MINDING YOUR E'S AND F'S
Add comments
Posted by
Andrew
A commentor has reminded me of how important I think it is to understand the distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. John Stott has helpfully given 10 helpful distinctions between fundamentalism and evangelicalism in his book Evangelical Truth. I am unashamedly evangelical and I am unashamedly against fundamentalism. His 10 points are below:
"… the evangelical faith is not a synonym for fundamentalism, for the two have a different history and a different connotation. ‘Fundamentalism’, which today is frequently used as a theological smear word, had very respectable origins.
Fundamentalism and evangelicalism
Originally, then, ‘fundamentalist’ was an acceptable synonym for ‘evangelical’. Take as an example Dr Carl Henry’s influential little book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, .. In it, while complaining that ‘evangelical Christianity has become increasingly inarticulate about the social reference of the Gospel’, he drew no distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Gradually, however, fundamentalism became associated in people’s minds with certain extremes and extravagances, so that by the 1950s evangelical North American leaders like Carl Henry himself, Billy Graham and Harold Ockenga were promoting what they called ‘the new evangelicalism’ in order to distinguish it from the old fundamentalism which they had rejected.
Because of this, evangelical Christians are understandably dismayed by such books as Fundamentalism by Professor James Barr and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by Bishop Jack Spong, which, whether from ignorance, misunderstanding or malice, perpetuate the old identification. They write as if the only choice before the church is between an enlightened liberalism and an obscurantist fundamentalism.
But let it be said here and now, with clarity and conviction, that the great majority of evangelical Christians (at least in Europe) repudiate the ‘fundamentalist’ label, because they disagree with many self-styled fundamentalists at a number of important points.
The difficulty in establishing what these points are is due to the fact that fundamentalism has never clearly defined itself over against evangelicalism or published a broadly acceptable doctrinal basis. In seeking now to do the opposite, namely to distinguish evangelicalism from fundamentalism, I shall no doubt be guilty of generalizing and caricaturing. But I ask my readers to bear in mind that what I am attempting to portray below is not identifiable individuals or groups, but certain contrasting tendencies. I fully recognize that my portrait of fundamentalism may fit an old-style American version, but not some of our contemporaries who retain the label while rejecting some of the substance. Similarly, my portrait of evangelicalism is idealized, for alas! some contemporary evangelicals claim the name but do not live up to the ideal.
There seem to me to be at least ten tendencies to consider.
1. In relation to human thought, fundamentalists of the old school give the impression that they distrust scholarship, including the scientific disciplines; some tend towards a thoroughgoing anti-intellectualism, even obscurantism. Authentic evangelicals, however, acknowledge that all truth is God’s truth, that our minds are God-given, being a vital aspect of the divine image we bear, that we insult God if we refuse to think, and that we honour him when, whether through science or Scripture, we ‘think God’s thoughts after him’ ( Johann Kepler).
2. In relation to the nature of the Bible, fundamentalists are said by the dictionaries to believe that ‘every word of the Bible is literally true’. This is surely a slander, since the adverb ‘literally’ is used here too sweepingly. Yet it cannot be denied that some fundamentalists are characterized by an excessive literalism. Evangelicals, however, while believing that whatever the Bible affirms is true, add that some of what it affirms is figuratively or poetically (rather than literally) true, and is meant to be interpreted thus. Indeed, not even the most extreme fundamentalist believes that God has feathers (Ps. 91:4)!
3. In relation to biblical inspiration, fundamentalists have tended to regard it as having been a somewhat mechanical process, in which the human authors were passive and played no active role. Thus the fundamentalist view of the Bible, as having been dictated by God, resembles the Muslim view of the Qur’an as having been dictated by Allah in Arabic through the angel Gabriel, while Muhammad’s only contribution was to take down the dictation. In this way, the Qur’an is believed to be an exact reproduction of a heavenly original. Evangelicals emphasize, however, the double authorship of Scripture, namely that the divine author spoke through the human authors while they were in full possession of their faculties.
4. In relation to biblical interpretation, fundamentalists seem to suppose that they can apply the text directly to themselves as if it had been written primarily for them. They then ignore the cultural chasm which yawns between the biblical world and the contemporary world. At least in the ideal, however, evangelicals struggle with the task of cultural transposition, in which they seek to identify the essential message of the text, detach it from its original cultural context, and then recontextualize it, that is, apply it to our situation today.
