LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

THE RISE OF FUNDAMENTALISM:

A REACTION WITH A PURPOSE

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. MANN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE COURSE CHHI 525

LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

JOEL ALAN DORMAN

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA

DECEMBER 18, 2009

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

Background ......................................................................................................................................1

Evangelicalism .......................................................................................................................1

Social......................................................................................................................................2

Theological ............................................................................................................................3

Modernism ...............................................................................................................4

Liberalism ................................................................................................................4

Neo-Orthodoxy ........................................................................................................5

Conservatism............................................................................................................6

The Response of Fundamentalism ...................................................................................................6

Social.....................................................................................................................................8

Theological ...........................................................................................................................9

Dispensational Premillennialism ............................................................................9

Holiness Movement ..............................................................................................10

Pentecostalism......................................................................................................11

Final Thoughts ...............................................................................................................................12

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................13

i.
 1

It has been written, “a fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something”.1

Although used by fundamentalists as tongue-in-cheek, it certainly sets the mind to an image of

someone whose description is summarized in a single word: intense. The goal of this research,

consequently, is to provide a background of this movement, traced through its evangelical roots,

in the social and theological environments of the United States at the time while presenting this

movement as what it is: a response to other theological worldviews. Included in this response

are the specific theological characteristics separating this group from others.

Background

In terms of definition, Fundamentalism is a relative newcomer in the world of theological

distinctives as it formed in the late nineteenth century.2 Those holding to this persuasion would

immediate argue with this statement as they view themselves, as a movement, not as new but

old; insisting they are teaching and living in a manner consistent with the teachings of Jesus and

the Apostles. Aside from this point of argument, Fundamentalism exists as a branch on the

evangelical tree.

Evangelicalism

While possible for one to be an evangelical without being a fundamentalist, it is not

possible to be a fundamentalist without being an evangelical. Noll writes of the foundations of

the evangelical movement as one where “changing the world was never as important for the

early evangelists as changing the self or as fashioning spiritual communities in which changed

selves could grow in grace.”3

1
George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1991), 1.
2
Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, volume 2, The Reformation to the Present Day (New York:
HarperCollins, 1985), 255.
3
Mark Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys. (Downers
Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 262.
 2

Evangelicalism found its expression in the revivals beginning in the eighteenth century.

Desperately needed in New England, revival sparked in response to a lack of spiritual leadership

that had few opportunities to educate the few spiritual leaders it had. Furthermore, the second

and third generations of settlers in the American colonies had lost the intent of their ancestors in

settling the new world. This was the First Great Awakening: the days of Jonathan Edwards, John

and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield. As the fires of revival were spreading through the

American Colonies, there was a call for religion to move from the head to the heart. An

indication of its achievement, among many others, was the conversion of souls and society.4

In addition to conversions, Evangelicalism was, almost by definition, a movement against

the establishment. This movement boldly pressed its influenced in the culture for education,

women’s rights, renewed interest and learning of theology, and hymn writing.5 Upon this

foundation, construction began on many rooms, including, in time, Fundamentalism.6

Social

Although secularists would disagree, American Evangelicals in 1870 perceived the

United States as a Christian nation. Evangelicalism observed remarkable progress through the

nineteenth century and its development seemed to have no boundaries.7 Ironically, this led to a

certain degree of complacency as Evangelicals believed they had reached a pinnacle from which

they could not removed. Reality reflected a different situation.

The United States, having been founded during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth

century, had a “reverence for science as the way to understand all aspects of reality”8 which

