History of Fundamentalism in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter kspillane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kspillane

Guest
Hey Everyone!

Long time lurker, first time poster. I suppose I should go check out the meet and greet thread, but we will get my question off here first. Pardon me if this has been asked (a few searches couldn’t find what I needed) and pardon me if it is in the wrong forum (this isn’t really an apologetics question).

I am always interested in history and how things got to where they are now. Recently I finished an audio lecture series on the history of the catholic church by Thomas Madden, which was amazing! I also just finished No God but God, by Reza Aslan, for a brief, albeit noticeable anti-Catholic biased, history of Islam.

What I would like to learn next is the history of Protestantism / fundamentalism / evangelicalism in America, or anywhere. It was lightly mentioned in the audio lecture series, but I would like to know more to educate myself.

Can anyone recommend any books or other media on the subject?

I have low-vision, so it will probably need to be in audio form, but I will take print recommendations since I might be able to get them through Audible, or the Library of Congress in audio form.

Thanks!
 
kspillane said:
Hey Everyone!

Long time lurker, first time poster. I suppose I should go check out the meet and greet thread, but we will get my question off here first. Pardon me if this has been asked (a few searches couldn’t find what I needed) and pardon me if it is in the wrong forum (this isn’t really an apologetics question).

I am always interested in history and how things got to where they are now. Recently I finished an audio lecture series on the history of the catholic church by Thomas Madden, which was amazing! I also just finished No God but God, by Reza Aslan, for a brief, albeit noticeable anti-Catholic biased, history of Islam.

What I would like to learn next is the history of Protestantism / fundamentalism / evangelicalism in America, or anywhere. It was lightly mentioned in the audio lecture series, but I would like to know more to educate myself.

Can anyone recommend any books or other media on the subject?

I have low-vision, so it will probably need to be in audio form, but I will take print recommendations since I might be able to get them through Audible, or the Library of Congress in audio form.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
You know if you contact Catholic Answers directly they might just have the thing. I do know that fundamentalism is a fairly recent thing. I think the 20th century is when it started to take off although I don’t know if it existed before that.
 
Yeah, from what I have learned it can be considered an anti-intellectual reaction ot the enlightentment. I guess I what I am interested in is the evolution of Protestantism in American and how it evolved into fundamentalism.

I will double check the CA store!
 
Having once been part of this movement I will put my two cents in for you.
The fundamentalist movement began in the early part of the 20th century as a reaction against the growing liberalism in mainline denominations. The early fundamentalist conferences included almost every Protestant denomination.
It included many denominations (including Episcopal) who argued incessantly over WHAT those fundamentals were.* The Presbyterians wished to include Calvinism. Others wished to include a new theology called Dispensationalism, still others argued over the Millennial Reign of Christ. It became so fractured that by the 1960s only Fundamental Baptists accepted the term. Today, only a few Presbyterian denominations refer to themselves as ‘fundamentalists’, most would prefer the term ‘evangelical’.
Fundamentalism exists in the fog of a false history (which is why they discourage educated inquiry) and ‘separation’. They believe they are ‘Bible based’ and all other denominations reject the Bible and salvation.
There are three basic types of fundamentalist baptists:

**1. The Jerry Falwel, Liberty University variety. **
I attended LU and can safely say they are the most reasonable kind (that may shock some people). They would fit into the " ‘New Evangelicals’ Billy Graham, Charles Colson, James Dobson" types. Hard-core fundamentalists do not consider them to be fundamentalists (for a variety of reasons I will not bore you with explaining, not the least of which is that they (GASP) use modern english versions of the Bible.

2. The Bob Jones University variety.
They range from Calvinist to Arminian in theology. They tend to be more intellectual, but very elitist and racist. Their numbers are dwindling however, Two pastors I sat under were from BJU.

**3. The Hyles-Anderson College, KJV-only variety. **
These are the wide-eyed fanatics. These are the haters. Very anti-intellectual, cultic, abrasive, paranoid…I could go on, but you get the picture. The third group I have encountered, even preached in a few of their churches, but I avoided them.
 
I think it depends on who you’re talking about. My familiarity is with Fundamentalism as practiced by hill people in my region; the Ozarks, but I think it’s pretty much true all over the upper South.

People here are mostly Scots-Irish, brought here an immensely long time ago; nearly 400 years ago. They were not particularly well educated, and what education they had was usually from the Bible alone. They moved from the Appalachins to the Smokies to the Ozarks to the Texas Hill Country, leaving populations behind each time.

They were isolated well into the 20th Century for the most part. And so, it might reasonably be said that their Fundamentalism comes from having the Bible as pretty much their only literature for hundreds of years.

An interesting story, perhaps. Years ago I read in the local paper that Ian Paisley was going to preach in a local Fundamentalist church. I couldn’t believe my eyes, so i called the preacher there and asked if it was THE Ian Paisley; the member of British Parliament from Northern Ireland. “Yes”, he said.

