A Matter of Belief (part 1 – I Am a Fundamentalist)

I started this post in March … technically, I was thinking about it last August; but I haven’t gotten around to actually tackling it. I am aware that the concept is narcissistic – to compile a series of self-descriptions of beliefs. This is not a ‘statement of faith’ or a ‘faith journey’; instead it is just a series of explanations of why I believe what I believe about a few topics. My primary reason for doing this is because it has been growing on my mind lately that the posture of commenting on various issues, church happenings, tangentially political figures, and so forth, is a safe one. Sure, my opinions have gained me a few enemies (and a few friends); sure, I’ve been insulted for expressing them beyond what I consider to be reasonable disagreement; sure I’ve acquired a minor reputation. But it isn’t really full disclosure; it doesn’t put out actual beliefs to be subject to the same scrutiny I would apply to the published beliefs of some others. (Yes – I have addressed some of these on a topical basis – but it occurs to me that I need to do so more thoroughly.)

I Am a Fundamentalist

I have been labeled a fundamentalist by a variety of people – some of them employed the term in a friendly, half-way joking, manner; others (less civil) used it as the worst insult their minds seemed capable of forming. Many people compete for the term ‘evangelical’ and attempt to muddy its meaning to the point that it is void of significance. I imagine this is because a large number of people self-identify as evangelical so it forms a ready made ‘voting bloc’. I also imagine many want to sidestep the contempt and malice directed at those associated with the term ‘fundamentalist’. But it occurs to me that we actually need a term to describe a person who holds a particular set of beliefs. Evangelical will no longer suffice. Religious right is inaccurate because it seeks to define religious belief in political rather than theological terms (so that a host of theologies can co-exist on the religious right without the term indicating any specific theological content). Orthodox is a suitable word, but its use by Protestants has been challenged because it has a very different meaning in Eastern Orthodox terms. I have favored traditional Presbyterian (within the Reformed context) but this seems to also communicate a number of things I don’t intend – for example, attachment to worship styles, an insensate resistance to any change, valuing things solely because they are traditions. The bottom line is that I’m running out of terms to use. Since fundamentalist has been applied contemptuously to me, and since people who lob the phrase “fundamentalist Christian” as a withering insult actually (quite imprecisely) mean to indicate someone who believes what I believe, I’m inclined to accept the designation.

Full disclosure: I will not go into the whole history of my church involvement, but I should mention the following. For the largest part of my life, I have had associations with the Presbyterian Church (PC(USA) and predecessors); I was baptized in a Presbyterian Church; my family attended a Presbyterian Church when I was born; I have never been a member of another denomination. My mother, much of her family, and many of my friends belong to the Church of the Nazarene; I attended a Nazarene college; my grandparents and great-grandparents were charter members of the local Nazarene church. I also had, as a child, a long association with fundamentalist Baptists; I did not respond well to this for a variety of reasons; but I must point out that many of these were decent and intelligent people and very sincere Christians.

For me to say, “I am a fundamentalist,” is partly true; but I harbor some hesitancy because I’m aware that many fundamentalists would not own me. The fact is I believe the five ‘fundamentals’ to be true. I do not, however, share all of the beliefs often held by fundamentalists; I am particularly resistant to extra-biblical behavior requirements. I do not believe these can be derived from the plain sense of Scripture, nor do I find the arguments for them to be compelling. [Of course, that same statement would apply to my identification as Reformed – as I would differ on certain points from, say, Westminster. I do not believe it relevant at this stage to enumerate the few differences I perceive between myself and fundamentalists – but they exist.] I am not a dispensationalist – and ‘fundamentalism’ as a whole has come under the influence of dispensational thought. I also acknowledge the possibility that a person may be a Christian and not believe all of the fundamentals. I say this because they are not all equal – certain ones are definitional by necessity to Christianity; others I believe to be correct, but not on the same level of importance. I do share the fundamentalist’s ‘militancy for truth’ [a fundamentalist self-description, of course – but one with which I wholeheartedly concur], and the fundamentalist’s belief in biblical separation.

