Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism, Part Four

In this post I am seeking to explore whether Fundamentalism was flawed from its beginning by Scottish Common Sense Realism, sentimentalism, and populism or whether it rests more squarely upon Biblical principles.  However, as a point of reference for those who may be reading these articles but who may not have a clear understanding of Fundamentalism, I would refer you to a worthy article entitled “Self-Identity of Fundamentalism” by Dr. Rolland McCune of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.

Having previously considered a bit of the faulty perspectives of some non-Fundamentalists that has tainted some of their material on Fundamentalism, I now want to know what Fundamentalists have written about their own findings concerning its foundations. I will be using a number of quotes from Dr. Fred Moritz’ s book Contending for the Faith as it was the outgrowth of his 1998 message at the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship meeting entitled “Stand for Fundamentalism . . . and Against Attempts to Change It.” 1  (FYI, Dr. Moritz was my pastor at TRBC in Indiana from the middle to late 1970′s.)  Dr. Moritz introduces his study by stating the following:

Although Fundamentalism as a movement is a late nineteenth- and twentieth-century phenomenon, its roots run much deeper than that.  If we wish to truly understand Fundamentalism, we must go to the Scriptures.  This book will assume the burden of proving that Jude’s description of New Testament Christianity bears an amazing resemblance to modern-day Fundamentalism as men commonly understand, analyze, and define it [emphasis added]. 2

As he builds his case, he examines what both non-Fundamentalists and Fundamentalists say about Fundamentalism.  The several Fundamentalists he quotes included the following: William Ward Ayer, David Beale, David Cummins, Robert Delnay, Bob Jones, Jr., and Larry Pettegrew.  I believe that the specific quotes he provides from Ayer and Beale are worth reading.  First from William Ward Ayer are these words spoken in 1956 to the National Association of Evangelicals,

Fundamentalism represents a resurgence of ancient practices, which began not with Martin Luther but at Pentecost.  Fundamentalism is apostolic, and the doctrine of justification goes back to Paul.  That branch from which the fundamentalist movement sprang lived obscurely through the ages and had never been completely silenced even in the Dark Ages. . . . What fundamentalism did was to awaken the slumbering apostolicism from lethargy.  The theme of the Reformation, like the cry of the fundamentalists today, was “back to the Bible and the Apostles,”  with no mediator between men and God except Christ.  Fundamentalists are in the direct line of succession to those preaching this same message” [emphasis added]. 3

He gives a quote from Dr. David Beale’s Pursuit of Purity,

Fundamentalism is not a philosophy of Christianity, nor is it essentially an interpretation of the Scriptures.  It is not even a mere literal exposition of the Bible.  The essence of Fundamentalism goes much deeper than that–it is the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures [emphasis Beale's]. 4

Commenting on the quote he provided us from Ayer, Dr. Moritz says, “Ayer is right!  Certain distinctives have marked Fundamentalists because those distinctives come from the word of God.” 5  [The complete first chapter "What Is Fundamentalism" of Dr. Moritz's book can be read online here.]

Based on these observations by men who were or are unashamed of being self-identifying Fundamentalists and that these kind of findings have been nearly universally accepted by Fundamentalists, why do other men including a few certain ones among us want to see it all so differently?  In a word I would say that the available evidence says that for many of this current crop of critics the answer is sophistication.

What do I mean and what evidence is there to support this claim?  The sophistication I speak of expresses no kinship with simplicity lest it be demeaned in its status.  Therefore, it much prefers the company of other sophisticated ones no matter what else they may or may not be.  It refuses to accept the common but does not refrain from deriding it as ignorance.  This sophistication is not born by exceptional learning or cultural refinement but  is attained only by pride.  If it is pride, we should find that it is prejudice in its associations, blind in its judgments, and deaf to its critics.  Strangely, because of its pride it ends up being no different or better than the uncultured, willful ignorance it loathes.

Do today’s critics of Fundamentalism openly manifest prejudice, blindness, and deafness?

First, one can easily find these critics repeatedly complaining  about being associated under the Fundamentalism label with others who are not what they are.  Some go so far as to even repudiate certain past Fundamentalists who were leaders in the revivalist period.  The critics want us all to conclude with them that the revival period from Finney onward was more a work of man being crafted by the sleight of hand through a variety of purely human elements including common sense realism, populism, and sentimentalism than a work of God.  While it is true that some human elements were at work in this period which can account for some of the crowds, some of the enthusiasm, and some of the results of these meetings, none of those or any other human manufactured means were the cause of the multitudes of sin-bound men and women finding forgiveness and new life in Christ.  When the choice to explain the ministries of the likes of Charles G. Finney, Dwight L. Moody, William A. Sunday, R. A. Torrey, Sam Jones, Bob Jones, Sr., Hyman Appleman, John R. Rice, Gypsy Smith, et al. is between carnal means and the work of the Spirit, why do these critics scoff at the latter and believe the former?  Is it anything else but sophistication that is driving their need for dissociation from these men?