4
James P. Eckman, Exploring Church History (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002), 84.
5
Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism, 262-278.
6
Further information about Evangelicalism can be found in Mark Noll’s five-volume set, A History of
Evangelicalism: People, Movements, and Ideas in the English-Speaking World.
7
George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2nd ed (New York: Oxford University Press,
2006), 11.
8
Ibid, 15.
 3

situates itself in direct opposition to the expression in Scripture that “in Him we live and move

and have our being”.9 This respect for science resulted in the questioning of the supernatural

parts of the Bible. Evolution, for example, became the accepted scientific and social explanation

for the creation of the planet and of species.10

The emphasis of missions also had an unintended side effect: no longer did the cultures

many hundreds or thousands of miles away seem so distant and strange. World travel also

increased in the late nineteenth century resulting in American exposure to other religions and

cultures. A debate erupted then (and continues today) around a simple and significant question:

is Christianity the only way to Heaven?11

These ideas of the Enlightenment caused a general questioning of the Bible itself. If

evolution was correct, could the rest of the details of the Bible be accurate? If Jesus is not the

only way to heaven, was He a liar for saying, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one

comes to the Father except through me.”12 This, obviously, caused a high amount of tension

between the Evangelical Protestantism of the day and the social and cultural realities surrounding

America.

Theological

Christianity’s response to the social issues of the nineteenth century manifested

themselves in various theological schools of thought represented in most, if not all,

denominations. All of these theological perspectives contributed to the growing restlessness in

conservative Evangelical spheres.13

9
Acts 17:28, NIV
10
Carl Diemer, CHHI 525: History of Christianity 2, Lesson 23, prod and dir by Liberty University School
of Religion Distance Learning Program, 45 minutes, 2009, DVD.
11
Ibid.
12
John 14:6, NIV.
13
Peter Lineham, "The fundamentalist agenda and its chances." Stimulus 14, no. 3 (August 2006): 2-14.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 4, 2009).
 4

Modernism

Faced with science challenging Scriptural thought, a small number of liberal theologians

turned to Modernism. Modernism was a harmonization between secular science, Christianity,

and the Enlightenment.14 However, if science or reason appeared to contradict orthodoxy,

orthodoxy was dismissed. The harmonization focused on culture, not faith. Carl Diemer stated

that Modernism is “as far left as you can get and still be called, in some way, Christian”.15

This melding of religion and contemporary culture makes it difficult to define specific

theological beliefs as they shifted based on what found acceptance in science or culture at the

time. Generally, a Modernists believes God’s kingdom advances by the progress of culture and

not the direct influence of the Almighty.16 This is why modernists are postmillennialists or,

more often, amillennialists.17 Against this movement, James M. Gray, president of Moody Bible

Institute from 1904-1934, stated, “Modernism is as revolt against the God of Christianity”.18

Liberalism

As a theological perspective, Liberalism did not go to as many extremes as Modernism.

As opposed to rejecting orthodox beliefs in the face of apparent contradiction, liberals would

attempt to find a new way to interpret Scriptures to remove the contradiction.19 There are many,

especially those in conservative and fundamental groups, who would use the terms “modernist”

14
Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing
Company, 1994), 101.
15
Diemer, Lesson 23.
16
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 146.
17
Postmillennialists and amillennialists base their eschatological understanding of the “Millennium” on an
allegorical understanding of Revelation 20:1-6. Postmillennialists believe Jesus will return after the 1,000-year
Kingdom while amillennialists do not believe in a literal 1,000-year Kingdom at all. Both views tend to view
eschatological progression as a gradual advance of society towards the virtues of the Kingdom of God thereby
ushering in the Kingdom. See Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), s.v. “millennium”.
18
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 3-4.
19
Diemer, Lesson 23.
 5

and “liberal” interchangeably.20 They were both attempts to “save” Protestantism from the

attacks of Darwinian evolution and historical criticisms of the Scriptures. Additionally,

liberalism attempted to balance the “historical, sociological, and Freudian psychological ways of

thinking…revolutionizing thought at almost every level”.21

Liberalism endeavored to provide freedom from what they saw as superstitions held by

conservative Protestants and Evangelicals. The dedication of Liberals is what drove them to

challenge this intellectual assault on Christianity. As such, this movement was most prominent

in the middle and upper classes who met the confrontation of intellectual issues on a more

regular basis than did the lower classes.22

Neo-Orthodoxy

Moving more towards the conservative end of the spectrum was the group who called

themselves Neo-Orthodox—“new orthodox”. The labeled themselves “orthodox” due to their

adherence to Reformed Theology. Calling themselves “new” implies their awareness of

contemporary issues of culture. This group was born in response to modernism and liberalism.