The Fundamentals

For the sake of the unfamiliar, I need to address the five fundamentals. These are:

1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity of Jesus (also often listed as the Virgin Birth). [I believe both, so it doesn’t matter much which you choose to list.]
3. The doctrine of the atonement. [This refers to the traditional biblical doctrine of the substitutionary atonement.]
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus. [This is understood as a literal – NOT a metaphorical event – as the early church clearly believed.]
5. The authenticity of miracles.

[I’m not going to argue for these beliefs or provide reasons a person might hold them – except piecemeal (in other writings) as they might happen to be relevant. I have a very particular reason for this omission: there is nothing notably special about these five doctrines that elevates them above any of a host of other Christian beliefs. It will only create confusion to attempt to explain and justify these while not, at the same time, attempting to explain and justify all of Christianity.]

Misconceptions seem to abound about the function of “the fundamentals” and the reason for which they were enumerated. Whether these misconceptions spring from a lack of information, from active malice, or from some combination of both, I couldn’t say. Whatever the case, it seems to me to be needful to address a few such misconceptions.

1. Fundamentalists believe only in the five fundamentals. This is a patently absurd statement. The “fundamentals” are decidedly NOT a confession of faith or a creed. They are NOT even a list of essential tenets. They were explicitly stated because these were the Christian beliefs being most frequently challenged. This challenge did not spring primarily from non-Christians, but from people purporting to be Christian, to be speaking for the church, and to be saying what Christianity teaches. Given these were departures from millennia of Christian teaching, the formulation of the fundamentals was an assertion that these prevalent new teachings were incorrect.

I must confess, I have some difficulty understanding the perspective of those who hold this notion. Does anyone really imagine that fundamentalists believe, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the five fundamentals and believe in thine heart that they are true, though shalt be saved”? I can assure you that fundamentalist do not sit around contemplating the mysteries of the big five week after week in their worship services. I can assure you they do not elevate these five above other definitionally Christian teachings.

If you doubt this, I would ask why, for example, Machen disliked the term ‘fundamentalist’ – saying the use of the term implied that they were arguing for something other than historic Christianity. I would ask why, for example, did the World Christian Fundamentals Association adopt more than a dozen ‘fundamentals’? And why did the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship do the same? And why have fundamentalists historically defined their movement as, “militant belief and proclamation of the basic doctrines of Christianity leading to a Scriptural separation from those who reject them”? A reader may dislike these statements, but his or her opinion doesn’t change the fact that a claim that fundamentalists reduce Christianity to five postulates is insupportable.

2. Fundamentalism is a reaction to progress and modernity. While this is certainly a helpful conception for those who seek to discredit historic Christianity – by calling it fundamentalism and aligning fundamentalism with a regressive impulse – it is not, strictly speaking, true. Fundamentalism had and has no opposition to progress or modernity; it does, however, oppose progressivISM and modernISM. Progress and modernity are facts (though one could, of course, debate the level of real progress actually enjoyed by humankind); progressivism and modernism, on the other hand, are philosophies. Fundamentalism AND historic Reformed Christianity are both opponents to the philosophies of progressivism and modernism. That opposition between these philosophies is the issue can be clearly seen both in Machen’s book, Christianity and Liberalism, and in the reactions fundamentalists get from progressives and modernists (and today, post-modernists, but that is a separate topic).

