Collin Hansen writes a bi-weekly “theology in the news” column for Christianity Today, and his article published today highlights fundamentalism: “The Crisis of Modern Fundamentalism: Defections threaten a proud movement.” Hansen concludes:
“The difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists hasn’t been theology, though some fundamentalists would refuse to compromise on dispensationalism, for example. Fundamentalists have a strategy problem: Do they clamp down on these youngsters, risking a deeper generation gap? Or do they reconsider strict separation and cultural isolation? By choosing the latter, they may save their youth and lose their cause.”
Update: Cf. Michael Bird’s reaction to Hansen’s article, which begins, “All I can say is that if you think that John Piper is a dubious or dangerous character then your theology is about as messed up as can be imagined.”
Related:
Very interesting! A few Fundamentalist leaders met with Mark Dever this past week. I heard a couple of comments about the meeting from one of the men who was there and it seems to have been very insightful. I wish that I could have been there. I think that we have a lot to learn (and some to share) from men like Dever. The separation issue came up (of course). I believe that the Fundamentalist position on separation is unsatisfying because it isn’t balanced with an equally clear position on cooperation. Shouldn’t both be considered together?
While I agree with him that the difference at the inception of new evangelicalism was strategic (versus theological), it didn’t take long for theological differences to emerge. One of the early planks of the new evangelicalism was a willingness to re-open the subject of biblical inspiration, and the outcome of that has been very significant.
It seems, therefore, naive at this point to say there are no theological differences between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. For one thing, neither movement is what it was when the two originally broke apart! For another, evangelicalism is hardly a unified lot theologically at this point. Apparently Hansen doesn’t recall the words from Carson that he quoted last week in CT: “There are lots of people today who call themselves evangelicals, who no evangelical would have recognized as such 50 years ago” (10/17/07). If theology is the difference between true evangelicals and evangelicals in name only, then it has to be one of the differences with fundamentalism too.
Another point to be made is that separation is a point of theology for fundamentalists (and thus a theological difference with many evangelicals). Perhaps fundamentalists need to reconsider their strict separation, but they need to rethink it biblically and theologically.
Dave,
I think Collin’s point in the piece was not to say that there are no differences between the two groups theologically—naturally this would be insane since Evangelicalism has divergent theological opinions within itself as you mentioned—but that there are no necessary theological disagreements; that the disagreement is primarily a pragmatic one.
I think this is essentially right. This may be one of the reasons it is so difficult for some to sort out who is and is not a Fundamentalist or an Evangelical (e.g. Piper/ John MacArthur). I think the issue surrounds exactly how, why, and when secondary separation is to be practiced. In this sense, the difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism isn’t a theological distinction as much as it is a pragmatic distinction. Naturally this doesn’t mean that theology will not inform the pragmatics of the situation, but it does mean that there is no necessary discrepancy in their theology.
Tim,
I am not following how your comment relates to what I wrote. I conceded that there were no essential theological differences originally, which is what I take to be your point.
My second point was that evangelicalism as it currently stands certainly is: (1) different than it was originally, and (2) is different than fundamentalism. Do you disagree with this?
Personally, I think a non-fundamentalist and non-evangelical, Gary Dorrien, may have captured the current state of evangelicalism best when he made the case that there are three types of evangelicals: (1) Those whose heritage did not pass through the fundamentalist-modernist controversy; (2) those he considers fundamentalist-evangelicals because they have retained the basic theological commitments of fundamentalism; and (3) post-fundamentalist evangelicals who have left behind the fundamentalist theology and are forming new theological commitments.
That third group is what is also called, at times, the post-conservatives. The reality of this division within evangelicalism is what prompted my second point about Hansen’s comment. That is, it seems undeniable that the post-fundamentalist evangelical and fundamentalists have very different theologies, and necessarily so. Problem is, it seems to me, that CT doesn’t want to acknowledge that reality. Thankfully, some conservative evangelicals are recognizing it.
Dr. Doran,
Regarding my first response to you, I think Collin’s point is both that theology hasn’t been nor is it still the essential distinction between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, though this doesn’t entail that there aren’t theological differences. It seems to me that you are arguing that the essential distinction hasn’t been, but currently is theological. Is that accurate?