Specifically, they viewed that it was unnecessary to use historical data to attempt to validate the

actions documented in Scripture since ultimately the Scriptures were about God’s revelation to

humans not a document of humanity’s self-discovery.23

This school of theology, therefore, emphasizes the absolute transcendence of God. This

philosophy holds that ultimately God does not bring comfort but crisis. This crisis leads humans

20
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 32.
21
Ibid.
22
González, 256.
23
Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), 456
 6

to see their need for a Savior. Karl Barth, a German who was the prominent Protestant

theologian of the twentieth century, receives recognition for this theological school.24

Conservatism

Similar to the Neo-Orthodox school of thought, Conservatism was a reaction against the

liberalism that had spread through the schools and culture in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries. According to Ferguson and Packer,

‘Conservatism’, when used, signifies a rejection of the liberal outlook as a

provincial aberration, neither objective nor scientific nor rational in any
significant sense, and with this a conservationist purpose of handing on the
doctrines and disciplines of historic Christianity intact and undiluted…
Conservatism in this sense implies no particular political stance or eschatological
expectation, though the contrary is often alleged. 25

When conservatism first began to emerge, it was a reaction to Darwinism and to

modernists and liberals which were perceived as “selling out” Christianity to heresy.26 More

than a mere rejection of evolution, which was certainly the most publicized issue about which

conservatives reacted, was the concern with the authority of the Scriptures. Their rationale for

defending the Bible grew from history: sola scriptura was the cry of the Reformation. Their

concern was straightforward and profound: if Scripture was not the underpinnings for truth, what

would be? The potential and frightening answers to that question were a collective summons for

conservatives who viewed themselves as descendants of the Reformers to stand against this

heresy.27

The Response of Fundamentalism

Some conservatives viewed the Conservatism reaction as too weak. This wing of

Conservatism defined themselves “as militants willing to do 'battle royal' to preserve the

24
González, 363.
25
Ferguson and Packer, 385.
26
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 36.
27
Ibid, 36-38.
 7

'fundamentals' of the Christian faith from the evolutionists and biblical critics infecting mainline

seminaries and colleges.”28 These theologians desired to boldly defend the fundamentals of

Christianity—those issues for which there was no discussion and no compromise. These

fundamentals were “inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ death on

the cross as a substitute for our sins, and his physical resurrection and impending return”.29

Fundamentalism, then, is a distinctly American, reactionist movement.

The name had its origins in a ten-volume set called The Fundamentals written by R.A.

Torrey and A.C. Dixon. Between the years of 1909 and 1912, copies were sent to every pastor

and church in America with the purpose of ensuring the survival of the fundamentals of the

Christian faith.30 The first usage of the name to describe a specific group of people was in 1920

by Curtis Lee Laws. Familiar with The Fundamentals, he used the term “fundamentalists” to

describe his group which were the anti-modernist wing of the Northern Baptist Convention. The

name eventually was used to describe a broader group of Evangelicals “who fought militantly

against modernist (i.e. liberal) theology and against some features of secularization of modern

culture”.31 Throughout the 1920s and the 1930s, the name was used to describe those in the

camps of Laws himself, Bob Jones, Sr., William Jennings Bryan, John R. Rice, and Carl

MacIntyre.32

There have been and remain three prerequisites for one’s title as a Fundamentalist:

1. One must be an Evangelical Protestant,

2. One must be against Modernism, and

28
Paul David Numrich, "Fundamentalisms and American pluralism." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 42,
no. 1 (2007): 9-14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2009).
29
González, 257.
30
Diemer, Lesson 23.
31
Ferguson and Packer, 266.
32
David Harrington Watt, "The meaning and end of fundamentalism." Religious Studies Review 33, no. 4
(October 2007): 269-273. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2009).
 8

3. One must be militant about anti-Modernism or in their resistance to undesirable

features of secularization.33

Fundamentalism was more than a school of thought or club. Like the other movements,

Fundamentalism had social and theological influences on the United States that are still

experienced today.

