Historical Perspective: Come Out or Stay Put?
In the 1940s and 50s, during the late stages of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, Fundamentalists divided into two roughly defined camps: those who left the mainline denominations to avoid the leaven of modernism and those who remained behind in hopes of reforming the established denominations from within. Representative of those Fundamentalists who withdrew (or were forced) from the mainline denominations was Carl McIntire and other separatist members of the American Council of Christian Churches. On the other hand, Harold Ockenga and members of the National Association of Evangelicals often remained part of the denominations.
During the time of religious revival post-WWII, these two branches of fundamentalism split into what we call modern fundamentalism and new evangelicalism. The new evangelicals saw their position as keeping the baby while draining the bathwater. The fundamentalists thought the old denominations irreversibly corrupted.
Thus it is ironic that these two camps have mutated and now seem to have switched positions. I attend a church in Philadelphia that has been described by the pastor as “fundagelical.” In other words, it attempts to split the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism, though in all honesty the accent belongs on the second half of the word. Indeed, among self-declared fundamentalists there is a growing movement called “Young Fundamentalism” that seeks to counter the more radical fringes of fundamentalism. The (as of yet) implicit point of distinction between young, conservative evangelicals and young fundamentalists is similar to that which historically separated fundamentalism from new evangelicalism, but with one key difference: they have switched sides.
Conservative evangelical emigrés leave fundamentalism because they think it unsalvageably marked by legalism and isolationism; they must leave for happier (and often, more Reformed) climes. Young fundamentalists, on the other hand, argue that fundamentalism is worth saving. To leave the movement now would be to eject the good along with the bad; better to stay fundamentalists and purge it from within.
Insightful observation, Paul.
Funny that you should write this when you did. Just yesterday I was reading about the fundamentalist/new evangelical split in Marsden’s “Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.” At the beginning of the split (or right before it began) he describes both parties as fundamentalists,one representing a “positive” view (neos), the other a “negative” view (separatist fundies), which I found intriguing.
Great Scott!(-:
Usually guys like Marsden and Mark Noll will differentiate between culturally isolationist fundamentalists who had a “bunker mentality” and culturally engaged new evangelicals. I take it with a grain of salt. In practice those lines were never clearly drawn. Take the founder of our alma mater for instance. Initially he chose the NAE over the ACCC, encouraged his preacher boys to learn to appreciate opera and culture, and tried to avoid some of the more reactionary elements within fundamentalism (men like J. Frank Norris). Yet there is no doubt that he was a fundamentalist. We, myself and Marsden included, must avoid uncomplicated generalizations.
Intriguing post Paul.
I find your differentiation between the young “SharpIron” fundamentalist crowd and the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” evangelical crowd quite helpful. But my sense is that self-professing fundamentalism aren’t talking about inward reform, but rather terminal decline. As one fundamentalist Seminary President recently put it: “The question is not whether fundamentalism is collapsing. The question is how we should respond to the collapse.” [http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/20081024Print.pdf]
I think self-profession young fundamentalists think more about decline than about the separation debates of the 1940s and 1950s. It seems to me that militancy is at an all-time-low in fundamentalism. While there are undoubtedly dozens of factors contributing to the decline of American fundamentalism (the holes in dispensational theology, ecumenical desires, charges of legalism, uncertainty about the relationship between Church and culture, in-fighting, a difficulty explaining those doctrines which warrant separation, John Piper), I think the precipitous declension can be explained by the decline of certainty in fundamental circles in light of the globalization of Christianity and continental philosophy.
All across the developing post-colonial world, Christianity is rapidly gaining both traction and surprising momentum—and fundamentalist/evangelical missionaries have been eyewitnesses to this shift of Christianity to the Global South. And fundamentalist/evangelical missionaries area realizing that this shift is not due to just the work of western bible teaching and influences. Indian Christianity, for example, looks a lot more like archaic Hindu devotional movements than like Roman Catholicism or mainline Protestantism. Latin American Pentecostalism, which is undermining the centuries-old alliance of regional politics with the Catholic clergy, resembles more the messianic religious nativism that challenged Spanish colonial administrations in the 17th century than it does the 19th century cartel of the church and the ruling European oligarchies. Chinese Christianity may soon reach 10% of the population and has almost as many complex and diverse characteristics as the culture and politics of China. And missionaries in Africa are realizing that there has been a strong Christian intellectual tradition in that continent for over millennia. As technological and communications revolutions brought about by globalization have made these indigenous voices easily accessible, and decolonization have made their opinions equal to those of the west, it is becoming increasingly obvious to many conservative Protestants that God works through many sets of teachings.
And within this flattening of the world, I think fundamentalists are becoming aware of the danger of fundamentalist notion of the “objective interpreter’s” power-plays on a text. Fairness to the “other” has driven the Postmodern ethos to discover and unveil interpretive biases. In many cases it has also meant a complete deconstruction of meaning, but for Christians, the ethical obligation toward the “other” has arisen as a reaction to the autonomous, disinterested “knower” of the Enlightenment and Modernist movements. Today, one might as well claim to be a rhinoceros as an objective interpreter. “Knowledge is power,” and to postmodern mind, none is more “power hungry” than those who claim to have access to an “objective interpretation.” And because of this, I tentatively suggest, fundamentalism—subconsciously in most respects—is losing its militancy.
Perhaps one explanation for continental slide of gen-Xers like me into greater evangelicalism (and beyond) is due to the decimation of the ideal of an “objective interpreter” within fundamentalism. What we are witnessing in this divide is not simply a generation gap—we are witnessing the effects of the first generation of self professing fundamentalists born and raised in a postmodern world butting heads with their parents (still) modernist movement. In other words, this is not simply a generation gap—it is symptomatic of a Christian cultural revolution between modernist Christians (fundamentalists) and postmodern Christians.
Thanks for the Kevin Bauder link; I’m a big fan of his candor and perspective. I also agree that fundamentalism is waning, though I would emphasize the inherent mutability of fundamentalism. We tend to think of fundamentalism as the static status quo when the movement has always been marked by all kinds of cultural and theological innovation. So whether fundamentalism is collapsing or simply mutating is an open question in my mind, but Bauder’s observation is still legitimate.
But I do not buy your principal explanation, that “the precipitous declension [of fundamentalism] can be explained by the decline of certainty in fundamental circles in light of the globalization of Christianity and continental philosophy.” The modern missions movement, and thus exposure to alternative ways of expressing faith, predates fundamentalism completely, let alone postmodernism.
Even if we grant your theological marketplace of ideas approach it would imply that American fundamentalists are consistently confronted by alternative evangelical orthodoxies and are moved to change. I’d be surprised if a significant number of American fundamentalists had ever seriously contemplated the spread of Christianity in the Global South let alone changed their opinions regarding objective truth because of it.
I would also note that the trajectory of many ex-fundamentalists can hardly be described as post-modern friendly. Admittedly this is somewhat anecdotal, but many self-professing fundamentalists seem to be most concerned about losing their young seminarians to Neo-Reformed evangelicalism. They are worried about the influence of John Piper, not Michel Foucault. Say what you will about Piper, Mohler, Dever, and the like, but they can hardly be accused of upholding the relativity of Biblical truth in regards to doctrinal orthodoxy.
I agree that young fundamentalists are reacting to something, I just doubt that that something is alternative global evangelicalisms.
I love the Symmetry of your observation, I do think it’s oversimplified. It assumes that the defining characteristic of each group is its reaction to it’s current/former social community construct. But, these ideas are a lot more complicated than that. – A more obvious characteristic (and less ironic) is its interaction with liberalism. That’s more or less stayed consistent.