I am in agreement with you that neither party is what it was at its inception and that neither is theologically monolithic, and I take this broad diversity within both groups to be evidence that the difference between the two is not necessarily or essentially a theological choice but a pragmatic one.
I am not familiar with Dorrien’s work, so I am not sure what he considers to be the distinctive “fundamentalist theology.” Also, it seems to me that the term “fundamentalist-evangelicals” indicates that he is using these terms somewhat differently than you are (given that you are positing a discontinuity between the terms [even an incompatibility?] and he some kind of unity, unless I misunderstand).
As for CT’s unwillingness to recognize the fragmentation in evangelicalism, I don’t know that I can comment on this from the standpoint of CT, but from conversations I have had with Collin he is very aware of the situation in evangelicalism.
BTW, I saw David at NBBC last week. It was good to see him. He seemed very happy there. Hope all is well with the family! Blessings.
1. FWIW, I am very comfortable with Dorrien’s use of the phrase fundamentalist-evangelical. He means by it that these are evangelicals who are not walking away from the theological frame of reference which distinguished fundamentalism from modernism. Personally, I think one of the major historical mistakes in assessing new evangelicalism vis-a-vis fundamentalism is to ignore their original common theological commitments. The difference between them at the start was not theological (i.e., fundamentals of the faith). The real difference was the matter of the church’s role in culture and the necessary change of perspective on separation that their agenda required.
2. I feel like we may be speaking past each other, but let me try it once more to see if I can be more clear. The original new evangelicalism was clearly fundamentalist in theological commitment (Ockenga even claimed in 1982 that he still wished to be considered a fundamentalist in this regard). Specifically, they refused to give up the formal and material principles of the Reformation (and the entailments of those).
The same cannot be said of “evangelicalism” as it exists today. As the Carson quote by Hansen reveals, not all who claim to be evangelicals would have been considered such 50 years ago. And the reason is theology, so there must be something to the idea that there is a theological divide emerging.
3. Now, to tie points 1 & 2 together, I believe that two is the result of the new evangelicalism’s strategic shift, i.e., because they determined to engage the culture, infiltrate the denominations, and cooperate ecumenically, it resulted in radical theological upheaval. To borrow from Al Mohler, the pursuit of the biggest tent possible meant forging an alliance with a center (inerrancy) but no circumference. D.G. Hart would contend that the choice of that center proved ineffective, i.e., inerrancy has never become the true unifying center of evangelicalism (that’s why, e.g., Fuller is still listed as an evangelical institution).
(David does seem to be enjoying and profiting from his time at NBBC. We hope to see the team and him in Florida next week for the soccer nationals.)
1. On your first point, does Dorrien mean that these evangelicals are not fundamentalists but have theology identical to fundamentalists? If so, does he distinguish fundamentalists from evangelicals on their respective dispositions toward culture?
2. I think we are talking past each other. I am in agreement that some call themselves “evangelical” in discontinuity to the way that term has been used historically.
3. You said, “because they determined to engage the culture, infiltrate the denominations, and cooperate ecumenically, it resulted in radical theological upheaval.” Are you arguing that to espouse the methodology of the original new evangelical project leads irresistibly to theological divergence from “the fundamentals of the faith?”
4. It seems to me the discussion would benefit from some good old fashioned semantic mapping of “fundamentalist” and “evangelical.” You have acknowledged that these two parties are not what they once were — what do you consider to be the center organizing feature of each? This will help me understand how you can use Dorrien’s language, since I was obviously assuming that you considered a “fundamentalist” and a “evangelical” to be mutually exclusive positions.
I’m going to have to make this quick, so I’ll apologize in advance for the rushed nature of it.
1. Dorrien’s point is that the “new evangelicals” broke away from the fundamentalist movement but not from fundamentalist theology. This is a point of weakness in his mind. In other words, you can’t really become a new movement if you are not willing to re-examine the core issues at stake. He does, properly I think, point out that the early NEs (Ockenga, Henry, etc.) set off a process which went farther than they wanted or anticipated.
2. That leads to your question about whether the new evangelical project “leads irresistably” to divergence from the fundamentals of the faith. I think the answer to this is a little more complicated than a yes/no since it’s doubtful that there is a unified vision of what “the new evangelical project” is. For instance, one plank of it was re-examining biblical inspiration, so if “new evangelical project” means reformulating doctrine differently than fundamentalism did, then the answer seems to be yes. If, however, one views the “new evangelical project” as merely applying fundamentalist theology differently, then I’d be less inclined to say yes.