Social

In all likelihood, the most known social impact of the Fundamentalist movement was the

“Scopes Trial” in Tennessee 1925. The trial itself represented the flexing of Fundamentalism’s

muscles in its attempt to ban the teaching of evolution in school and, for a time, it succeeded.34

This, of course, was not the only social contribution of Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists also found partners with other Protestants (even liberals) in their

successful attempt at prohibition in 1919. Prohibition appealed to Conservatives and

Fundamentalists because it reminded them of years past when America had seemed more

innocent. More moderate and liberal theologians resonated with it since it was a “practical

application of the social gospel”.35 Enforcement of this law was a different issue as the concept

emerged that the government could not create laws concerning the morality of the people. This

and the underground business of alcohol led to this law’s repeal.36

Fundamentalists were calling Christians to be separate from the world in all ways. Using

an extreme form of Paul’s admonition to “not conform any longer to the pattern of this world”,37

Fundamentalists boldly stood against everything considered modern: “higher criticism,

33
Ferguson and Packer, 266.
34
Peter Lineham, "The fundamentalist agenda and its chances." Stimulus 14, no. 3 (August 2006): 2-14.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 4, 2009).
35
González, 373-374.
36
Ibid, 375.
37
Romans 12:2a, NIV
 9

evolutionism, the social gospel,” and “rational criticism of any kind”.38 Furthermore, the

theologians of the fundamentalist movement were recognized for their attacks against “worldly

amusements” like dancing and secular entertainment. Their attacks were rooted in specific

interpretations of Biblical texts and an attempt to call Christians and the world away from vices,

which were perceived as being promulgated by modernists and liberals.39

Theological

Fundamentalists were not trying to reverse the tide of social ills; they were trying, in their

view, to return to the use of the Scriptures to enforce a rubric for Christian living. In finding this

rubric, Fundamentalists created several innovations in Biblical interpretation. González finds

historical irony in the fact that Fundamentalists “declared itself a defender of traditional

orthodoxy” while giving “rise to new interpretations of the Bible”.40

Dispensational Premillennialism

In terms of popularity and acceptance, the most successful theological ideology presented

by Fundamentalists was Dispensational Premillennialism, which developed after the Civil War

out of a refreshed attention to Biblical prophecy. Based on an almost completely literal

interpretation of prophetic texts, there are actually two distinct, although related, philosophies

represented in this one title.41

The first part of this idea, dispensationalism, maintains God deals with humanity in

different ways through different, distinct periods of time (dispensations). Through each

dispensation (time-period), the Lord provides a method of grace. Humanity ultimately rejects

this grace and another dispensation begins. This is not to accuse Fundamentalists with claiming

38
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 199.
39
Ibid, 163.
40
González, 257.
41
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 39.
 10

more than one method of salvation—quite the contrary. This view merely states that the

“content of faith varies according to the revelation given in each dispensation.” The view of

dispensationalism, and the need to end this current dispensation in favor of the next, gave rise to

the “rapture theory”.42

The second half of this theology, premillennialism, developed in response to the

Modernist and Liberal perspectives of an ever-improving society that would usher in the

Kingdom of Jesus (postmillennialism). By contrast, premillennialism demonstrated a society

getting worse and continuing its downward spiral until Jesus would personally return to establish

His Kingdom. Jesus’ physical return is also a distinctive of premillennialism. This position

helped explain some of the turmoil going on the in the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries.43 Unfortunately, dispensational premillennialism, “pushed analysis away from the

visible present to the invisible future”.44

Holiness Movement

An interest in the work of the Holy Spirit gave rise in the Fundamentalist circles to the

Holiness Movement. Many of the early leaders of this movement had Calvinistic tendencies and

emphasized the Spirit’s work in the present dispensation. Having its roots in Methodism and the

American revivalism of the nineteenth century, this movement considered itself more pragmatic

than dispensationalism since this view focused on how Christians are to live in the world. The