Being an almost historical figure as Paisley was, I attended part of his service. It was all preaching, from beginning to end, and all about one particular bible verse. The remarkable thing was that he was totally at home with the congregation and they with him. Nearly 400 years separated them in time, but nothing had really changed. The congregation responded to him just as they would their own preacher, and he with them.

Remarkable, I thought. 400 years of separation meant nothing.

So, while others might have other explanations of American Fundamentalism, my view is that sometimes it’s a very old historical artifact.
 
I still don’t understand the term.

In sports you learn the fundamentals first. The fundamentals of basketball are dribbling, defense, shooting, and passing.

The fundamentals of Christianity would be belief in the Holy Trinity, Baptism, Heaven and Hell, the need for Salvation, sin etc. This all, of course, originates in the doctrines that the Holy Spirit gave the Catholic Church. Every Protestant Denomination is either a direct product of rebellion against the Church (Lutherans) or indirect (Baptist, “Non-denominational” etc). They took the fundamentals and changed some of them (belief in the authority of God’s Church) and then changed much of what comes after the fundamentals.

I think it is a bad term to use. Even worse when people start using the term “fundies” to mock people who believe what is false… We should never mock people. It is a sin, although a small one in most cases.
 
JustaServant said:
Having once been part of this movement I will put my two cents in for you.
The fundamentalist movement began in the early part of the 20th century as a reaction against the growing liberalism in mainline denominations. The early fundamentalist conferences included almost every Protestant denomination.
It included many denominations (including Episcopal) who argued incessantly over WHAT those fundamentals were.* The Presbyterians wished to include Calvinism. Others wished to include a new theology called Dispensationalism, still others argued over the Millennial Reign of Christ. It became so fractured that by the 1960s only Fundamental Baptists accepted the term. Today, only a few Presbyterian denominations refer to themselves as ‘fundamentalists’, most would prefer the term ‘evangelical’.
Fundamentalism exists in the fog of a false history (which is why they discourage educated inquiry) and ‘separation’. They believe they are ‘Bible based’ and all other denominations reject the Bible and salvation.
There are three basic types of fundamentalist baptists:

**1. The Jerry Falwel, Liberty University variety. **
I attended LU and can safely say they are the most reasonable kind (that may shock some people). They would fit into the " ‘New Evangelicals’ Billy Graham, Charles Colson, James Dobson" types. Hard-core fundamentalists do not consider them to be fundamentalists (for a variety of reasons I will not bore you with explaining, not the least of which is that they (GASP) use modern english versions of the Bible.

2. The Bob Jones University variety.
They range from Calvinist to Arminian in theology. They tend to be more intellectual, but very elitist and racist. Their numbers are dwindling however, Two pastors I sat under were from BJU.

**3. The Hyles-Anderson College, KJV-only variety. **
These are the wide-eyed fanatics. These are the haters. Very anti-intellectual, cultic, abrasive, paranoid…I could go on, but you get the picture. The third group I have encountered, even preached in a few of their churches, but I avoided them.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup. Thank you for the info! I have always in my superiority, lumped the fundies into one group. This is fascinating for some of us, please, more of your insight!
 
MiserableSinner said:
I still don’t understand the term.

In sports you learn the fundamentals first. The fundamentals of basketball are dribbling, defense, shooting, and passing.

The fundamentals of Christianity would be belief in the Holy Trinity, Baptism, Heaven and Hell, the need for Salvation, sin etc. This all, of course, originates in the doctrines that the Holy Spirit gave the Catholic Church. Every Protestant Denomination is either a direct product of rebellion against the Church (Lutherans) or indirect (Baptist, “Non-denominational” etc). They took the fundamentals and changed some of them (belief in the authority of God’s Church) and then changed much of what comes after the fundamentals.

I think it is a bad term to use. Even worse when people start using the term “fundies” to mock people who believe what is false… We should never mock people. It is a sin, although a small one in most cases.
Click to expand...
For some, it’s even more basic than that. It’s whatever the Bible says, nothing more and nothing less, and on a fairly basic and literal level. Around here, Fundamentalists are proud to call themselves Fundamentalists.

They don’t think of themselves as separatists from the Catholic Church. Among those who actually know anything about the Catholic Church, they think more of it than they do of mainline Protestant denominations. Around here, Catholics and Fundamentalists are nearly allied and are, indeed, allied when it comes to prolife activities.