Here again, the draw of this argument eludes me – because it is startlingly weak. It is self-evident that fundamentalism objects to these two philosophies, not to modernity or progress themselves. If the confusion is legitimate, the only rationale I can imagine strikes me as rather bizarre: the idea that modernism and progressivism are in fact evidence of progress and modernity. It would be viewed that the particular philosophies and ideas embraced by these words were themselves advances. In other words, it is progress to be progressive; it is modern to be a modernist. I cannot imagine the person conceited enough to actually believe this – but aside from the narcissism it entails, the belief itself is problematic. It invokes a notion of the evolution of ideas that is easily falsifiable. There are, in fact, very few new ideas – and in terms of religious philosophy, no aspect of progressive, modernist, liberal, conservative, fundamentalist or reformed thought can be construed as new. All of these have existed for hundred and even thousands of years.

3. Fundamentalism grew out of the revivalist movement of the Nineteenth Century; fundamentalists therefore believe things that have not been common in the broader history of Christianity. This is a dishonest assertion at best. Yes, the movement calling itself “Fundamentalism” did, in part, grow out of Nineteenth Century revivalism. It also, of course, grew out of developments within the ‘mainline’ denominations. But the notion that fundamentalist beliefs were somehow novel is absurd. These beliefs – including the five identified above – were the rule in historic Reformed Christianity. Most of them were the rule for all of historic Christianity. It was the denial of miracles, the denial of the resurrection of the body, the denial of the deity of Jesus, the denial of the authority of Scripture that were new on the scene. [More precisely, it was this set of denials COMING FROM those who identified themselves as Christians that was new on the scene. Obviously non-Christians had always denied the tenets of Christianity.]

Similarly, the notion of Christianity having a certain defining content has also been the case for the history of the Christian church. Whether one wishes to speak of fundamentals or essential tenets, it doesn’t much matter. The fact is that in the New Testament, certain items were regarded as definitional to Christianity. Among these were, according to Paul, the resurrection of the body, and according to John, the fact that Jesus has come in the flesh. The historic creeds of the universal church contained similar elements. There is nothing new in the tendency of fundamentalists to assert the existence of such definitionally Christian content and to identify specific items that fall into that category.

I have addressed already the choice of five fundamentals – which was by no means universal among fundamentalists. But it has always been the case that Christians tended to address the specific areas of Christian doctrine being challenged at a given time. Broad and detailed confessions like Westminster are relatively exceptional. More common have been statements like the one issued by the Synod of Dordt. No one in their right mind believes the five items Dordt primarily addressed (in numerous points, of course) represent the sum total of Reformed thought. Instead, these five were asserted because they involved the areas of the Reformed dispute with Arminius. Similarly, the Apostles Creed leaves out many important details. As does the Nicene Creed. Both have specific purposes. Again – there is nothing unusual in the choice of fundamentalists to identify certain specific tenets.

The only novelty among many fundamentalists was a taste for pre-millennial dispensationalism. This was clearly not a belief of Machen and many others, but it was prevalent. Pre-millennialism is by no means incompatible with Reformed theology; dispensationalism, on the other hand, is. Today, pre-millennialism is an extremely common view among self-identified fundamentalists. Dispensationalism is not. Very few people actually support Darby’s dispensations. I mention this because this single item within fundamentalism is clearly attributable to the Nineteenth Century revivalist movement. Other attributions that suggest a disparity between general fundamentalist beliefs and historic Protestant Christianity are whole cloth.

4. Fundamentalism is anti-intellectual. This is the cudgel used to beat traditional Christians over the head, prompting them to give in to the fear of being thought simplistic, stupid, untutored, quaint, unsophisticated. It is a successful tool if the goal is to demonize traditional Protestant Christianity. [I employ the phrase “traditional Protestant Christianity” because, in its core beliefs, fundamentalism does not deviate from it.] Of the misconceptions of fundamentalism, and of the arguments designed to dissuade people from admitting to fundamentalism, this one has been the single most effective. Unfortunately, its success depends on cowardice and a lack of character. [In the interest of clarity, I’m not talking about people who legitimately reject a self-description of fundamentalist. I’m talking about people who either deny holding or actually alter their beliefs to avoid being labeled in a demeaning way.] It is also very successful in silencing traditional Protestant Christians and denying them access to mainstream society.

