An Era of Fundamentalism has passed as Stephen Jones resigns from Bob Jones University

[robwar]

Well, I’m a little fuzzy on the exact origins of Fundamentalism. But I seem to recall that it started among Presbyterians and Reformed Christians who mixed Princeton theology with Dispensationalism.

I know not all Fundamentalists are Calvinists today, but I think Fundamentalism still carries an imprint of a Calvinist mindset that is one of the things that sets it apart from other groups like Holiness and Pentecostals.

It’s in some ways a less refined form of intellectualism that revolves around knowing that you know the Bible better than anyone else and if anyone disagrees with you they obviously aren’t a true Christian.

I thought it started with the five fundamentals of the faith in reaction to liberal protestants. I am wondering how the quiverful movement fits in this as well as Bill gothard.

 

[AbideWithMe]

The vast majority of Christians I knew growing up (including myself and my family) would have referred to themselves as evangelicals, but wouldn’t have been particularly unhappy with the label fundamentalist either. The idea that these are either/ors, so that you must be one or the other, is a complete myth manufactured by neo-evangelicals who don’t want to be associated with those nasty fundamentalists.

Edwin

I don’t think the either/or line is a complete myth. I have an weird sort of way of seeing the distinction myself. I take a quirky pleasure in arranging colored artist’s materials—colored pencils, for example—in order by hue. Give me a box of pencils with six shades of purple, nine of blue, and eight shades of green, etc., and I’m goofily happy to figure out where each fits on the spectrum of colors. (I don’t have any Autism Spectrum Disorder, I just love color.) At some central point for any color, you reach the true hue, like true blue: the color before it is blue with the slightest tinge of purple, and the color after it is blue with the least tint of green in it.

Darn it, people can’t be arranged so neatly, but I think a “central” Evangelical (if such a creature could be identified) is a distinctly different creature than a “central” fundamentalist.

I usually try to make the Evangelical/Fundamentalist distinction because most people I come across are barely aware that there is any difference, rather than being those who try to make too sharp a distinction. I admire fundamentalists for some things, and sometimes I envy the firm faith that drives the best of their actions; if I catch myself feeling embarrassed by some of them and wishing to disassociate from them as fellows, it doesn’t take much to remind me that many of them are better Christians than I am.

 

[ltwin]

I thought it started with the five fundamentals of the faith in reaction to liberal protestants.

The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915, is where the label came from and probably served as a helpful way to standardize belief. But that book in and of itself did not create Fundamentalism.

I am wondering how the quiverful movement fits in this as well as Bill gothard.

I have no idea.

 

[JustaServant]

Darn it, people can’t be arranged so neatly…

Good illustration, and you hit the nail on the head.
Human beings are complex, we worship a complex God. The objective of fundamentalism is simplicity, it does not recognize the complexity of the universe. Everything is in black and white, no shades of grey. This is true of Catholic fundamentalists as well (trads, SSPX), they cannot except the idea that God is bigger than their preferances, desires or opinions. Categorizing human beings, whether they be Catholic or even fundamentalists themselves, is beset with problems. God can work with people on any level, including those levels we reject. He is not like us. Which is a good thing.

We had Christmas lunch one time for our office at the local buffet (our boss was a cheapskate) and I was sitting across a fundamentalist lady and young guy who noticed a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses coming into the restaurant. She said in a whispering voice “they travel with demons around them, I can feel them.” I let them go on for a while and then just challenged them.
I said, so God can’t work with or among people like that? He’s completely powerless among them? God has taught me He can work in any situation, among any person He chooses to, no matter what they believe or their level of understanding Him.
He will meet them wherever they are at the moment. Even if it’s in a place we don’t accept.
Fundamentalism is it’s own worst enemy, they will try for a lifetime trying fit complex things into a little box, and expect God to do the same thing.
But God, unlike those colors you spoke of, simply refuses to be categorized.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think the either/or line is a complete myth.

We aren’t disagreeing. I didn’t mean that drawing a distinction was a myth, only that as you say there are lots and lots of shades. Itwin gave the impression that the shades were the exception. In the case of fundamentalism, I’d say the opposite–that is to say, there are more people who could fall on either side of the line and/or give the lie to the existence of a line at all than there are people who are clearly “fundamentalist and not evangelical.” In the case of evangelicals, that may not be the case, but if you define “fundamentalist” very broadly (“people who believe in inerrancy” or “people who think that non-Christians are going to hell,” for instance) it still might be.

Darn it, people can’t be arranged so neatly, but I think a “central” Evangelical (if such a creature could be identified) is a distinctly different creature than a “central” fundamentalist.

The problem, as you say, is identifying such a creature. There are of course multiple definitions of both terms, and the definitions are loaded. The dominant scholarly narrative (identified with Reformed scholars such as George Marsden, Mark Noll, and Joel Carpenter) defines evangelicalism essentially as a movement arising from within fundamentalism but rejecting separatism. In this way of thinking, evangelicalism initially did not differ from fundamentalism in its basic doctrinal positions.

The alternative, minority narrative, identified with scholars of a more Wesleyan bent such as Donald Dayton, would argue that the heart of evangelicalism lies less in doctrinal commitments concerning Scripture, etc., and more in a “warm-hearted” piety combined with the pursuit of both personal and social holiness. (To be clear, the first approach of course also recognizes that evangelicalism predated fundamentalism, and that evangelicals who were not fundamentalists in the narrow sense continued to exist throughout the early 20th century. But the “Reformed” narrative treats ex-fundamentalists as the leading players in the formation of what we now know as evangelicalism, and tends to treat contemporary evangelicalism largely as the result of this move away from separatism in the mid-20th century.)

I think there are strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. The “Wesleyan” narrative is the one I would tend to favor on the whole, but it sometimes exaggerates the differences between Wesleyan/Pentecostal/Anabaptist versions of evangelicalism and “fundamentalism.” My family would definitely have identified themselves with many ideas often labeled “fundamentalist,” although we also definitely had a different approach in certain ways than strict fundamentalists. I would say that essentially we shared the concerns of fundamentalists and most of their attitudes to the world but were more flexible and mystical, more willing to shelve scruples over doctrine if people’s hearts seemed to be in the right place.

What I find problematic is mixing and matching the two sets of definitions so that we have an “ideal type” of rigid fundamentalists clearly distinct from evangelicals, who are nonetheless capable somehow of “infiltrating” evangelicals with their noxious ideas. I don’t think that makes sense. Separatist fundamentalists aren’t interested in infiltrating anyone.

Edwin

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I sat under two preachers from BJ back in my Baptist days.
**I will refrain from revealing what I know about the inner workings of the family and issues surrounding the two heir apparents of the fundamentalist dynasty, **Bob Jones IV and Stephen. A simple google search can do that.
I can’t say I’m surprised. BJU has had financial woes and dropping enrollments in last couple decades. Since fundamentalism is an ever-changing philosophy, they have to keep up with the times or become extinct.
The “giants” of fundamentalism: the Jones family, Jerry Falwell, and Jack Hyles are all gone now. Who wil replace them?

I also know about what you are referring to in the bold.
My only comment is, irony is terrible thing for some people.

I think the BJU brand of fundamentalism qualifies as the oldest, and I hope this dinosaur is finally going off into history and is NOT replaced.