
Then there's tertiary, quaternary, etc. separation. You separate from people who aren't separated enough. It gets a bit ridiculous after a while. There are people I grew up with in church who will have nothing to do with me now, because I am a Southern Baptist and am going to a SBC seminary. I'm not separated enough.
The result of all this separation is that you have a group of people who have absolutely no influence in society. They won't work with anyone outside their camp of fundamentalists because of "doctrinal impurity" -- though most of that involves women wearing pants, men having long hair, and contemporary music. Modern fundamentalists have so secluded themselves that they cannot have any impact on society at all.
One accusation that is commonly made about fundies is that they are trying to make Jesus come back. This is the root of George Bush's foreign policy. It's why the Left Behind books were so popular. And it's totally wrong.
One thing modern fundies have in common is premillenial eschatology. That means that Jesus comes back before His 1000 year reign on earth. Normally, they are also pretribulational as well -- the return comes before the "time of great tribulation" that the Bible talks about. This involves the secret Rapture that Tim LaHaye talks about.
It's important to note that they believe that nothing at all can 'make' Jesus come. It's entirely up to God when Christ comes back. We can't do anything to make it happen. That is what fundies believe and teach.
The idea that we need to do something to make Christ come back is closer to post-millenialism. It's rooted in a philosophy called Christian Reconstructionism, that teaches that Christians need to take over civil government and "redeem it" for Christ. No fundamentalist believes that, though you'd never know it from accounts in the MSM.
Pat Robertson is postmillenial. He'd probably be a fundamentalist under the 1920s definition (though I'm a bit unclear about his position on the atonement, and don't think he holds to total depravity at all). But he's pretty much anathema to modern fundies. In fact, there are a lot of modern fundies who don't like George Bush at all, for various reasons (mainly the fact that he's Methodist -- not separated enough).
Fundamentalism has nothing to do with politics. One thing it always has been is a theological movement striving for doctrinal purity in all things -- including things that evangelicals consider minors and not worth fighting over. I think that's the biggest thing that separates fundies and evangelicals. It's the thing that got Jerry Falwell disowned by fundies back around 1995 or so (that was the year he addressed the Southern Baptist Convention). And it's the reason I left the fundamentalist movement.
If you want more info on this, I've posted a few times on it at my own
blog:
Fundamentalists and the
Fundamentals
Fundamentalists and
Evangelicals
This one's a repost of
old stuff and some new stuff
Then there's this
article that I didn't write, but thoroughly enjoyed.