There are two separate assertions being made. First, fundamentalists are by nature stupid people. That is propagandist assertion – and it is by far the one most frequently employed. Second, fundamentalism is, in itself, a rejection of intellect. That is a more complicated charge.

So … Are fundamentalists (and by extension, traditional Protestant Christians) truly, by definition, stupid? It may be true; we may be. I know of no objective study on the topic – I can’t provide statistics of either intelligence of achievement correlated to fundamentalist religious belief versus, say, progressive religious belief. I am forced to rely on anecdotal evidence. I have known progressives who are truly brilliant people. I have known progressives who gave every appearance of being dumber than dirt. The majority of progressives I know seem to be average. I have known fundamentalists who are truly brilliant people. I have known fundamentalists who gave every appearance of being dumber than dirt. The majority of fundamentalists I know seem to be average. There is not a clear trend one way or another; it is, as near as I can tell, a wash. I acknowledge, of course, that fundamentalists have been effective marginalized from academia – but that is more a consequence of college and university politics than anything else. The charge itself, “fundamentalist equals stupid” is the equivalent of, “You’re ugly, and your mother dresses you funny.” It is devastating on the playground; for adults it should hold little threat.

So is there something inherent in fundamentalist philosophy that is anti-intellectual? I do not believe so. Fundamentalism follows a different epistemology than that which is currently fashionable. The fundamentalist view of Scripture dictates that fundamentalism finds authority in a document. If one believes (as I do) that God cannot be known by unaided human agency – that our minds are incapable of grasping God, and that our attempts to do so always shoot wide of the mark, and if one believes that God is known by humans only as God has revealed Himself, then reliance on Scripture as the record of that revelation strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

Much is made of ‘modern scholarship’ on the topic – but I would point out that there is a tremendous limitation to that scholarship: it must have a source. If one jettisons the New Testament as a source of information about Jesus Christ – if, for example, it erred so greatly in describing miracles or a resurrection that it must be a product of the deranged or the truly dim witted – then one is left with very little source material about Jesus Christ. As brilliant as observations about early Christian art, or presumptions about First Century politics, or comparisons to other religions may be; when it comes to factual information about Jesus, the person who makes or accepts such statements uncritically is no farther ahead.

The fundamentalist does not object to scholarship in any fashion, but the fundamentalist has come down in favor of the Bible as a reliable source of information. Those of us who hold this view find ourselves observing the ways in which Jesus and the apostles are recorded as having used Scripture. We find ourselves struck by the almost overwhelming unity of the work – rather then by apparent contradiction. Many of us have found that what appeared to us to be contradiction at one point in our development was, in fact, unified when we came to a fuller understanding. For those who have had this experience, there is a tendency to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt and to suspect that those remaining areas we have difficulty apprehending are a product of our own limitations.

I said the epistemology is not fashionable; I believe that is the case for two main reasons. First, it can be readily observed that fundamentalists appeal to authority. Nonetheless, everyone appeals to authority – whether peer reviewed journals, or pragmatic value, or personal experience, or most current thinking, or a posited future trajectory – it is always a matter of finding value based on something. For the fundamentalist – and indeed for the traditional Protestant Christian, this authority is found in the Bible. But more to the point, it is found in the past. There is a distinct preference for what has gone before, rather than a projection to a potential future idea. It is this that is in opposition to modernism and progressivism. Fundamentalism is also unfashionable because it bypasses community in some senses: what is true is true regardless of what the consensus view happens to be. In fact, the view of the community is irrelevant to truth. This is not so unusual a principal; it can be seen to operate in other philosophies. For example, Mohandas Gandhi said, “In matters of conscience the law of majority has no place.” But it has the flavor of that ‘atomistic individualism’ so detested in the current pseudo-religious thinking.

