The 9Marks Forum and a Working Definition of Fundamentalism
By paulmatzko on Mar 12, 2008 in Fundamentalism and tagged 9Marks, Mark Dever, Mark Minnick
Recently Mark Dever’s 9Marks ministry published a forum of conservative evangelicals and moderate fundamentalists. 9Marks asked the panel “What Can We Learn from Fundamentalists?”
The participants gave a list of both positive and negative lessons they thought could be learned from Fundamentalism. A basic problem reared its ugly head and my debater background reacted; few of the participants ever offered a workable definition of Fundamentalism, with the exception of Mark Minnick.
All too often on blog forums Fundamentalism is variously defined as a system of things to do (i.e. conform to conservative standards in dress, music, etc…) or things not to do (i.e. don’t conform to worldly standards in…). Sometimes people, including excellent scholars like Mark Noll, George Marsden, and Joel Carpenter, emphasize the ideological streams that fed into Fundamentalism, like Revivalism, Dispensationalism, and Premillenarianism.
The problem with all these definitions is that they are mostly useless. There are Fundamentalists who have adopted standards typically associated with New Evangelicals and vice versa. There are Fundamentalists who ascribed to Covenant theology and were Postmillenialists. Both Evangelicals and Fundamentalists had 19th century Revivalist roots (the two Billys for example). These are what debaters call “non-unique definitions.” A discussion built on such definitions will range in clarity from confusing to chaotic…no real clash.
But Minnick proposes a core watershed question that divided Fundamentalism from New Evangelicalism: Should we cooperate with non-Evangelicals?
This definition is as coherent as it is functional.
Interestingly, in this 9Marks forum the conservative evangelicals tend to emphasis the appearance of Fundamentalism while the fundamentalists, like Minnick and Doran, prefer to cut down to the basic ideological question.
Here is a link to the forum on the 9Marks website: http://www.9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID598014|CIID2396820,00.html
5 Comment(s)
The problem is that the definition doesn’t go very far in actually denoting most fundamentalists today. Some people differentiate fundamentalism the “movement” and fundamentalism the “idea.” It seems to me that Minnick’s definition is more concerned with the latter, but the 9Marks forum, in asking “What Can We Learn from Fundamentalists?” has to do with the former.
Minnick’s watershed question doesn’t have much to do with actual fundamentalists, because most are not regularly–if ever–concerning themselves with ecclesiastical involvement with non-evangelicals. It’s more probable to find a pastor or theologian qua fundamentalist concerned with things like Bible translations, lifestyle issues, etc., which are part of what you’ve designated as a system of things to do, or with issues that are particular to independent Baptist theology, which falls under the ideological streams category. If we’re going to evaluate fundamentalism the movement, we have to acknowledge that these things are some of its salient features, like it or not.
Besides, Minnick himself indicates that the watershed question applies not just to fundamentalists, so your standard of being non-unique is violated: “We have an unresolved controversy, the scriptural rightness or wrongness of uniting in spiritual endeavor with non-Evangelicals. If I understand Murray’s concern, this evidently isn’t a great divide between only Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, but between Evangelicals themselves.”
To continue Austin’s thoughts, it seems that we could use a definition of “evangelicalism” as well. There seems to be a conceptual division between fundamentalism and evangelicalism, but it isn’t always clear where the line is. Most people would draw the line culturally, not theologically. We might as well ask what a “non-evangelical” is. Many non-fundamentalists would separate from those who deny the gospel.
I suspect that one of the big divisions between “theological fundamentalists” and “conservative evangelicals” is their willingness to accept the label “fundamentalist.” There are fundamentalists who insist that part of being one is accepting the label. But that’s a cultural issue, not an ideological one.
Good points guys. Austin, I agree with you that it is important to differentiate between the “idea” and the “movement” when discussing Fundamentalism. I attempted to do so by supporting the idea based definition, an approach which I would argue provides greater clarity.
We could probably agree that in the 1950s the primary division between Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism involved cooperation with non-evangelicals (ie Billy Graham). So an idea based definition was legitimate in historic fundamentalism. You raise the pertinent question of whether or not the validity of the cooperation definition has changed over time; I would agree with you that when people think of Fundamentalism today they are most likely to think of external cultural issues.
