Is there some debate over Fundamentalism?
In my earlier days in the faith I knew there were those who were not Fundamentalists but I could not have imagined that they were remotely more substantial than were those who held to a literal view of the Bible. By the way, that is my working definition of a Fundamentalist, someone who believes what were known as the fundamental doctrines of Christian faith.
What I have come to learn is that they (those who do not claim to be Fundamentalists) not only vastly outnumber the Fundamentalists (at least that is by their own statistics. I do not know how accurate their claims are) but a huge number who still claim to be in the Fundamentalist camp sound much more like evangelicals than Fundamentalists.
What makes the man who follows John Piper a Fundamentalist when John Piper would not claim to be one personally? Could it really be as simple as the Fundamentalist is only one because he still is willing to call himself one? If men like Mohler and Piper and Dever are not fundamentalists even though they claim to be at least theologically conservative, is there something categorical that delineates the difference beside personal preference?
The term Fundamentalism has a history.
It is not a Baptist history necessarily and not one I am all that intrigued with anyway. But it's history ought to say something about who bears the label. The same would be true of evangelical. It appears to me that the lines between the two have, over these years, far from becoming more pronounced, become thicker and more obscure. Oh, not from the evangelical's perspective. He would never have wanted to be included in the ranks of a Fundamentalist.
Not so the Fundamentalist.
The term was used of men who held certain fundamental doctrines regardless of denomination. Being a Fundamentalist was bigger than being a Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian. Indeed those denominational lines were crossed regularly among Fundamentalists. It seems no wonder then that a so called Fundamentalist would see no challenge in crossing the lines into evangelical circles.
That would not be true of historical Baptists.
They were not party to the revival meetings of Wesley, Whitefield or for the most part even Sunday and Moody. It was later, when Baptists united with Fundamentalists that being a Fundamentalist trumped being a Baptist.
I am then a Fundamentalist not because I belong to a Fundamentalist movement, nor because I have always been a Fundamentalist and I claim a right to the title even if I have abandoned the practices of Fundamentalists of the past. I am a Fundamentalist in this one line alone - and a very strong cord it has upon me. I believe those fundamentals.
Marvin McKenzie
In the field
In my earlier days in the faith I knew there were those who were not Fundamentalists but I could not have imagined that they were remotely more substantial than were those who held to a literal view of the Bible. By the way, that is my working definition of a Fundamentalist, someone who believes what were known as the fundamental doctrines of Christian faith.
What I have come to learn is that they (those who do not claim to be Fundamentalists) not only vastly outnumber the Fundamentalists (at least that is by their own statistics. I do not know how accurate their claims are) but a huge number who still claim to be in the Fundamentalist camp sound much more like evangelicals than Fundamentalists.
What makes the man who follows John Piper a Fundamentalist when John Piper would not claim to be one personally? Could it really be as simple as the Fundamentalist is only one because he still is willing to call himself one? If men like Mohler and Piper and Dever are not fundamentalists even though they claim to be at least theologically conservative, is there something categorical that delineates the difference beside personal preference?
It is not a Baptist history necessarily and not one I am all that intrigued with anyway. But it's history ought to say something about who bears the label. The same would be true of evangelical. It appears to me that the lines between the two have, over these years, far from becoming more pronounced, become thicker and more obscure. Oh, not from the evangelical's perspective. He would never have wanted to be included in the ranks of a Fundamentalist.
Not so the Fundamentalist.
The term was used of men who held certain fundamental doctrines regardless of denomination. Being a Fundamentalist was bigger than being a Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian. Indeed those denominational lines were crossed regularly among Fundamentalists. It seems no wonder then that a so called Fundamentalist would see no challenge in crossing the lines into evangelical circles.
That would not be true of historical Baptists.
They were not party to the revival meetings of Wesley, Whitefield or for the most part even Sunday and Moody. It was later, when Baptists united with Fundamentalists that being a Fundamentalist trumped being a Baptist.
I am then a Fundamentalist not because I belong to a Fundamentalist movement, nor because I have always been a Fundamentalist and I claim a right to the title even if I have abandoned the practices of Fundamentalists of the past. I am a Fundamentalist in this one line alone - and a very strong cord it has upon me. I believe those fundamentals.
Marvin McKenzie
In the field
