The Fundamentalist Phenomenon

Transcription

1 REVIEW ARTICLE The Fundamentalist Phenomenon Charles R. Smith The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: The Resurgence of Conservative Christianity, ed. by Jerry Falwell, with Ed Dobson and Ed Hindson. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Pp $ Jerry Falwell asked two of his key pastoral associates, Ed Hindson (a Grace Theological Seminary alumnus) and Ed Dobson, "to write a book that would trace the rise, growth, development, and contemporary impact of fundamentalism" (p. vii). This book is the result, and I agree with Falwell that Hindson and Dobson have admirably fulfilled their assignment. Their picture of fundamentalism is fair and balanced, properly noting both strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of Chapter I is to cite evidences that "Fundamentalism is Alive and Well." The problem of definition is introduced (Just who is a fundamentalist?) and statistical data, especially from the Christianity Today Gallup Poll, is summarized. Chapter 2 surveys the history of religious non-conformity. At times the organizing principles of this historical survey are obscure. The non-conformist groups discussed include such doctrinally divergent groups as the Montanists and the Brethren. During the process of reading, one cannot help but wonder why such individuals as Marcion and Montanus are included, while other more notable individuals, equally well known for their doctrinal nonconformity, are excluded. One especially wonders why Savonarola, Luther, and Zwingli are discussed, yet Calvin is strangely absent. But a careful reading of the Concluding Observations at the end of the chapter sheds light on this enigma. For Hindson and Dobson, a non-conformist is one who, along with other convictions, believes in a separation of church and state (p. 53). Apparently Calvin's relationship with the state places him outside the tradition of non-conformity. Further questions are raised by the presentation of "a definite set of basic principles held in common opposition to mainline Christianity" by non-conformists. One of these shared principles is "involvement in the State," yet under this heading non-conformists are divided into three major groups, one of which is said to emphasize "witness without political involvement" (p. 55, emphasis added).

2 134 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL The section on involvement with the State ends with the assertion that "the historical position of religious non-conformity is one of spiritual confrontation with society itself" (p. 55). Since this is such a critical premise for Falwell's presentation on behalf of Moral Majority, Inc., at the end of the book, perhaps it is not impertinent to respond that (1) a "historic position" (especially one with non-conformist exceptions?!), as the authors would agree, is not necessarily a wise or a biblical position; (2) "spiritual confrontation" (emphasis added) may have varying definitions; and (3) "confrontation with society" need not be the same thing as organized, ecumenical, Christian, or church pressure to control State policies. The line between "separation of church and state" and "involvement in the state" is often blurred! Many "non-conformists" may agree with most or all of the moral principles of the Moral Maj0rity yet question the wisdom of attempting to coerce either society in general or the state in particular to accept what we may identify as Christian principles. Some evangelicals and fundamentaests believe that we may have a greater impact as non-conformists by "forcing" society to see that we are different than by "forcing" society to be like us! At the same time this does not deny the right or responsibility of individual Christians in a democratic society to have a positive effect on that society. An important misprint occurs on p. 48, where it is stated that Darby divided history into dispensations "in which God dwelt in a different manner with different people" (emphasis added). On p. 73 the correct word, "dealt," is used in a similar statement. Chapter 3 presents a helpful, though brief, survey of America's religious heritage. As asides, this reviewer would join Pentecostals in objecting to the remark that their emphasis on charismatic gifts is "diametrically opposed" to their acceptance of a dispensational scheme (p. 70), and would object to the comment that the "dispensationalists' [assumed] lack of social concern and involvement with the present world" was (or is) due to their dispensational scheme (p. 73). With regard to the latter, would it not be fairer to assert that a mark of fundamentalism, including dispensationalism, is its greater emphasis on spiritual than on social concerns? I ndeed, it is on this very basis that some evangelicals question the wisdom and the congruity of a fundamentalist Moral Majority campaign. Chapter 4 summarizes the major events of the fundamentalist war with liberalism between 1900 and It includes abridged biographies of major personalities involved in this war. The brevity of treatment allows for a number of ambiguities and optional interpretations. For example, the statement that William Jennings Bryan's fiasco in attempting to defend creation "proved disastrous for Bryan and Fundamentalism" is certainly an overstatement (p. 86). In fact, it could be argued that the event served as a catalyst for more reasoned defenses and for the subsequent advance of fundamentalism. With regard to the waning days of the fundamentalist-liberal controversy ( ), the authors state: "In the twelve years since its inception, the organization [the World's Christian Fundamentalist Association] had lost the vitality and purpose for which it was originally founded. Rather than fighting modernism, it was now committed to building its own movements through churches, schools, and colleges" (pp ). It is hoped that readers will not