5. In relation to the ecumenical movement, fundamentalists tend to go beyond suspicion (for which indeed there is ample justification) to a blanket, uncritical, even vociferous rejection. The most strident expression of this attitude was seen in the American Council of Christian Churches, which was founded by Carl McIntyre in 1941. Many evangelicals, however, although critical of the liberal agenda and frequently unprincipled methodology of the World Council of Churches, have tried to be discerning, affirming in ecumenism what seems to them to have biblical support, while claiming the freedom to reject what has not.
6. In relation to the church, fundamentalists have tended to hold a separatist ecclesiology, and to withdraw from any community which does not agree in every particular with their own doctrinal position. They forget that Luther and Calvin were very reluctant schismatics, who dreamed of a reformed catholicism. Most evangelicals, however, while believing it right to seek the doctrinal and ethical purity of the church, also believe that perfect purity cannot be attained in this world. The balance between discipline and tolerance is not easy to find.
7. In relation to the world, fundamentalists have tended some-times to assimilate its values and standards uncritically (e.g. in the prosperity gospel) and at other times to stand aloof from it, fearing contamination. By no means all evangelicals escape the charge of worldliness. Nevertheless, at least in theory, they seek to heed the biblical injunction not to conform to this world, and are also anxious to respond to the call of Jesus to penetrate it like salt and light, in order to hinder its decay and illuminate its darkness.
8. In relation to race, fundamentalists have shown a tendency – especially in the United States and in South Africa – to cling to the myth of white supremacy and to defend racial segregation, even in the church. Racism without doubt lingers among evangelicals too. Yet there is a widespread desire to repent of it. Most evangelicals, it can be claimed, proclaim and practise racial equality, originally by creation and supremely in Christ, who broke down the walls of racial, social and sexual separation in order to create a single, united humanity.
9. In relation to the Christian mission, fundamentalists have tended to insist that ‘mission’ and ‘evangelism’ are synonyms, and that the vocation of the church is simply to proclaim the gospel. Evangelicals, however, while continuing to affirm the priority of evangelism, have felt unable to sunder it from social responsibility. As in the ministry of Jesus, so today, words and deeds, proclamation and demonstration, good news and good works supplement and reinforce one another. Their separation, wrote Carl Henry, is ‘Protestantism’s embarrassing divorce’.
10. In relation to the Christian hope, fundamentalists tend to dogmatize about the future, although to be sure they hold no monopoly on dogmatism. But they often go into considerable detail about the fulfilment of prophecy, divide history into rigid dispensations, and also espouse a Christian Zionism which ignores the grave injustices done to the Palestinians. Evangelicals, however, while affirming with eager expectation the personal, visible, glorious and triumphant return of our Lord Jesus Christ, prefer to remain agnostic about the details on which even firmly biblical Christians have differing viewpoints."
Fundamentalism and evangelicalism
Originally, then, ‘fundamentalist’ was an acceptable synonym for ‘evangelical’. Take as an example Dr Carl Henry’s influential little book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, .. In it, while complaining that ‘evangelical Christianity has become increasingly inarticulate about the social reference of the Gospel’, he drew no distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Gradually, however, fundamentalism became associated in people’s minds with certain extremes and extravagances, so that by the 1950s evangelical North American leaders like Carl Henry himself, Billy Graham and Harold Ockenga were promoting what they called ‘the new evangelicalism’ in order to distinguish it from the old fundamentalism which they had rejected.
Because of this, evangelical Christians are understandably dismayed by such books as Fundamentalism by Professor James Barr and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by Bishop Jack Spong, which, whether from ignorance, misunderstanding or malice, perpetuate the old identification. They write as if the only choice before the church is between an enlightened liberalism and an obscurantist fundamentalism.
But let it be said here and now, with clarity and conviction, that the great majority of evangelical Christians (at least in Europe) repudiate the ‘fundamentalist’ label, because they disagree with many self-styled fundamentalists at a number of important points.
The difficulty in establishing what these points are is due to the fact that fundamentalism has never clearly defined itself over against evangelicalism or published a broadly acceptable doctrinal basis. In seeking now to do the opposite, namely to distinguish evangelicalism from fundamentalism, I shall no doubt be guilty of generalizing and caricaturing. But I ask my readers to bear in mind that what I am attempting to portray below is not identifiable individuals or groups, but certain contrasting tendencies. I fully recognize that my portrait of fundamentalism may fit an old-style American version, but not some of our contemporaries who retain the label while rejecting some of the substance. Similarly, my portrait of evangelicalism is idealized, for alas! some contemporary evangelicals claim the name but do not live up to the ideal.
There seem to me to be at least ten tendencies to consider.
