A Brief History of Fundamentalism pt 2

Introduction

Judges 2:10 “And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.”

Tonight we are going to look at part two of the history of fundamentalism. Historians have divided the development of modern day fundamentalism around four eras, but we are going to break it up into two broad groups. Back in the 1800’s-1940’s, Fundamentalism’s main battle was against theological liberalism. That battle has not gone away though it has diminished some. A new battle began within Fundamentalism between cultural conservatives and those who wanted a more compromised position. After WWII, the unity that the fundamentalists had experienced fighting liberalism began to fade and a group of men rose up who wanted to foster more interdenominational cooperation in cultural engagement and world wide evangelism. The movement really began with the publishing of Carl Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Since he kinda spawned this movement, I will be relying heavily on his work for a description of what has come to be called New Evangelicalism. If you want to know what churches are like this, just look at 90% of the conservative churches in our nation. They have become a thriving force. These NE have become a third option in the middle of Fundamentalism and Liberalism. So tonight, we are going to begin a history of why we did not follow them in the direction they chose to go.

A Definition of New Evangelicalism

Finding a definition of New Evangelicalism is difficult because it is such a broad tent movement and in Fundamentalism, it is easy to define them by what we don’t like rather than by the core beliefs of the movement. If you want to know what someone believes it is best to get it from the horses mouth. I am going to be using information I gleaned from George Marsden’s book Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism as well as Carl Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism to give a definition of NE as best I can. Both men would find themselves within this movement and Marsden is one of the foremost historians on the issue.

Intellectualism

A Repudiation of Separation

Social Engagement

Intellectualism

If you remember from you history books back in 1925 there was a famous case debating Evolution and Creation in the Public Schools called the Scopes Trial. While Fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan won the case Fundamentalism suffered a black eye. They became known as anti-intellectualists who just believe the bible no matter what it says. NE bristled under that criticism and sought to prove otherwise. Billy Graham once stated that they had been successful in bringing this respectability.

I believe that Christianity Today has played a major role in giving evangelicals that intellectual respectability and initiative that was so drastically needed 29 years ago.”- Billy Graham

While knowing what you believe, defending it and knowledge are not the problem, there is an essential problem with seeking the world’s approval. Jesus said in John 15:18 “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.” The consistent message of the bible is that Christianity will be hated and viewed as foolishness by the world. So the problem isn’t academic excellence as much as it is allowing the world to dictate the standards of that academic excellence. The bible challenges the Christian:

1 Corinthians 10:31 “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”

We should strive for excellence but we cannot compromise truth to gain acceptance. There is an element of truth to this accusation in that some Fundamentalists have been content with a shallow knowledge of their doctrine and practices. It is striking that Fundamentalists do not write any commentaries of an depth. This ought to be corrected, but we must not compromise truth in order to gain acceptance.

A repudiation of Separation

We have already established the doctrines of separation from scripture; so I will not reiterate them here. NE sought to build bridges back to liberals and maintain connections of cooperation with those in Mainline denominations. As we will see in the next section, this compromise led to working alongside liberals and catholics who deny the gospel. I will let that section develop this point more.

Social engagement-

“If the Bible-believing Christian is on the wrong side of social problems such as war, race, class, labor, liquor, imperialism etc., it is time to get over the fence to the right side. The church needs a progressive fundamentalism with a social message.” - Harold Ockenga

Fundamentalism is often accused of being too pessimistic about the future as if that is an explanation of our hesitancy to engage the culture and politics. A belief that the future holds a period of tribulation and the world will wax worse and worse until the Millennium though pessimistic of our success, ought not to keep us from engaging. The bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will restrain evil until He is removed out of the way. One way he restrains evil is through the Church. And Fundamentalism has not been totally unconcerned with social issues or political issues. Consider:

RU and counseling programs within Fundamentalism

Prison ministries like Bro. Montgomery is involved in

Homeless Shelters, Halfway houses, Children’s homes

Orphanages overseas

It is true that some Fundamentalists were silent if not passively accepting of racism, but this was not merely a problem in fundamentalism. It should have been addressed and preached against, but it wasn’t uniquely a problem of one movement over another.

I once listened to a sermon by a pastor named Mike Holloway up in Indiana that proposed that Gen 1 was against interracial marriage because God created blacks and whites as two separate kinds. Such a view is a twisting of scripture and I was ready to throw the CD at the time out the window it made me so mad. So there is a place within Fundamentalism for growth in this area, but not at the stake of compromising on the doctrines of separation.

Could Fundamentalism do more to engage the culture and politics? The answer is yes, but it isn’t as if Fundamentalism as a whole has done nothing or shut out any desire for such work. The real issue is that we will not join in with the World Council of Churches or other compromised organizations in order to accomplish this goal. You cannot embrace one sin in order to avoid another.