3 SMITH: FUNDAMENTALIST PHENOMENON 135 view this as a detriment to the fundamentalist movement. To the contrary, it could be argued, as the following chapter implies (p. 110), that this was not the waning of a war but the real beginning! With this in mind, one cannot help but wonder why the founding of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer, as a direct reaction to contemporary liberalism, was not even mentioned in the chapter. In view of the statistics regarding fundamentalist/ evangelical pastors, educators, and publications, a Dallas propagandist could build a case suggesting that no event of that period accomplished more for the cause of fundamentalism/ evangelicalism. (Amazingly, it is later affirmed [po 128] that the World Baptist Fellowship retained "national prominence and influence through the Arlington [Texas] Baptist schools"!) Chapter 5 describes the "Aftermath" of the great fundamentalist-liberal controversy. The introduction to the chapter speaks of "three separate impulses: Fundamentalism, Liberalism, and Evangelicalism" (p. 109). In spite of the asserted need to understand the role of evangelicalism (as well as that of liberalism) if one is to understand the apparently different role of fundamentalism, these roles are not separated or delineated in this chapter. Chapter 6 does draw clear distinctions between fundamentalists and "New Evangelicals" (sometimes labeled only as "Evangelicals"). There is a one-page paragraph in Chapter 5 which discusses the issue of secondary separation and concludes with the obvious statement that "the degree of one's separatism became a hotly debated issue in many fundamentalist circles" (p. 140). This remark certainly deserves elaboration. In earlier periods (as in Chapter I of this book) fundamentalism and evangelicalism were described primarily in doctrinal terms as in opposition to liberalism. But it is safe to conclude that the distinction now often recognized (as in Chapter 5 of this book) between evangelicals and fundamentalists is not essentially doctrinal but is based primarily on views of separation (or separatism)-especially as this relates to attitudes toward social issues and relationships with those who differ. Apparently an evangelical is one who holds to the doctrines formerly identified as the marks of fundamentalism, whereas a fundamentalist is one who shares these convictions but is also opposed (I) to any emphasis on social welfare as of greater or equal importance with evangelism, and (2) to any cooperation with liberals which would give the impression that they are to be recognized as fellow believers. In addition, in some circles, the term is reserved for those who live a distinctively separatist lifestyle in abstaining from any use of alcoholic beverages and attendance at commercial movie theaters (cf. p. 156). Since evangelicals and fundamentalists alike are sometimes alarmed by extreme fundamentalist attitudes (such as those represented by Norris in the past or by Ruckman in the present), it is no wonder that some have preferred to avoid the opprobrium often associated with the fundamentalist label (or what is known as the "fundamentalist mentality"). In view of these concerns, perhaps it is best to define a fundamentalist as one (I) who believes the fundamentalist doctrines, (2) who is willing to accept the label, and (3) who will be recognized as such by a majority of others who are willing to accept the label! The implicit thesis of the opening paragraphs of Chapter 6 is that by 1976 the fundamentalist movement appeared to be as permanently fragmented as was Humpty Dumpty after his fall, but Jerry Falwell and the