5. Fundamentalists practice ‘bibliolatry’ (idolatry of the Bible). This is a serious charge; it is, in fact, the most serious charge leveled against fundamentalists within their own belief structure. If they are worshipping something other than God, they are committing a great sin. Fundamentalists (and traditional Christians) are particularly vulnerable to this attack as they would be wholly repulsed by the notion.

I must observe at this point that I have almost never seen the charge of ‘bibliolatry’ advanced by a person who had any problems whatsoever with bona fide idolatry. On the other hand, the charge is often made by persons who otherwise argue that one should look for the work of God in other religions, that all religions are equally true, that what religions have in common is true, that primitive concepts of ‘god’ developed past the perfectly natural stage of having a physical idol present, or something similar. I mention this not to impugn – but to point out the basic unfairness of the frequent use of this charge by people who do not share the fundamentalist rejection of the practice.

Having said that, I see no way in which the charge can be taken as true. I know of no fundamentalist who worships the Bible. Instead, fundamentalists regard the Bible as THE reliable source of information about Jesus Christ – whom they do worship. Fundamentalists – and indeed all traditional Christians – do have a desire to make sure they are not being swayed to “a different gospel which is really no gospel at all”. They do have a desire to avoid those who “are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ”. They do have a desire not to believe every spirit, but to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world”. They do have an interest in resisting “things taught by demons” and in reproving “the unfruitful works of darkness”. That these legitimate interests of Christians can be confused with idolatry is, frankly, ridiculous.

6. Fundamentalists are schismatic. Of the assertions commonly made about fundamentalism, this one contains the largest element of truth. The schismatic feature of fundamentalism is the concept of biblical separation. Namely – the recognition that there comes a point at which cooperation within a church organization with competing, contradictory religions is impossible. Fundamentalists originally sought to keep the historic doctrines of the mainline denominations – and to oppose the widespread redefinitions of and assaults upon these doctrines coming from within the mainline denominations. They quickly learned that this was impossible because the general membership of these denominations did not care enough about the topic, because a great many people remained unaware of developments, because of clever sounding falsehoods advanced by those seeking such redefinition, and because of the external cultural drift toward modernist and progressive dominionism.

It became clear to fundamentalists that they were working at cross purposes with the legacy organizations. As is often the case, people have circumstantial motivations for seeking the counsel of Scripture. And so it was that fundamentalists began to articulate a biblical doctrine of separation. The thing is, the doctrine in question is clearly derived from Scripture. I obviously concur with it. Others will have to decide for themselves whether they deem it right to try to work within corrupt legacy organizations or whether they believe themselves led to depart.

The reason I am writing this is two-fold. First, I have a felt need for full disclosure: when people refer to me as a “fundy”, they’re not that far removed from the truth. The fact is that I have far more in common with self-identified fundamentalists than I do with self-identified progressives. It is true that I share some of the aesthetic sensibilities of progressives, but in terms of what I actually believe to be true and reasonable – I must put my lot in with the ‘other side’. Similarly, I am far removed from many self-identified moderates because these do not tend to regard the issues in question as important … or (in quite a few other cases) because they choose the descriptor ‘moderate’ but are in reality not so. Second, I believe it is very important for traditional Christians to understand: when people talk about ‘fundies’, when people rail against ‘fundamentalisms’, when people lionize certain anti-fundamentalist bigots of the past, when people disparage fundamentalist beliefs, they are not just talking about those who self-identify in that way. They are not singly speaking about a decided minority within Christianity. Instead, they are referring to people who hold the beliefs of the vast majority of evangelicals, large swaths of members of mainline denominations, and a tremendous number of Christians in other parts of the world who do not share their presumed nuanced and sophisticated interpretations of the Christian religion. If, as traditional Christians, we shrink from the charge and accept the malice and mockery directed at ‘those people over there’ who we regard as rigid and intolerant, we are maligning ourselves; and more importantly, we are (perhaps inadvertently) maligning the faith once delivered to the saints.

Will Spotts