The other problem with this emphasis is that the church’s one primary duty is the evangelism of the world. When souls are saved social issues can then be taken care of, but we must not leave off the gospel as our first priority. Mark 16:15 “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

The Men Behind the Rise of New Evangelicalism

Harold J Ockenga

Originally, Evangelical and Fundamentalist were synonymous terms and when the NEA was started by Harold Ockenga it included many strong fundamentalists like Bob Jones Sr, John R. Rice, HA Ironside, Charles Woodbridge and David Otis Fuller. Ockenga was the pastor of Park Street Church in Boston, Founder of the NEA, Co founder and first president of Fuller Seminary, on the board of Christianity today and president of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary. Ockenga was the one to coin the term New Evangelical. He describes the movement in his forward to Harold Lindsell’s book The battle for the Bible like this:

Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address REPUDIATED ITS ECCLESIOLOGY AND ITS SOCIAL THEORY. The ringing call for A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND THE SUMMONS TO SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT received a hearty response from many evangelicals. The name caught on and spokesmen such as Drs. Harold Lindsell, Carl F.H. Henry, Edward Carnell, and Gleason Archer supported this viewpoint. We had no intention of launching a movement, but found that the emphasis attracted widespread support and exercised great influence. Neo-evangelicalism... DIFFERENT FROM FUNDAMENTALISM IN ITS REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND ITS DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE ITSELF IN THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE OF THE DAY. IT HAD A NEW EMPHASIS UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC AREAS OF LIFE. Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, the REENGAGEMENT IN THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE, THE RECAPTURE OF DENOMINATIONAL LEADERSHIP, AND THE REEXAMINATION OF THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS SUCH AS THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE FLOOD, GOD'S METHOD OF CREATION, AND OTHERS” (Harold J. Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible).

a. Repudiated its doctrine of the church

b. Repudiated its social theory

c. Repudiated Separation

d. Dialogue with Liberalism

e. Questioned doctrines like the historical Adam, the flood, God’s creation

Soon the strong Fundamentalists began to drop out of the NEA with this new emphasis in the organization. The NEA would eventually go on to bring Charismatics and Pentecostals into the fold of evangelicals.

Charles Fuller- Fuller along with Ockenga went on to Fuller Seminary which became the educational wing of the NE movement. Other schools like Moody, Wheaton, Gordon Conwell, would follow in their wake. The compromise of NE had such an effect that by 1962 the President of Fuller was mocking the reliability of the bible. Marsden points out that Fuller Seminary began with the seeds of their doctrinal compromise because they had such a desire for intellectual acceptability.

Carl Henry- Christianity Today- Carl Henry has been one of my main sources describing NE. He was ordained in the Northern Baptist Convention. His book was what led the charge for evangelicals to reject Fundamentalism. He would eventually go on to be the founding editor of Christianity Today. NE’s leading magazine at the time which is still in existence today.

Billy Graham- Probably the biggest name in NE is Billy Graham. Graham started out as a fundamentalist like many of these men, but eventually left the movement for bigger things. He has often been called the spokesman of New Evangelicalism. At the start, I want to say that he did a lot for the spreading of the gospel and many were saved under his ministry, but he is also the number one person who had the greatest influence in promoting theological compromise within the church. Billy Graham attended both Bob Jones University and Wheaton university and in his early ministry was friends with men like Bob Jones and John R. Rice. He was warned by many not to go the direction he was going by men who loved him and had mentored him.

A key example of this compromise was Billy Graham’s 16 week crusade at Madison Square Gardens in NYC 1957. In this crusade, Graham wanted as many people on board with the crusade as possible. To that end he included 120 liberals on the committee and even had some sitting on the platform with him. Increasingly, Roman Catholics would become involved in the crusades and Billy Graham’s stated policy was:

“Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish.”

Later, anyone who said they were Catholic were only to be handled by a Catholic during the invitations.

The Fundamentalist Response to the Rise of New Evangelicalism

James Bennett- a friend and mentor from Graham’s days at Wheaton. He met Graham in 1954 before the NY crusade and pled with Graham not to go forward with his broadly ecumenical plans. When Graham refused, Bennett resigned from the invitation committee and wrote a letter warning others of the direction

John R. Rice had met Billy Graham in Scotland where Graham told Rice he was against working with men who deny the virgin birth of Christ, the atonement and the inspiration of Scripture. When it became obvious that Rice was not doing what he said, Rice went to Graham’s home in NC and talked earnestly about these issues. Rice and the Sword of the Lord were forced to disassociate from Billy Graham because he would not head the warning.

Bob Jones had a special relationship with billy Graham and even called him one of his preacher boys. Bob Jones and Graham corresponded back and forth about this issue and Graham claimed he had no intentions of working with modernists and Catholics. But eventually that became obviously not true.

Fundamentalists eventually withdrew from these organizations and fellowship because of the principle of separating from a brother who is walking disorderly. They had lovingly confronted, but made no headway. This phase of fundamentalism was against compromise, not trying to give ground and just get along. Most preachers you know of today fall into this category or another blend of it called Neo-Fundamentalism which really was just a return to original New Evangelicalism but with a more conservative approach. This includes men like Rick Warren, John Piper, Alistair Begg, Al Mohler etc. While these men are brother in Christ and have a lot of good things to say, we are forced to not join forces with them in ministry because of their lack of separation or doctrinal error. They would fit into what we called category 2 where we withdraw but treat as a brother in Christ.