This entry deals with what An Evangelical Manifesto has to say about conservative fundamentalism. Also be sure and read the companion post on liberal revisionism.The following two paragraphs serve to introduce both posts so it will be repeated in both.
I am still working on a post on how Evangelicalism is defined in An Evangelical Manifesto. But along the way I thought I would write a post on the distinction made between liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism. This is one of the sticking points for many people – namely, what do the Manifesto writers have against fundamentalists? The writers spend just over a page (the end of page 8 and all of 9) explaining the distinction between the two groups. What are their criticisms and who are they targeting?
First a word about the terms. The writers are careful to explain that Evangelicalism cannot “be reduced to political categories such as ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’”. Their discussion about liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism is not about liberals and conservatives but a certain type of liberal and a certain type of conservative. The terms liberal and conservative encompass people who range from extreme to moderate positions. What the writers want to address are those people whose views and behaviors occupy the extremes.
The writers of An Evangelical Manifesto are less specific about the problems with fundamentalism than with the problems with liberal revisionism, and their lack of specificity is one of the reasons some people have decided not to sign the document. Those who feel sympathetic to or identified with fundamentalism feel that the Manifesto is not clear enough in what it is rejecting and that the writers do not say whether or not anything within fundamentalism is praiseworthy. The writers do say that they “celebrate those in the past for their worthy desire to be true to the fundamentals of the faith,” but what of fundamentalists today? There the writers are not clear.
The writers begin their discussion of fundamentalism by saying that “the fundamentalist tendency is more recent [than liberal revisionism], and even closer to Evangelicalism, so much so that in the eyes of many, the two overlap.” Revisionism came first and fundamentalism followed as a reaction. Between revisionism and fundamentalism, Evangelicalism is closer – perhaps much closer – to fundamentalism. This alone should say something to the reader. Writers of the Manifesto are not outsiders looking in at fundamentalism. They feel a kinship to fundamentalism but have decided that in some areas fundamentalism is or has become too extreme.
The writers note that what distinguishes fundamentalism from Evangelicalism is not the gospel itself. They say that fundamentalism is “an overlay on the Christian faith”. What this implies is that the writers recognize that fundamentalists do hold to the Christian gospel. They are not like the revisionists who often reject Christian truth. Fundamentalism grew as a defense of Christian truth against revisionism. As such fundamentalism has ”developed into an essentially modern reaction to the modern world.” Whereas the definition of Evangelical is not bound to time and culture, the defining aspects of fundamentalism restrict it to a modern reaction to modern problems.
What the writers are criticizing about fundamentalism is fairly vague. They say that fundamentalism “tends to romanticize the past,… and to radicalize the present, with styles of reaction that are personally and publicly militant to the point where they are sub-Christian.” A little later they say that fundamentalists can “fail to follow the great commandment that we love our neighbors as ourselves” as well as fail to “forgive without limit and love even their enemies.” The writers acknowledge that this is something all people, certainly including Evangelicals, can fail to live up to. But the implication is that this is a particular problem with fundamentalism.
Historically, fundamentalism grew as a defense of several specific doctrines that were called the fundamentals. Fundamentalists were those Christians who fully affirmed the fundamentals of the faith. (I have tried to find a list of the fundamentals but have not yet succeeded. Can someone point me in the right direction?) As liberal revisionists wore away at Christian teaching, fundamentalists drew a line in the sand and said these things must stand. If someone fails to affirm any of these fundamentals, he is not a Christian.
I believe that most if not all of those fundamentals are affirmed by Evangelicals and are affirmed in this Manifesto. The problem is the force with which fundamentalists defend the fundamentals. In the past they have refused to have any fellowship with any people who were not themselves fundamentalists. They were even critical of people who affirmed all the fundamentals but were willing to associate with non-fundamentalists. Someone like Billy Graham, who affirmed fundamentalist beliefs, has come under heavy criticism because of the people he has allowed to share the stage with him at his revivals. Someone like Timothy George, a member of the Manifesto steering committee, would be in trouble because of his involvement with the group Evangelicals and Catholics Together. In fact, some fundamentalists have criticized the Manifesto precisely because of the associations some of the writers have with people who do not agree with the fundamentals.
One of the problems with fundamentalism that I believe this document is addressing (where it says that fundamentalists “radicalize the present”) is the tendency to create a great deal of distance between themselves and all those who are not like themselves. They will often display hostility rather than the love of Christ. The writers of the Manifesto do affirm the need to proclaim and defend the gospel and to speak up in opposition to error (“Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil.”), but that we must do so in love. One big difference between an Evangelical and a fundamental is in how we respond to those who disagree with us. Fundamentalists tend to condemn and separate while Evangelicals oppose but continue to converse with and show love to those who are in the wrong. Later in the Manifesto the writers describe fundamentalism as being “thoroughly world-denying and politically disengaged from its outset”. Fundamentalists have recognized the problems of the modern world and seem to feel that nothing in the modern world is compatible with faithful Christian truth. The answer is to pull out of the world, to separate from it, and to try to rebuild a community that returns to a romanticized past.
I believe the writers of the Manifesto would affirm that fundamentalists are basically correct in what they believe about God and the Christian life, and the writers would affirm most of not all of the fundamentals, but that the writers feel fundamentalists have wielded truth in ways that are at times unhelpful and even “sub-Christian” in that they fail to display the love of Christ. The aims of fundamentalism are limited and fail to represent the full context of the gospel. The actions of fundamentalists are limited to their reactions against liberal revisionism and neglect other areas of the Christian life. From my own experience, it seems that fundamentalists can be reluctant to recognize the full extent and importance of social obligations Christians have because such obligations have been the only thing upheld by liberal revisionists. Revisionists have often distorted the gospel into a social gospel or liberation theology so fundamentalists are suspicious of any teachings that move in this direction.
Fundamentalism is only mentioned one more time in the rest of the document, but I believe some of the problems faced by Evangelicals deal with our tendency to act like fundamentalists. Also, how Evangelicals behave in public/political life should be distinct from how fundamentalists behave, but we often act very much like them. But that is a discussion for another post.
Subscribe to feed