3. Since we were discussing the issue of theology, I was usually fundmamentalist in that sense, and I believe it properly applies to the original new evangelicalism and present conservative evangelicals. All were fundamentalist in their theology, i.e., committed to the fundamentals of the faith. More specifically, committed to the concept of divine authority mediated through the Scriptures without error and that there are essential elements of the faith which cannot be denied and still meaningfully claim to be Christian.
4. I think the tendency of some to reduce the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism to the matter of separation is faulty. We can’t understand the difference without that consideration, but that alone does not adequately describe the relationship and differences between them.
FWIW, from Hutchens at Mere Comments:
“Evangelicalism corrected this, set to dissolving old tribal barriers, including selected theological ones, and became a cooperative effort par excellence. In essence Evangelicalism was a liberalizing or opening movement, but this has been its own downfall–the antifundamentalist solvent it concocted for itself created a movement that had no confessional boundaries or identity with Christian tradition with sufficient depth or fiber to resist the egalitarian virus, an anti-Christian influence that neatly penetrated a defense system unequipped to handle it, so that the majority of Evangelicalism’s most prominent institutions are now thoroughly egalitarian.”
Seems possible to read the first part of this paragraph as seeing the “new evangelical project” as “irresistably” headed toward its current state.
Dr. Doran,
Okay, are we are in agreement that 1) there are those who claim to be evangelicals who do not hold to fundamentals of the faith, 2) the movements of fundamentalism and evangelicalism have moved beyond their initial purpose of confronting Modernism and thus have significant areas of discontinuity with the purposes for which they were initially begun, 3) the initial division between evangelicals and fundamentalists was pragmatic and not theological, 4) those in evangelicalism who intended to “apply fundamentalist theology [the fundamentals] differently” are not necessarily irresistibly drawn to divert from those fundamentals?
So, returning to my original question, does point 4 mean that today you do not see a necessary theological distinction between a conservative evangelical and a fundamentalist or would this be extrapolating too much from what you’ve said?
I was off teaching seminary this morning (and listening to Kit Johnson preach in Hom 2), hence the delay. Just when it seems we might agree…
Yes, I agree on number 1.
Not sure I agree on number 2, but that’s because I am not sure exactly what it entails. (And I am not sure we’ve really raised that in this discussion, although it may be why we were talking past each other.)
I’d have to disagree on number 3, unless you mean by “theology” only the fundamentals of the faith (which is how I’ve been using it. As a matter of historical record, though, it seems clear that new evangelicalism represented a shift in theological understanding of the church, the kingdom, and elements of eschatology. I think Russell Moore, in The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective, shows that the new evangelical movement established its social “platform” on the basis of an inaugurated eschatology that made the Church the instrument of Christ’s establishing His kingdom during this age (even if not fully). So, as to fundamental doctine, there was no difference at inception. But, in terms of significant doctrine differences, these existed and fed the strategic aims of the new movement.
I suppose I’d have to plead uncertainty on number 4. A case could be made that the NE position did not lead irresistably away from fundamentalist theology, but it could/has been made otherwise too. Observationally, history certainly seems to point toward the latter position, i.e., the true non-separatist position (NE) has not yielded theological conservatism. I’d venture to say that most of the evangelical conservatives spring from circles which never fully embraced the NE strategy. They may have been sympathetic with parts of it, but they proved unwilling to renegotiate fundamental doctrines as others were doing. This may seem uncharitable, but it seems to me that the floor tilts toward post-conservativism. Unless one is determined to resist and fight against it, that’s where things will drift. Entropic principle.
So, as to the concluding question, I do not see a necessary distinction between a conservative evangelical and a fundamentalist on the matter of the fundamentals of the faith. We share a orthodox heritage and commitments.
The primary point of our disagreement would be on the separation question: what does the Bible demand of churches and believers? what does that look like in our world?
I believe that another area of significant concern is theological-ministerial, i.e., what is the church’s mission? The new evangelicals and fundamentalists answered this quite differently. They are two very different understandings of the church and different visions of ministry, missions, etc. If we are talking taxonomy, I don’t see how this factor cannot be included.