4 136 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Moral Majority put the pieces together again! As the movement united against liberalism in the 1920s, so it has now united against secular humanism. These opening statements, along with the chapter title, "The Resurgence of Fundamentalism," hardly prepare the reader for the actual contents of the chapter. It does not deal with any resurgence at all (whether real or imagined) but describes reactionary fundamentalism, neo-evangelicalism, and the weaknesses of fundamentalism. The picture of fundamentalism is one of dismal fragmentation and excessive bickering, with only the primary strengths of individual commitment and zeal. In describing the fundamentalist fragmentation, the chapter introduces the problem caused by hyper-fundamentalists who accuse main-line fundamentalists, such as Jerry Falwell, of being pseudo-fundamentalists or even pseudo-neo-fundamentalists. Apparently, the primary characteristic of a pseudo-neo-fundamentalist is that he has been friendly with the neoevangelicals-at least he is not as spiritual or ~s separated as the one who assigned him that label! Chapter 6 includes a careful explication of both the concerns and the errors of neo-evangelicalism. It is duly noted (p. 163) that the evangelicalism of the 1940s was in reality fundamentalism under another name. But ambiguity in labeling cannot be avoided. The term "evangelical" is sometimes the equivalent of fundamentalist and sometimes its antithesis. This ambiguity is not entirely the fault of the authors. Indeed, contrary to the practice of many authors when dealing with this subject, they have done an admirable job in avoiding unnecessary labeling and "pigeon-holing." The most helpful part of Chapter 6, and of the entire book, is its discussion of the weaknesses of fundamentalism. The evaluation is honest and irenic and should be carefully studied by every fundamentalist (and! or evangelical). Major weaknesses cited include the following: (I) Little capacity for self-criticism; (2) Over-emphasis on external spirituality; (3) Resistance to change; (4) Exaltation of minor issues; (5) The temptation to add to the Gospel (eschatological distinctives, etc.); (6) Over-dependence on dynamic leadership; (7) Excessive worry over labels and associations; (8) Absolutism; and (9) Authoritarianism. The final section is Jerry Falwell's postscript which presents an "Agenda for the Eighties." It incorporates his agenda for, description of, and defense of Moral Majority, Inc. It is not a chapter of the book. It is related to the historical review of funda~entalism (the rest of the book) only in that it is Falwell's vision of what fundamentalism should accomplish. I will not attempt here to present a full evaluation of Moral Majority, Inc. All fundamentalists (and! or conservative evangelicals) share many, if not all, of the concerns of Dr. Falwell. But, as everyone knows, there are genuine differences of opinion, especially regarding methodology. As individuals, Christians certainly have all the rights which Falwell endorses for the Moral Majority, and certainly this organization has the right to disseminate the convictions of its supporters on all the issues with which they are concerned. But since not all sins can be placed in the category of those which should be outlawed by the state, many fundamentalists have sincere questions about whether any group of people, even a majority, in our democratic and

5 SMITH: FUNDAMENTALIST PHENOMENON 137 pluralistic society has the right to impose its own lifestyle on the general populace. Many believe that, though the ultimate form of human government will be a theocracy, it is wrong for mere mortals to attempt to establish such a government-whether by force of arms or by other collective coercion. Such attempts will culminate in alignment of force against force. And since according to the testimony of our Lord himself, the majority are on the broad road that leads to destruction (and are thus immoral), the prospects for success in such a conflict are not bright. In order to preserve the right of fundamentalists to boycott television sponsors, Falwell must endorse the right of ERA advocates to boycott states that have refused to ratify the amendment (pp ). The right of individuals to do so in either case is not questioned. But is it right for 100,000 activists from across the nation to prevent conventions from meeting in Illinois-to the great detriment of that state and its citizens who have voted against the amendment? Though there may never be complete agreement on the answers to questions of methodology such as those posed above, Falwell is to be commended for his irenic approach and Christian attitude. All evangelicals (andj or fundamentalists) should read this book and ponder its call to genuine Christian unity and to active confrontation with a sin-wrecked culture. He is right in appealing to "true fundamentalists" who are to the left of the "hyperfundamentalists," and to "sincere evangelicals," who are to the right of the "neo-evangelicals" to acknowledge their common ground and heritage.