It’s interesting to reflect on the fact that there is a lot of “Fundamentalism” about the Catholic Church as compared to some Protestant denominations. Catholics take a number of things literally, like the Real Presence, whereas mainline Protestants don’t.
 
kozlosap said:
:thumbsup. Thank you for the info! I have always in my superiority, lumped the fundies into one group. This is fascinating for some of us, please, more of your insight!
Click to expand...
I think the historical breed of fundamentalism is rapidly fading from history. What remains is a shell of its former self. The winds of change blew while they stood transfixed in time like an old western ghost town. I think you will still find them in many rural parts of America, but they are a cultural oddity like the Shakers, Amish, and other breakaway sects who resist change while time marched on.
A large part of the reason they are disappearing from America’s religious landscape has been that doctrine of separation. They separate not only from that which they consider apostate, but from each other as well.
When something is born of division, it will keep dividing itself out of existence. they cultivated the seeds of their own destruction.
Their spiritual children number among evangelical churches, mega-churches and the like. In many ways, they are far more pliable than their fundamentalist forbearers…
 
I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “fundamentalism”, but I think you might be interested in reading about the “great awakenings” in the US. They were periods of increased (noticeably Protestant) piety and such. The movements might qualify as “fundamentalist”, but im not sure.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening
 
One of the best scholars I know in this area is Karen Armstrong. Her book, The Battle for God, is worth a read. She examines Jewish, Muslim and Christian fundamentalism, and you can see similar dynamics flowing through all three traditions.
 
MiserableSinner said:
I still don’t understand the term.

In sports you learn the fundamentals first. The fundamentals of basketball are dribbling, defense, shooting, and passing.

The fundamentals of Christianity would be belief in the Holy Trinity, Baptism, Heaven and Hell, the need for Salvation, sin etc.QUOTE]

Yeah, I always wondered this too. I think the issue revolved around what exactly the fundamentals are. I always got the impression that the “fundamentals” meant a rejection of a hierarchical priesthood, rituals and rites, and keeping things simple, hence the anti-intellectualism. These sorts of beliefs are what sparked the reformation. With biblical literalism, it is a lot easy to interpret the Bible than having to figure it out in a non-literal sense.

I remember, even when I would be dragged to non-denominational services with friends, and they teach that you can interpet the Bible on your on because the Holy Spirit would come to you. To me, that just didn’t make any sense at all. Like a rejection of a priesthood. It would be like if I got sick, and I wasn’t going to listen to a doctor because I know myself better and he is some intellectual type. Makes no sense, although, ironically, many of these non-denominational types I know also don’t trust doctors, so what can you do.

Thanks for all the great (name removed by moderator)ut everyone!
Click to expand...
 
ComplineSanFran said:
One of the best scholars I know in this area is Karen Armstrong. Her book, The Battle for God, is worth a read. She examines Jewish, Muslim and Christian fundamentalism, and you can see similar dynamics flowing through all three traditions.
Click to expand...
The Library of Congress has a number of her books for me to listen to. does she have any biases that I should know about? Her Wikipedia page says she is a former nun and now leads toward mystic Christianity. Is she still catholic? Just want ot know what I am in for.

Thanks!
 
kspillane said:
The Library of Congress has a number of her books for me to listen to. does she have any biases that I should know about? Her Wikipedia page says she is a former nun and now leads toward mystic Christianity. Is she still catholic? Just want ot know what I am in for.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Above all, Armstrong is a scholar of religious studies and history. She was born and raised in England, as Roman Catholic. She was at one time in the convent. I believe that she is not practicing her Catholicism at the moment but is not angry nor does it get in the way of her scholarship. Her current practice? I’m not certain. She is a founding member of Charter of Compassion; she is knowledgable about the mystic traditions, but again trust her historical knowledge to give you a good overview of why fundamentalism exists in all faiths. There are some decent interviews on YouTube if you want to hear her take on things first.

BTW, her first book The History of God is superb. It’s a book I wish I had written myself.
 
A few more thoughts.
The underlying purpose of historic fundamentalism has always been personal and doctrinal purity. It’s based on a Utopian ideal that ignores the truth about human nature–that we are wounded people unable to properly govern ourselves. This ‘pursuit of purity’ has several layers, one of which is nostalgia.
The fundamentalists I knew were always longing for that ‘old time religion’, a nostalgic longing for a period in American Protestant history that never existed. A ‘Great Awakening’ that was invented, not by historians but by eighteenth-century evangelicals who were skillful and enthusiastic religious promoters. In trying to re-create that mythology, they found themselves not finding purity, but their own sinfulness.
In trying to find purity in ‘separation’, they faced the demons within them that sought only to conquer what they divided.
 