1. In relation to human thought, fundamentalists of the old school give the impression that they distrust scholarship, including the scientific disciplines; some tend towards a thoroughgoing anti-intellectualism, even obscurantism. Authentic evangelicals, however, acknowledge that all truth is God’s truth, that our minds are God-given, being a vital aspect of the divine image we bear, that we insult God if we refuse to think, and that we honour him when, whether through science or Scripture, we ‘think God’s thoughts after him’ ( Johann Kepler).
2. In relation to the nature of the Bible, fundamentalists are said by the dictionaries to believe that ‘every word of the Bible is literally true’. This is surely a slander, since the adverb ‘literally’ is used here too sweepingly. Yet it cannot be denied that some fundamentalists are characterized by an excessive literalism. Evangelicals, however, while believing that whatever the Bible affirms is true, add that some of what it affirms is figuratively or poetically (rather than literally) true, and is meant to be interpreted thus. Indeed, not even the most extreme fundamentalist believes that God has feathers (Ps. 91:4)!
3. In relation to biblical inspiration, fundamentalists have tended to regard it as having been a somewhat mechanical process, in which the human authors were passive and played no active role. Thus the fundamentalist view of the Bible, as having been dictated by God, resembles the Muslim view of the Qur’an as having been dictated by Allah in Arabic through the angel Gabriel, while Muhammad’s only contribution was to take down the dictation. In this way, the Qur’an is believed to be an exact reproduction of a heavenly original. Evangelicals emphasize, however, the double authorship of Scripture, namely that the divine author spoke through the human authors while they were in full possession of their faculties.
4. In relation to biblical interpretation, fundamentalists seem to suppose that they can apply the text directly to themselves as if it had been written primarily for them. They then ignore the cultural chasm which yawns between the biblical world and the contemporary world. At least in the ideal, however, evangelicals struggle with the task of cultural transposition, in which they seek to identify the essential message of the text, detach it from its original cultural context, and then recontextualize it, that is, apply it to our situation today.
5. In relation to the ecumenical movement, fundamentalists tend to go beyond suspicion (for which indeed there is ample justification) to a blanket, uncritical, even vociferous rejection. The most strident expression of this attitude was seen in the American Council of Christian Churches, which was founded by Carl McIntyre in 1941. Many evangelicals, however, although critical of the liberal agenda and frequently unprincipled methodology of the World Council of Churches, have tried to be discerning, affirming in ecumenism what seems to them to have biblical support, while claiming the freedom to reject what has not.
6. In relation to the church, fundamentalists have tended to hold a separatist ecclesiology, and to withdraw from any community which does not agree in every particular with their own doctrinal position. They forget that Luther and Calvin were very reluctant schismatics, who dreamed of a reformed catholicism. Most evangelicals, however, while believing it right to seek the doctrinal and ethical purity of the church, also believe that perfect purity cannot be attained in this world. The balance between discipline and tolerance is not easy to find.
7. In relation to the world, fundamentalists have tended some-times to assimilate its values and standards uncritically (e.g. in the prosperity gospel) and at other times to stand aloof from it, fearing contamination. By no means all evangelicals escape the charge of worldliness. Nevertheless, at least in theory, they seek to heed the biblical injunction not to conform to this world, and are also anxious to respond to the call of Jesus to penetrate it like salt and light, in order to hinder its decay and illuminate its darkness.
8. In relation to race, fundamentalists have shown a tendency – especially in the United States and in South Africa – to cling to the myth of white supremacy and to defend racial segregation, even in the church. Racism without doubt lingers among evangelicals too. Yet there is a widespread desire to repent of it. Most evangelicals, it can be claimed, proclaim and practise racial equality, originally by creation and supremely in Christ, who broke down the walls of racial, social and sexual separation in order to create a single, united humanity.
9. In relation to the Christian mission, fundamentalists have tended to insist that ‘mission’ and ‘evangelism’ are synonyms, and that the vocation of the church is simply to proclaim the gospel. Evangelicals, however, while continuing to affirm the priority of evangelism, have felt unable to sunder it from social responsibility. As in the ministry of Jesus, so today, words and deeds, proclamation and demonstration, good news and good works supplement and reinforce one another. Their separation, wrote Carl Henry, is ‘Protestantism’s embarrassing divorce’.
10. In relation to the Christian hope, fundamentalists tend to dogmatize about the future, although to be sure they hold no monopoly on dogmatism. But they often go into considerable detail about the fulfilment of prophecy, divide history into rigid dispensations, and also espouse a Christian Zionism which ignores the grave injustices done to the Palestinians. Evangelicals, however, while affirming with eager expectation the personal, visible, glorious and triumphant return of our Lord Jesus Christ, prefer to remain agnostic about the details on which even firmly biblical Christians have differing viewpoints."
As an evangelical I find this very helpful.