The truth is that many men sound in doctrine and exceeding in learning were not bothered to be associated with those that were not just like them.  For example here are some thoughts from a knowledgeable contemporary of William Sunday.

In our own day, with its blatant worldly wisdom, with its flaunting prosperity, with its fashionable churchliness, with its flood of “advanced” theology overwhelming the pulpit, God needed a prophet, to call his people back to simple faith and righteousness. A nation imperiled by luxury, greed, love of pleasure and unbelief cries aloud for a deliverer. Surely this crisis required a great man, learned in all the ways of the world, equipped with the best preparations of American and foreign universities and theological seminaries, a man trained in ecclesiastical leadership, and approved and honored by the courts of the Church? So worldly wisdom decreed. But God laughed—and produced, to the scandal of the correct and conventional, Billy Sunday, a common man from the common people, who like Lincoln, so wears the signs and savor of the soil that fastidious folk, to whom sweat is vulgar and to whom calloused hands are “bad form,” quite lose their suavity and poise in calling him “unrefined.” 6

That this was the position of Dr. William Ellis is not strange at all.  The list of unsophisticated men used by God in the Bible is a long one.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:  27  But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;  28  And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:  29  That no flesh should glory in his presence. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29)

Secondly, today’s critics exhibit blindness in their judgment by their inconsistent actions and their unequal arguments.  For instance, on the one hand they are desiring to be separated from the “heresy” of certain other Fundamentalists who hold unsophisticated doctrinal positions concerning matters of Bible translation and the present place and use of Christ’s blood.  But on the other hand, they want to accept the company of some sophisticated conservative Evangelicals who openly declare their intentions to cooperate on certain levels with Roman Catholicism.  Lest we have forgotten, Rome daily crucifies Christ anew in their Masses and then disperses that offering of His “flesh” and ”blood” to be eaten and drunk.  Other sophisticated conservative Evangelicals that these critics seek company with are varying degrees of Charismatics.  These men have severe issues about the Bible well beyond that of just translation issues since they believe in a continuing rather than a completed revelation.

What real fellowship do these critics actually have with those they ridicule?  What separation from them is still needed?  Has it been their practice of late to preach in their pulpits or teach in their schools?  Do they write articles for their papers?  The truth is that these men are already separated from these believers in every way but one which is the Fundamentalism label.  But what kind of relationship do they desire with the sophisticated conservative Evangelicals?  It is not just to share a common name but keep their distance.  They want to have public interaction with them sharing pulpits, ideas, and more.

Finally, are today’s critics of Fundamentalism deaf to their own critics?  To date they appear to be.

I firmly believe that the problem that needs addressing is not Fundamentalism.  The problem is not even the critics’ strong Calvinism as many Calvinists past and present have been uncritical Fundamentalists.  Though it is a problem in desperate need of redress, the problem is not the unsound theology of some Fundamentalist’s men.  (FWIW, historic Fundamentalism’s interdenominational nature made room for “unsound” theology concerning church government, baptism, and more.)  The problem is pride.

We have proud men who need to “[b]e of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but  condescend  to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits” (Romans 12:16).  We also have other proud men who are not willing to recognize that in the Bible everything is not easy and simple to understand without instruction because there are “some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).  Just as the skilled-in-preaching Apollos was greatly helped by Aquila and Priscilla to be just as skilled in his understanding of the things of God so that his delivery was not all there was to his preaching, these also must be willing to humble themselves and learn from others who know the Scriptures.  Since our faith does rest in the Scriptures, those that seek to instruct others must instruct using the authority of the Scriptures rather than the musings of men about the Scriptures.  This thought takes me to the next question: Whether Fundamentalism was only a “partial and uneducated” return to the Biblical faith because it lacks in its appreciation for the history of theological development in contrast to those who are primarily interested in defending the Reformed faith.

1. Fred Moritz, Contending for the Faith, Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC, 2000, Introduction, p. 4.
2. Ibid.
3. William Ward Ayer, speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, April 1956, quoted in Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement, 1930-1956 (1963; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), pp. 2-3 quoted in Fred Moritz, Contending for the Faith, p.16.
4. David Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), p. 3 quoted in Moritz, Contending for the Faith, p. 17.
5. Ibid., p. 16.
6. William T. Ellis, “Billy” Sunday: The Man and His Message, The John Winston Co., Philadelphia, 1914, pp. 15-16.

Read Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism, Part 5.

Read Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism, Part 3.