JustaServant said:
A few more thoughts.
The underlying purpose of historic fundamentalism has always been personal and doctrinal purity. It’s based on a Utopian ideal that ignores the truth about human nature–that we are wounded people unable to properly govern ourselves. This ‘pursuit of purity’ has several layers, one of which is nostalgia.
The fundamentalists I knew were always longing for that ‘old time religion’, a nostalgic longing for a period in American Protestant history that never existed. A ‘Great Awakening’ that was invented, not by historians but by eighteenth-century evangelicals who were skillful and enthusiastic religious promoters. In trying to re-create that mythology, they found themselves not finding purity, but their own sinfulness.
In trying to find purity in ‘separation’, they faced the demons within them that sought only to conquer what they divided.
Click to expand...
Might be true for some, but I maintain that Fundamentalism in the upper (mountain) south and much of the rest of the south is a different thing from what most posters on here have been talking about.

Author Flannery O’Connor, who knew both Catholicism and southern Fundamentalism very well, opined that in the future the greatest source of converts in the U.S. would be among the southern Fundamentalists. And why? Because, she said, southern fundamentalists would ultimately be surprised to find that they share more with Catholicism than they do with classic protestantism.

Having grown up with country Fundamentalists, I am inclined to agree with her. In one of the parishes I attend, the convert rate is about 5%/year, and most of them come from Fundamentalist congregations.

And despite the religious movements in the north, it is my belief that Fundamentalism in the south (particularly in the mountain areas) is virtually no different from what it was 400 years ago, and hasn’t changed to speak of in that time. They brought it with them, though I have no doubt it became more “Bible only” over time due to the fact that the Bible was the only literature or religious education they had for centuries.

I’m talking about southern yeomen here, not the ruling classes.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Might be true for some, but I maintain that Fundamentalism in the upper (mountain) south and much of the rest of the south is a different thing from what most posters on here have been talking about.

Author Flannery O’Connor, who knew both Catholicism and southern Fundamentalism very well, opined that in the future the greatest source of converts in the U.S. would be among the southern Fundamentalists. And why? Because, she said, southern fundamentalists would ultimately be surprised to find that they share more with Catholicism than they do with classic protestantism.

Having grown up with country Fundamentalists, I am inclined to agree with her. In one of the parishes I attend, the convert rate is about 5%/year, and most of them come from Fundamentalist congregations.

And despite the religious movements in the north, it is my belief that Fundamentalism in the south (particularly in the mountain areas) is virtually no different from what it was 400 years ago, and hasn’t changed to speak of in that time. They brought it with them, though I have no doubt it became more “Bible only” over time due to the fact that the Bible was the only literature or religious education they had for centuries.

I’m talking about southern yeomen here, not the ruling classes.
Click to expand...
Southern fundamentalism (the historic Baptist variety) has been influenced by Bob Jones fundamentalism and KJV-only (offshoots of Hyles, Landmark, and Peter Ruckman). And they are rapidly disappearing from the landscape.
I seriously have no clue what you are talking about when you mention 400 years. The Puritans, if that is what you are referring to, were not fundamentalists. They served in some way to the ‘nostalgic’ foundation of fundamentalism. But as I said, that was based on nostalgic mythology of a ‘golden age’ of American Christianity.
In the South, American fundamentalism is better traced from the Civil War.
There IS an interesting parallel in history involving the birth of fundamentalism and the KKK. The RISE (post-Civil War and the 1920s) of both movements were similtaneous and loosely connected.
Fundamentalist forebearers, are considered ‘heroes’ to these groups, and they were pretty chummy with the Klan. Bob Jones Sr. is the most nortorious. One of the buildings on his campus is named after a state govenor and Klan grand dragon. The racism of his school continues to this very day.
Another ‘hero’ of fundamentalism was William Bell Reilly who not only was a supporter of the Klan (if they were members, they curiously kept it quiet), he also supported the infamous Protocols of Zion.
 
kspillane
One book you might want to check out is ‘In Pursuit of Purity’ by Bob Jones University Press. Straight from the horse’s mouth and very accurate in regard to the history. Another is ‘Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism‘ by Ian Murray, a Protestant author.
 
There are other groups that would fit into the “fundamentalist” mold. The Restoration movement was part of the “Second Great Awakening” in the late 1700’s early 1800’s. Also known as the Campbell-Stone movement. This grew out of Appalachia, and spread throughout parts of the South and pretty heavily in Texas. You’ll recognize the descendants of that movement as the “Church of Christ” and the “Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)” and all their offshoots. They were the first attempt at “non-denominationalism”. The goal was to have everyone leave denominations and become a part of this movement, which by necessity, focused on the “fundamentals” as they saw them. Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell were educated in Scotland, so there may in fact be a fundamentalist connection to the old world. The Alexanders and Barton Stone left the Presbyterian Church to start this movement.

It’s worth noting that Joseph Smith (yes, THAT Joseph Smith) knew Alexander Campbell. Obviously, they did not agree on things, but I believe you can trace the Mormon restorationist and “Great Apostasy” beliefs back to this movement. In fact, Joseph Smith’s first followers were former followers of Alexander Campbell.

The Wikipedia article about the Restoration Movement is pretty good. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top