Holy Spirit’s empowerment was emphasized for conversion, filling, and empowerment for

Christian service.45

42
Ferguson and Packer, 200.
43
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 39.
44
Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, 133.
45
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 72-73.
 11

Stressing the importance of allowing God to remove all sin from the lives of Christians,

this faction sought rigorous pursuit of the “second blessing” of the Holy Spirit and maintaining

custody of it through complete devotion to the Lord. Not to say these Christians are incapable of

imprudent actions, but in their motivation, they considered themselves sinless. Although this

movement eventually morphed into three forms (Wesleyan, Keswick, and Pentecostal), one part

maintained a most dominant independence into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: the

Pentecostal movement.46

Pentecostalism

Pentecostals, being a part of the aforementioned Holiness wing of the Fundamentalists

movement, equated the “second blessing” associated with the Holiness movement with the

baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. As such, Pentecostals believe this kind of second blessing,

or baptism, is evidenced by “speaking in tongues”. This is not to be confused as the languages

the church spoke in Acts 2, but a kind of gibberish that is not understood by anyone except, in

their view, the Holy Spirit. 47

Additionally, their view of this “baptism” does not purge them from sin (as the Holiness

movement in general maintains) but empowers them for worship, service, and a “rigorous

separation from the ways of the world”.48 Pentecostalism is also noted for an effort to restore

New Testament church practices (specifically those mentioned in Acts) including healing,

tongues speaking, and an enjoyment of a special and unique endowment by the Holy Spirit.49

46
Ferguson and Packer, 314.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 43.
 12

An additional modification to the Holiness teaching includes a more Reformed view of

sanctification because of this “baptism”. Instead of making the Christian’s motivations sinless,

Pentecostals believe sanctification is an on-going process.50

Final Thoughts

Fundamentalism, like other theological movements through the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries, was, and remains, a complex movement. Generally marked by an adherence

to the inerrancy of the entire Bible, a literal interpretation of the Text, dispensational

premillennialism, and a militant defense of those issues deemed fundamental and without chance

of compromise, Fundamentalism has given rise to new conservative scholarship and provided an

answer to questions of liberalism and modernism. Again, their self-description matches that of

Ferguson and Packer, “a fundamentalist, then, is a militantly anti-modernist evangelical.”51

Also akin to the other theological movements, Fundamentalism still exists today. Their

modern development includes a reaction against Fundamentalism by some of their own that

formed a faction loosely described as “neo-evangelical” (“new evangelical”). 52 While having

the same theology, this group believed the Gospel’s power was penetration into the world, not

retreating from it. Billy Graham is a modern example of this ideology.53 There are even more

divisions within this group which also exist far beyond the capacity of this research.

In conclusion, Fundamentalism, like other conservative groups, continues to balance the

tension of not being “yoked together with unbelievers” while at the same time making “disciples

of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.54

50
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 93-94.
51
Ferguson and Packer, 266.
52
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 233.
53
Diemer, Lesson 23.
54
1 Corinthians 6:14, NIV; Matthew 28:19, NIV.
 13

Bibliography

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is taken from The Holy Bible: New International Version.
electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 1984.

Diemer, Carl. CHHI 525: History of Christianity 2, Lesson 23, prod and dir by Liberty
University School of Religion Distance Learning Program, 45 minutes, 2009, DVD.

Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History. Wheaton: Crossway, 2002.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. and J.I. Packer. New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, volume 2, The Reformation to the Present Day.
New York: HarperCollins, 1985.

Lineham, Peter. "The fundamentalist agenda and its chances." Stimulus 14, no. 3 (August 2006):
2-14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 4,
2009).

Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006.

__________. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1991.

Noll, Mark. The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys.
Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004.

__________. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s
Publishing Company, 1994.

Numrich, Paul David. "Fundamentalisms and American pluralism." Journal of Ecumenical

Studies 42, no. 1 (2007): 9-14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed December 2, 2009).

Watt, David Harrington. "The meaning and end of fundamentalism." Religious Studies Review
33, no. 4 (October 2007): 269-273. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2009).