In my study of fundamentalism vs. evangelicalism, I have decided that I am definitely not a fundamentalist. I am Orthodox, but definitely not fundamentalist. Sometimes it’s [Title of Fundamentalist] used to refer simply to having an orthodox Christian position. So we'll often say, "Well, that person takes the Bible seriously. They must be a fundamentalist," when in fact they may not be a fundamentalist at all. They may be simply a person that takes the Bible seriously, but doesn't have the other attributes of fundamentalists. I am always struck by the people’s usage of the terms "evangelical," "born-again" and "fundamentalist" as if they are one and the same, interchangeable even.
The word "evangelical" comes from the Greek "evangelion," meaning "the good news" or "the gospel." During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther adopted the word to describe his breakaway church; for hundreds of years thereafter, "evangelical" meant, simply, "Protestant."
Today in American society, the term is used in three ways, according to the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College:
Theologically, it is an umbrella term for Christians who believe in the need for conversion, the command to spread the gospel, the inerrancy of the Bible and the primacy of Jesus Christ's atoning death on the cross.
Stylistically, "evangelical" also describes a kind of religious practice as much as a set of doctrines. This is where you really see the diversity of evangelicalism: Mennonites, African-American Baptists, Southern Baptists, Catholic charismatics and Dutch Reformed all fall under the "evangelical-as-a-style" umbrella.
Politically, "evangelical" describes a coalition of Protestants who used the term in an attempt to distance themselves from the "Christian fundamentalist" movements of the 1920s and '30s. Fundamentalism's hallmarks were anti-intellectualism, anti-modernity and a belief that the church should not engage with culture. Mainstream evangelicals, by contrast, actively sought to be a part of culture in order to transform it.
"Evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are not one and the same. They are in many ways opposites.
Evangelicals have four primary characteristics that serve as the unifying factor regardless of denomination or sect (4) (5):
Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a lifelong process of following Jesus
Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts
Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity
The modern evangelical movement is often called a friendlier version of fundamentalism and continues to be vibrant and diverse. However, less emphasis has been placed on Biblicism as evidenced by the various opinions of self-proclaimed evangelicals concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. This has created changing opinions concerning traditional Christian values, practices, and lifestyles.
What brought up this conversation was the fact that I was in a chatroom on Paltalk and many in the room are extremely anti-Catholic. As I read about various differences in the church, I began reading Carl Olsen’s article about the difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists. “Simply put, I define Fundamentalists as conservative Protestants who believe Catholics are not Christian, while Evangelicals are conservative Protestants who, while having reservations about certain points of doctrine, do believe Catholics are Christian.”
In short, Fundamentalism began primarily as a movement fighting to preserve the historic Christian faith.
But in the 1930s, following the blistering defeat of popular fundamentalism in the court of public appeal at the Scopes Monkey Trial, Fundamentalism gradually shifted in its focus. It took on a more extravagant separationist mentality. Fundamentalists began to be identified with a much more legalistic version of Christianity that was losing its voice in the intellectual world and, just as importantly, losing its heart for the culture. It was no longer just those fundamentals of the faith that were under attack by Liberals that Fundamentalists separated from, but from every doctrine and practice of those that they considered to be in cahoots with the liberals. If the culture believes it—if the culture does it—we don’t. Why? Because the culture is evil. Therefore, movies, smoking, card playing, drinking, and cussing became among the fundamentals of the new Fundamentalists. The doctrinal statement of these Fundamentalists became long and burdensome, allowing for very little freedom in beliefs or practice, even among the issues that others believed were debatable and unclear.
For this reason, the Evangelical movement began. “Evangelical” was not a new term: it was used to describe the Lutherans at the time of the Reformation. That is why many called this modern Evangelical movement “neo-Evangelical” (coined by Harold J. Ockenga in 1947). Ockenga argued that Fundamentalism had lost its way, having the wrong attitude about the church’s relationship to culture. He believed that Fundamentalism was doing more harm than good and had not had the desired effect on Liberalism either socially or theologically. Edward J. Carnell argued that Fundamentalism was “orthodoxy gone cultic” because of its convictions that went well beyond historic Christianity as represented in the early creeds. Others argued that Fundamentalism was a new form of anti-intellectual Christianity that could not defend itself and would eventually lose relevance and bring Christianity down in the social market of ideas. Evangelicalism came to regain focus and lighten the load.
From this, one can see that there is a great chasm that exists between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are not Evangelicals and Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Of course, within Evangelicalism you find those that are more traditional (such as David Wells, John Piper, and John MacArthur) but you also have those who would be more “progressive” (such as Roger Olson, Stanley Grenz, and N.T. Wright).
I love how John Greene describes the difference. The differences between fundamentalism and evangelicalism are a bit subtle, and oftentimes difficult to understand from the outside. A lot of it is a style. Fundamentalists tend to be very strict. They tend towards intolerance. Notice, I said, "tend towards intolerance." Many of them are not intolerant. But they tend towards that direction. They tend to be very judgmental. They tend to want to require an awful lot of individuals who would join their communion. And they tend to be very, very critical of other Christians -- even other evangelical Christians -- who don't share their very strict approach to religion.
But there are some other things besides style that differentiate fundamentalists from evangelicals. … Evangelicals and fundamentalists both agree that the Bible is inerrant, but fundamentalists tend to read the Bible literally.
Many evangelicals don't actually read it literally. They're willing to understand that there's metaphor and poetry in the Bible, and it's just that the truth expressed in that metaphor and poetry is without error; whereas fundamentalists would tend to want to read even the metaphor and the poetry literally. That's a particular way to interpret the Bible. Many fundamentalists don't want to associate even with other Christians who don't agree with them. They want to separate themselves from people that have fairly similar values. Oftentimes, fundamentalists will even want to separate themselves from people who refuse to separate themselves from people who they don't agree with. Of course, this can be extended a long way.
Evangelicals are not as separatist. They are perfectly willing to cooperate with people of other religious faiths, with whom they don't agree on all of the particulars, for the greater cause of evangelizing and bringing people to Christ. So evangelicals, for instance, will often talk about making common cause with Roman Catholics or with mainline Protestants. Fundamentalists are very reluctant to do that, because they see it as being wrong to associate in religious terms with people with whom they don't have complete agreement. So those differences are sometimes subtle. But in style, belief, and practice, fundamentalists really are different from evangelicals.
Historic fundamentalists and evangelicals are those who identify with the original tenants of Biblical truth and holiness. Fundamentalists directed their efforts more at defending historic doctrines and activities against anti-Biblical teachings that had crept into churches, schools, and institutions. Evangelicals directed their efforts at promoting the preaching of the Gospel and living holy lives regardless of theological differences.
Many fundamentalists today have taken a more militant stand on the truth of Scripture at the expense of love. They demonstrate this by their attitudes and actions toward those who are less conservative. Many evangelicals today have taken a more militant stand on the love of Scripture at the expense of truth. They demonstrate this by their attitudes and actions toward those who are less liberal.
True fundamentalists and evangelicals hold to the Spirit and truth of the faith out of a desire to be like Christ not like what some politician or religious leader tells them they should be (Psalms 11:3; Luke 6:47-49; Romans 16:17-18; 1 Corinthians 3:9-15).
No comments:
Post a Comment