Yet I propose that the idea of cooperation with non-evangelicals (or cooperating with those cooperating with non-evangelicals) continues to be the principal dividing line. In large part I cling to this definition because no other definition comes as close to being useful. If you pick any individual issue, like allegiance to the KJV, girls wearing skirts rather than pants, or Baptist dispensationalism you run into confirmed Fundamentalists groups on both sides of the issue. Indeed, such internal groups will often fight to the point of de facto separation on these issues (Pensacola v. BJU). But all of these groups share one idea in common: cooperating with non-evangelicals is beyond the pale. It may be “enemy of my enemy” style logic, but it is one standard modern Fundamentalists share…an idea that has largely managed to transcend internal fighting and the passage of time.
Let me provide a political example. Is modern political conservatism defined by a position on gun control, school choice, or even abortion? Some might argue yes and use a single issue as a litmus test (abortion). I propose that no single issue can define a movement as accurately as the deeper philosophical difference. The difference between modern conservatism and liberalism is based in a cluster of ideas about the wisdom of government intervention, the nature of man, and, on an even deeper level, the tension between liberty and equality. Those ideas tend to lead true believers to take certain positions, but a stance on any individual position, or even a group of positions, does not provide a clear definition. If we choose abortion, then what do we do with Harry Reid D-Nevada, a staunchly anti-abortion liberal?
Even so, modern conservatism has a popular persona just like Fundamentalism does. Conservatives are expected to be anti-abortion, anti-gun control, etc…just like Fundamentalists are expected to be dispensationalist Baptists who constantly dispute over external issues. These perceptions are often valid or “salient features,” but they do not define the movement.
Concerning your observation about the non-uniqueness of Minnick’s definition goes, you would be right except that I don’t differentiate between conservative evangelicals and moderate fundamentalists on the concept of direct cooperation. All the recent hubbub about unity between conservative evangelicals and moderate fundamentalists stems from the separatistic stands they have taken recently (Al Mohler). By my definition they are essentially Fundamentalists…indeed many of them claim the label “historic Fundamentalists,” which is their way of embracing the idea of Fundamentalism while rejecting its contemporary image.
The reason for hesitancy in the moderate Fundamentalist camp over embracing conservative evangelicals as fellow fundamentalists arises from uncertainty over the application of “secondary separation,” a can of worms that deserves a distinct discussion.
So I believe my definition remains unique because I basically include conservative evangelicals within broader Fundamentalism.
I know some of them wouldn’t embrace the label or even admit to it, but you don’t have to be self-conciously a member in order to belong to a movement. What you describe yourself as doesn’t always reflect what your core beliefs are. For example, wouldn’t many Mormons call themselves Christians and really believe that they were followers of Jesus? Are they right just because they think so? No. That’s a positive example rather than a negative one, but I think the logic still applies.
Andrew, I wonder if the grey areas between evangelicalism and fundamentalism surround the definition of “separation.” A mainstream Fundamentalist would include both primary and secondary separation in his definition. Most conservative evangelicals only embrace primary separation. But conservative evangelicals differ from mainstream evangelicals who don’t practice either.
So the difference between conservative evangelicals and moderate fundamentalists remains even though the tenor of the conversation is gentler. Goodness, the fact that there is constructive dialogue at all is encouraging. My brother-in-law recently told me that Minnick’s engagement with Dever only goes so far…he is still not open to actually having Dever speak in his church.
The more I think about it, the more I like your emphasis Austin. I think it is overly simplistic of me to try and narrow the question down to a single definition. I’ll have to spend more time fleshing out the concept, but Fundamentalism, both historic and contemporary, is a hodgepodge of widely divergent ideas, positions, and standards.
Rather than talking about “definitions” and trying to find a “solution” (here my upbringing in a scientist’s household betrays me) I should instead be talking of influences and tendencies.
I’ll have to work on this and post something towards the end of the semester. The more I read for Dr. Watt, the better I understand how complicated the issue and how inadequate my personal perspective.