One of John R. Rice’s grandson just wrote this book:
Andrew Himes. The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family. Seattle: Chiara, 2011.
Himes (b. 1950), who identifies himself as a follower of Jesus but not as a fundamentalist or evangelical, has a provocative perspective on Mark Driscoll (pp. 13–14):
Mark Driscoll is the prominent pastor of Mars Hill Church in a neighborhood near my home in Seattle. I’ve attended Driscoll‘s church several times to listen to his preaching and get a clear sense of his theology, which is identical in almost every respect with older fundamentalists such as John R. Rice, although he adds a twist of Calvinism . . . .
Driscoll does not claim to be a fundamentalist, and many who today willingly accept the label of fundamentalist would not claim him as their sectarian brother. Nonetheless, Driscoll is a fundamentalist in everything but name, and shares virtually all his doctrinal positions and attitudes with any other fundamentalist.
Driscoll is aware that fundamentalists have developed a bad reputation for being judgmental and self-righteous. He therefore claims not to be one. He defines fundamentalists simply as people who do not like smoking, drinking, and cussing, and then he offers a shallow critique of fundamentalism.
“Fundamentalism is really losing the war,” Driscoll said in an interview with Christianity Today, “and I think it is in part responsible for the rise of what we know as the more liberal end of the emerging church. Because a lot of what is fueling the left end of the emerging church is fatigue with hardcore fundamentalism that throws rocks at culture. But culture is the house that people live in, and it just seems really mean to keep throwing rocks at somebody’s house.”
Driscoll’s attempt to avoid the label of fundamentalism by suggesting the movement is only about “culture”—disapproval of cigars, pop music, and Hollywood picture shows—is the shallowest possible definition of fundamentalism. However, it seems to attract many who are uncomfortable with the cultural straitjacket of fundamentalism but open to Driscoll‘s fundamentalist interpretation of God and the Bible.
What? Fundamentalists tend to have difficulty understanding grace — grace centered living. Mark has no problem with that. Does the author really know the difference?
This seems to be a weird take…
I think the parallel for Himes is militantly affirming fundamental doctrines.
The Christian bookstores in which I worked during the 1970s carried Rice books. What I liked to say about them was, “If you liked the dust cover, you’ll love the book cover!” They were unique in that the dust-cover had a picture of Rice, not what one would call a conventionally photogenic man (is that gracious? I think s0)… and, inside, the exact same cover!
Driscoll’s definition of fundamentalism is thin, but so is Himes’.
Agreed. I found it interesting that someone very familiar with a certain strand of fundamentalism (the Sword of the Lord crowd) sees many of the same characteristics (in both doctrine and tone) in Driscoll.
Interesting to see them wrestle with definitions. It is as applicable to fundamentalism as it is to political ideologies and every poorly delineated group or idea. Do you define something by its cultural penumbra, its theological tenets, or by whom self-identifies as such?
I’ve heard Driscoll self identify as a Fundamentalist, then distance himself from the cultural trappings. I have listened to a ton of his sermons, and this actually comes up a lot.
A tougher case is Matt Chandler, who calles himself a fundamentalist that wears jeans. I think he has more understanding of Southern conservative culture than Driscoll, while also having less of the “cussing pastor” baggage.
Driscoll may ‘smoke, drink, dance and date girls that do,’ but there are other cultural shibboleths for fundamentalists. Where does Driscoll line up on those? Nevertheless, I’ll go with Himes on this one. Fundamentalism (understood positively and pejoratively) is an ethos, a way of thinking and acting—and Driscoll seems to embody it, at least in his public persona.
For example (taken from the link above), fundamentalism can be said to have five ideological characteristics: (1) concerned “first” with the erosion of religion and its proper role in society; (2) selective of their tradition and what part of modernity they accept or choose to react against; (3) embrace some form of dualism; (4) stress absolutism and inerrancy in their sources of revelation; and (5) opt for some form of millennialism or messianism.
Without knowing much about Driscoll, at first glance he seems to line up with 1, 2, 4, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if 3 and 5 were included.
Fundamentalism’s four organizational characteristics include: (1) an elect or chosen membership; (2) sharp group boundaries; (3) charismatic authoritarian leaders; and (4) mandated behavioral requirements.
Yes on all four?
Some contemporary American fundamentalists claim that the label means more than “separating over issues,” but the major segments (FBF, Sword-of-the-Lord, BJU) are distinguished by issues. Some separate over the KJV, some over Calvinism, some over Dispensationalism, some over the two-wine theory/ total abstinence from alcoholic beverages, some over cessationism, some over pretribulationism, and the majority over CCM and “contemporary” worship (this is, it seems to me, the biggest obstacle between IFBers and the current SBC). None of the issues above is a sufficient reason for separation. These issues do, however, distinguish strands within fundamentalism and the fundamentalist movement from conservative evangelicalism.
You noted in a prior post that a few leading figures within BJU-flavored fundamentalism are trying to put forward a principled fundamentalism that isn’t defined by issues (https://andynaselli.com/category/kevin-bauder). The discussions you referenced reveal some major cultural differences between Dever and fundamentalists, but no major theological differences. If Driscoll had been invited to the conference, I think we would have seen major cultural differences, but no major theological differences.
One might suppose that the constituents of contemporary American fundamentalism apply doctrines more consistently than their conservative evangelical brothers (especially the doctrine of separation). The case seems to be quite the opposite. Fundamentalists who accept the label usually operate with an “us/them” duality in which the “us” mustn’t be publicly called out for doctrinal/ practical error, but the “them” must. For example, the FBF has taken a public stand against the SBC, Charismatic movement, John Piper’s ministry, Rick Warren, the emerging church, the integrated church movement, and theonomy (cf. Resolutions from the annual FBF meetings http://www.fbfi.org/flm-articles/). I haven’t found an FBF resolution against KJV-onlyism, Landmarkism, Keswick theology, Jack Schaap, or Peter Ruckman (these are issues within fundamentalism). I also haven’t found a resolution calling out IFBers who fellowship with “fundamentalist” heretics (i.e. men like Clarence Sexton, Marc Monte, Ron Hamilton and John Vaughn. cf. http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=290).
If contemporary American fundamentalism is defined by principles rather than issues, conservative evangelicals (including Driscoll) should be considered inconsistent fundamentalists and welcomed to the club. If contemporary American fundamentalism is defined by issues, then conservative evangelicals aren’t fundamentalists and are justified in not wanting that label.
The author seems to have confused the evangelical “core” of fundamentalism with fundamentalism itself. Driscoll is evangelical in his theological outlook. Affirming evangelical theology does not make one a fundamentalist (in its most basic expression). There may be similarities between fundamenalism and the broader evangelical movement but that is all that they are.
This may not be true of the whole fundamentalist movement…but the variety that I am the most familiar with is “Christ against culture” fundamentalism (escapism).
Showing similarities between movements and then blurring the obvious distinctions is no way to do history or theology.
Andy, I am interested in taking a trip up to Christ Church in Moscow this fall to hear both Douglas Wilson and Mark Driscoll at the Conference on the Grace Agenda.
No, independent fundamentalists in Washington or Idaho would identify Wilson or Driscoll as fundamentalists. Especially LDS fundamentalists (chuckling).
But if you were to ask any astute theological liberal in Washington, Oregon, or Idaho what they thought of these two men . . . fundamentalists all the way, man!