Hoping for a Re-Run of Original Fundamentalism

Nathan Busenitz over at Pulpit Blog(an online magazine/blog published by John MacArthur’s church)  gave us a must read article yesterday entitled “Our Fundamentalist Future.” In it he compares what is happening today within conservative evangelicalism to what happened more than one hundred years  ago in the rise of the fundamentalist movement. I encourage you to go give his article a read first, but I’ll whet your appetite with a few excerpts here below. Then come on back and see if we can discuss the article here.

Fast forward 128 years from 1878….Now it’s 2006. Yet the basic theological issues of today are not all that different than in 1878. The church of their day was faced with the temptation to compromise. The church today is faced with the very same temptation. The only difference is that we put a “post” in front of the “modernism.” …

The original fundamentalists rallied around core doctrines, desperately desiring to honor the Scripture, and vowing to stand firm against the advances of modernism. Interestingly, they found their rallying point not in denominational ties, but in a common love for Christ and a shared commitment to the truth. Their fellowship crossed denominational boundaries, finding an outlet in national Bible conferences like the one held near Niagara Falls. The movement itself was led by godly leaders from various backgrounds. It was undergirded by doctrinal creeds, and it was promoted through preaching and writing.

In the face of postmodernism, today’s conservative Christian leaders are again rallying around the same core doctrines as the original fundamentalists. Vowing to stand firm against the advances of postmodernism, today’s “fundamentalists” again cross denominational lines. Baptists like Mark Dever and Al Mohler, independents like John MacArthur, Presbyterians like R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan, reformed charismatics like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney””they are standing united because something more important than denominational lines is at stake. The purity of the gospel is at stake.

Thousands of pastors across the nation are standing with them….Like the original fundamentalists,  these conservative evangelical  leaders don’t agree on every secondary doctrine. But they do agree on the essentials. And that’s what makes them fundamentalists: they hold fast to the fundamental doctrines of the faith…. [Read the whole article. Underlined emphasis was italic in the original.]

This article is really thought-provoking. And I believe it is worth some discussion. I posted the following  observations/questions as a comment over on Pulpit blog.

1) What is the contemporary remake of The Fundamentals? It seems that it would be good to have something like this today, is there anything out there already? Or do you think we don’t need anything like this?

2) Is this rerun of fundamentalism to be Calvinist-only? It appears most of those you mention are Calvinist. Can we not join together with Biblically minded, theologically conservative, non-Calvinistic brethren? And along this line, do you think this is already being done? I know the Together 4 the Gospel Affirmations & Denialsdid not explicitly shun contemporary Arminianism.

3) Should there be a push for us to unite around something like the T4G Affirmations & Denials statement mentioned above? Could we try to get diverse groups like the Association of Confessing Evangelicals and other counterpart groups to join in affirming some basic fundamental document? Would this help the movement or hinder it?

For my readership, which includes many self-described fundamentalists (most are hard at work reforming fundamentalism, or moving away from hyper fundamentalism–IFBx), a few “hyper fundamentalists”  (they would disagree…)  looking in on the discussion here, and a few recovering/ex fundamentalists (I would label myself here—I accept historic fundamentalism but not the secondary and tertiary separation that still defines [in a large degree] mainstream fundamentalism today), let me point out something of interest and add a fourth point of discussion.

In the comments section, Nathan Busenitz had this clarification to make concerning his article and the mainstream fundamentalism of today:

If I am reading your comment correctly, you seem to be saying something like: “It’s about time the evangelicals realized that modern fundamentalists are right, and started separating like they do.” … [let me] respond by suggesting that conservative evangelicals have no desire to embrace the hyper-separatism, anti-intellectualism, or moral externalism that characterizes much of modern fundamentalism. (Please note that I said “much,” not “all.” )

My point in the article is that conservative evangelicals share much in common with the original fundamentalists. In fact, I believe the conservative evangelical movement today has more in common with the original fundamentalists than the modern fundamentalist movement does. Much more in common, in fact.

Those who are the truest to original fundamentalist beliefs are not those who separate over secondary and tertiary doctrines (not to mention social issues). They are instead those who unify around the fundamentals of the faith. And that, I believe, is the key difference. [bold emphasis mine; underlined emphasis was italic in the original]

You may not be too  surprised that I tend to agree with Nathan’s sentiments above. But here is an opportunity to discuss whether Joel Tetreau’s oft-blogged about vision of Type B and Type C fundamentalists (for the uninitiated, Type B is mainstream Fundamentalism, and Type C is conservative evangelicalism) standing shoulder to shoulder on common ground, is anything more than a mere pipe-dream.

So here is a 4th point of discussion.

4) Can mainstream fundamentalists really join the push for a modern re-run of original historic fundamentalism? Would they want to/be willing to? Would conservative evangelicals even let them? What could be done (from either side of the aisle) to widen the movement to include mainline fundamentalists? How exactly could joining such a movement be a capitulation from the ideals of rigid separatism? And if it is, how then can you defend the original fundamentalists for doing the same thing? Why shouldn’t separatists unify with others around these causes?

I hope we can generate some worthwhile discussion here. It would be great to be thinking and working (in however small a way) toward a more real unity in the body of Christ rallying around the cause of maintaining the purity of the Gospel in the face of the threat of post-modernism.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7