Bob Jones on the term "Fundamentalists"(MY TITLE)

Language constantly changes. For instance, if you have ever seen a copy of the 1611 King James translation, you know that the English of that translation is completely incomprehensible to today's English reader. We preach and teach from the King James translation here at Bob Jones University, but it is the translation of 1769. Between 1611 and 1769, English changed drastically. It continues to change. Words take on new meanings and associations.

Until the late 1940s, the strongest Bible believing Christians distinguished themselves from religious liberals by the term "Evangelicals." When the strongest Evangelical group of the day, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), slowly began a leftward turn, which has accelerated unto the present day, those who wished to be more steadfast and less ecumenical began identifying themselves as "Fundamentalists." Bob Jones University is unashamedly Fundamentalist, but the term is beginning to carry an onerous connotation with the world at large because of the media's penchant for lumping Christian Fundamentalists in the same heap as Islamic Fundamentalists. Instead of "Fundamentalism" defining us as steadfast Bible believers, the term now carries overtones of radicalism and terrorism. "Fundamentalist" evokes fear, suspicion, and other repulsive connotations in its current usage. Many of us who are separated unto Christ feel it is appropriate to find a new label that will define us more positively and appropriately.

It is too early in the process to know what term may ultimately be embraced by the majority, but I like "Preservationist." We believe the Bible was verbally inspired and inerrant in the originals and preserved in all languages where it has been carefully and literally translated from the Hebrew and Greek.

Because the faith of Jesus Christ is always under attack and is the subject of diabolic corruption, it is the believer's responsibility to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3); to be "striving together for the faith of the gospel" (Philippians 1:27); to "keep that which is committed to thy trust" (I Timothy 6:20); and to be like Paul, "set for the defence of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17). We are, by these scriptural definitions, "Preservationists," are we not?

Ecumenical butchers dismember the faith, doctrine by doctrine and compromise by compromise, and leave a Christianity that bears no resemblance to the biblical model. We who are biblical Preservationists can express our resolve by the words from the songwriter who wrote:

Faith of our fathers! We will strive
To win all nations unto thee,
And through the truth that comes from God
Mankind shall then be truly free.

Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death!

For 75 years, this is what BJU has tried to be and, by God's grace, always will be.

-- Bob Jones III

- President's Column, BJU Review, Spring, 2002

Good post and thanks. I believe it was Stepanopolous of the Clintonistas who first used the word "fundamentalists" is a sneering manner towards evangelical Christians; and of course both Stepanopolous and Sydney Blumenthal liked to use the word "zealots" and/or "extremists" when referring to evangelical Christians. To mainstream media there is no difference between those who hold fast to the Biblical teachings of God and those who hold fast to the teachings of Islam.

We preach and teach from the King James translation here at Bob Jones University, but it is the translation of 1769. Between 1611 and 1769, English changed drastically. It continues to change. Words take on new meanings and associations.

Yes, I can see they do. The 1769 edition of the 1611 AV is now the 1769 translation.

Bob Jones University is unashamedly Fundamentalist, but the term is beginning to carry an onerous connotation with the world at large because of the media's penchant for lumping Christian Fundamentalists in the same heap as Islamic Fundamentalists. Instead of "Fundamentalism" defining us as steadfast Bible believers, the term now carries overtones of radicalism and terrorism. "Fundamentalist" evokes fear, suspicion, and other repulsive connotations in its current usage.

I can certainly understand BJU's concern and sensitivity over this issue, especially when you compare Taliban stricture, teachings, legalism, prohibitions, rules of female dress, separation of the sexes, control of their people, etc., with practices of Bob Jones University.

It's interesting to read that Billy Graham, who supposedly at the time was a fundamentalist, dropped out of BJU because it was too strict, too controlling -- he didn't like the "atmosphere" or some such.

Visit here, and check out such things as the excerpts from the Bob Jones student handbook and many other things.

Language constantly changes . . . Words take on new meanings and associations.
. . . Bob Jones University is unashamedly Fundamentalist, but the term is beginning to carry an onerous connotation with the world at large because of the media's penchant for lumping Christian Fundamentalists in the same heap as Islamic Fundamentalists. . . . Many of us who are separated unto Christ feel it is appropriate to find a new label that will define us more positively and appropriately.

That will probably work . . . the people who think the most important thing is the worst news that happened yesterday will probably put a positive spin on a different label for the understanding that the most important thing is the good news ("gospel") from Easter almost 2,000 years ago. Then again, maybe not . . .

My understanding of the history of the term "Fundamentalist Christian" is that it refers to a document that came out of a convention in Niagara Falls in the very early 1900's, and, I believe, was called the Niagara Manifesto. I believe that Scofield or his immediate associates were involved, and most of the content had to do with dispensational eschatology. Fundamentalists generally will not shirk from the description: "Evangelicals with a chip on their shoulder."

The term "fundamentalism" came into existence at the Niagara Falls Bible Conference which was convened in an effort to define those things that were fundamental to belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals," a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward. These two wealthy brothers were concerned with the moral and spiritual decline they believed was infecting Protestantism, and sought to restore the historic faith with a 12 volume call to arms that dealt with five subjects that latter became known as the five fundamentals of the faith: (1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs (the originals of each scriptural book); (2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ; (3) the substitutionary view of the atonement; (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; (5) The imminent return of Christ. These twelve volumes were sent to "every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological student, Sunday School Superintendent, YMCA and YWCA secretary." In all, some 3 million copies were mailed out. These ideas had been circulating for some time. The first, verbal inerrancy, had been

Until the late 1940s, the strongest Bible believing Christians distinguished themselves from religious liberals by the term "Evangelicals." When the strongest Evangelical group of the day, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), slowly began a leftward turn, which has accelerated unto the present day, those who wished to be more steadfast and less ecumenical began identifying themselves as "Fundamentalists."

I hate to say this but he has it backwards. The term "Fundamentalist" predates "Evangelical". At the beginning of the 20th century there were battles in the "mainline" denominations between traditional protestants and liberal modernists. The conservatives published a series of position papers called The Fundamentals. (They are still sold today in book form.) A liberal minister attacked the traditionalists by rallying his church against the fundamentalists. And the name stuck. Later on a group of churches adopted the Evangelical label because they felt Fundamentalist had developed a negative connotation.

Personally I like the label Fundamentalist because it is unpopular. The only people who will use it are very serious about their faith. But there really isn't a difference between the two. Or perhaps I should say that the only difference is that the evangelical label is popular enough for some liberal christians to adopt it.

Actually, you are only half-right. The term "Fundamentalist" DOES NOT predate "Evangelical." You have the history right in the story of 20th-Century Evangelicalism, but this is only the latest movement to adopt the term. The 18th-century Wesleyan revival in England was just as frequently called the Evangelical Revival. Andrew Fuller's moderate Calvinist move away from hyper-Calvinism was commonly termed Evangelical Calvinism. To be accurate, one should speak of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism to distinguish the modern variant from the many older uses of the term.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.