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 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.

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.