At the risk of droning on and oversimplifying, a new evangelical was a fundamentalist who: (1) repudiated the fundamentalist view of separation (both ecclesiastical and personal), and (2) embraced a view of the church’s role in culture and society which called for social engagement. Loads is packed into those two points and loads emerged from them.
Dr. Doran,
I think we are having a couple problems in our discussion here: 1) the terms “evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism” are used frequently today without or with little respect to the original distinction—the modernist controversy; 2) the dividing line between theology, philosophy and methodology is a fuzzy one and and a sharp distinction is probably not easily drawn and so saying the difference between the movements is “theological” as opposed to “methodological” or “methodological” as opposed to “theological” is not easy to do; 3) the complexity of the way that methodology relates to theology is such that we cannot necessarily pin a particular ecclesial practice exclusively to one theological peg as it may, in different traditions, belong to a different peg [e.g. social engagement may enter through kingdom theology or through common grace, natural law, or general ethics]; 4) since the definition of fundamentalism historically moved from methodology to theology, we have to wonder if in an attempt to define the movement historically by beginning with theology and moving backward to methodology if we are creating a historical inaccuracy of our own; 5) the cultural and theological situation has changed significantly and so the tendency will be for these terms, in order to stay in use by the culture, will resist their original definition [maybe not a problem for our discussion but perhaps for future ones].
I think that these problems weigh heavy on the evaluation of two distinctives you mentioned above. (1) is it possible to say that the “fundamentalist view of separation” is not a theological distinction but a methodological distinction and (2) I object somewhat to the language of this point since it assumes: a) that it is possible for a church not to engage the society and b) that a fundamentalist cannot embrace a view of the church that involves social engagement [this might go right to the core of the issue between us]. It seems to me that every Church does engage society by virtue of its existence and that a fundamentalist church might be heavily involved in social programs [in fact, I think this is often the case!].
As for Kit’s preaching . . . next time save the class the hour and 40 minutes, hand out What Love is This, and send everyone home early!
I suppose we can simply disagree with each other on this point, but it seems pretty clear to me what the new evangelical meant by “engage the society” and that this is not what every church does.
As to your last point, it would seem that it renders the whole discussion of definitions worthless. That is, the early new evangelicals spent a considerable amount of time, energy, and resources trying to reform fundamentalism so as to include the social agenda. Apparently, they felt that in some sense being a fundamentalist had come to mean cultural withdrawal and neglected social responsibility. I will grant that the labels evangelical and fundamentalist have become so elastic as to be generally of little help in precise identification. D. G. Hart calls the term “evangelical” a plastic nose that can be reshaped continually (and he doesn’t mean this positively). That point is granted about the current state of affairs, but it seems very unprofitable to be so locked into the present time that we can’t see what things were at the time terms originated.
I remain convinced that the better we understand where we have come from, the more prepared we are to address the current situation. It’s very possible that the current system of labels will become utterly worthless, but the biblical issues which were at the center of the debate will never become so. From my perspective, that means we have to look past the current labels to the real points of debate and disagreement betweeen evangelicalism and fundamentalism. To “hear” that properly, we must listen to both sides explain why the other was wrong. It seems to me that fundamentalists (and former fundies) tend to only listen to the fundamentalist side, i.e., what’s wrong with new evangelicalism. That’s only half the story (and a negative one at that). The other half is what new evangelicalism was saying about itself in contrast to fundamentalism.
The best we can, we have to listen to both sides before we evaluate and draw conclusions about who had what right. My point would simply be that my summary in the earlier post is what I believe the early new evangelicals would say about themselves. This was Henry’s case in The Uneasy Conscience and these were Ockenga’s oft-repeated points.
The articulated positions of fundamentalism and new evangelicalism were different on these points. Did all of each group agree completely? Probably not, but I don’t think that changes anything in terms of identifying the genius of the movement. Should some new alternative be posited that takes the best of both historic positions while leaving their weaknesses? I suppose that’s the question of the hour. And my contention is that you can’t answer that properly without understanding both positions very well.
As the famous sermon says, “It’s Friday, but Sunday’s coming,” so I better give my attention to prep for that.
It was good to hear from you again, Dr. Doran. Grace and Peace.