Posted on 06/14/2005 8:20:47 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
Both believed in the Bible, but one group wanted to separate from modern culture while the other wanted to engage it
Excerpted from Beliefnet's new book, "The Beliefnet Guide to Evangelical Christianity."
In the early 1940s, a distinct split grew between evangelicals and fundamentalists over how to apply the “fundamentals” of faith to the modern world. In 1941 Rev. Carl McIntire founded the American Council of Christian Churches, an extreme group that favored separatism from hostile cultural forces. Some went so far as to refuse contact with anyone who did interact with the culture. Not all “fundamentalists” (that is, those who believed in the fundamentals) felt this way, however. One branch of Bible believers—evangelicals—wanted to engage the culture, while the other branch—fundamentalists—moved away from it, sometimes belligerently. Kenneth Kantzer, a keen observer of the changing picture, said that for many evangelicals who had considered themselves “fundamentalists,” the term became “an embarrassment instead of a badge of honor.”
At the time evangelicals did not see themselves as rebelling against fundamentalism. Rather, they saw themselves as sincere believers who longed for a “Bible-believing” pastor with an education—one who could approach contemporary issues with intellect and eloquence. Scholars like Kantzer, Harold Ockenga, Carl F. H. Henry did not, of necessity, reject every idea set forth by modernists simply because they were “modern.” They did not fear cultural involvement or conflicting viewpoints; they were deeply committed to social action and justice.
A number of institutions and organizations became rallying points under the flag of evangelicalism. In 1942, Harold Ockenga spearheaded the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) as a platform for conservative Christians who wanted to be culturally engaged. Carl F. H. Henry wrote The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947), which offered a strong critique of fundamentalist separatism, charging a betrayal of their own heritage. The same year saw the formation of one of evangelicalism’s hallmark seminaries, Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Two years later Billy Graham gained national headlines at his Los Angeles tent meetings when newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst told his editors to "puff Graham," catapulting him onto the national stage. This made “crusade evangelism” front-page news. In 1950 Billy Graham and Harold Ockenga both spoke in the Rose Bowl, addressing the largest audience ever at any religious gathering in the Pacific Southwest. By 1956 Graham had launched Christianity Today, a new magazine “of evangelical conviction.” All of this signaled a new day.
Evangelicals took on what Carl Henry called “the costly burden of creating evangelical scholarship in a world that’s in rebellion.” He meant that as the effects of the Enlightenment permeated the culture, God seemed to have become irrelevant. Evangelicals assumed the responsibility of making God relevant again, and in a way that was accessible to the culture at large.
The Inerrancy of the Bible
The word inerrancy is derived from the Latin, meaning “not wandering.” Its usage in this context implies: “not wandering from the truth.” For evangelicals, inerrancy means that when Scripture says something, it is telling the truth and not “wandering” into falsehood. Does this mean that evangelicals believe that God dictated the Bible word for word, thus making each word unflawed? Many would say no. But if you asked if they embraced the traditional tenets of faith of the Protestant Reformation—the authority of the Scripture, the virgin birth and divinity of Christ, Jesus’ atonement for sin, the bodily resurrection, and the second coming of Christ—evangelicals would say yes, unequivocally….
Just examining a lot of the threads on FR will show anyone that.
From the article:
In the early 1940s, a distinct split grew between evangelicals and fundamentalists over how to apply the “fundamentals” of faith to the modern world. In 1941 Rev. Carl McIntire founded the American Council of Christian Churches, an extreme group that favored separatism from hostile cultural forces. Some went so far as to refuse contact with anyone who did interact with the culture.
From a Princeton biography:
Carl McIntire gradually developed a brand of Christian fundamentalism that crossed denominational lines, mixing conservative social and theological views with a conservative political agenda. He found an audience for his views in his Collingswood congregation, the readers of his Christian Beacon newspaper, the listeners of his radio program, and those who joined his national and international church councils. To this audience he preached opposition to Communism, pacifism, the Civil Rights Movement, the United Nations, the National Council of Churches, the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, evolution, sex education in the schools, labor unions, socialized medicine, dancing, drinking, fluoride in water, and nearly every progressive theological agenda. To combat theological ills, McIntire especially attacked the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches which he considered centers of apostasy. He founded the American Council of Christian Churches (1941) and the International Council of Christian Churches (1948, photos) as alternative national and international voices.
While the American Council has largely disappeared, the International Council grew to represent more than 100 Protestant denominations and still meets. As a corrective to perceived social and political ills, McIntire carried on battles with local municipalities, the Federal Communications Commission, and various Protestant denominations.
http://www.ptsem.edu/grow/Library/collections/McIntire4.htm
Since the two statements appear to be diametrically opposed, one must seriously question the reliability of the article.
That being said, I think that a serious student of the fundamentalist/evangelical “split” will find that the major impetus was the unwillingness of many to continue to bear the name “fundamentalist,” after the fundyphobic media blitz sparked by the Scopes Trial.
Those who called themselves “evangelical” thought they would thereby would escape the demonization of fundamentalism. However well this tactic might have worked, in the past, it clearly is no longer useful. Consider the recent demonization of “evangelical conservatives,” wanting to establish a theocracy, in America.
DG
the evangelicals are more correct. Modern "fundamentalism" has created a religion, not brought people closer in personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Are you talking about people who adhere to the 5 fundamentals, or about the propaganda-induced caricature currently inhabiting the public imagination?
DG
It is the love of these categories that has lead to many of the denominations that exist today. There is only one name that I claim, and that is Christian.
Just the first, really. The second is the product of the minds of those still in rebellion against God, and so seeing them paint an ugly picture of Christians and Christianity shouldn't surprise us. But with the first, you have so many people that are married to their particular dogma (so often which is another "gospel"), that you have to wonder if they're really saved. Those are the people I have the most problems with. The unbelievers may persecute, but NOTHING like this group.
What do you mean by the 5 fundamentals?
What do you mean by the 5 fundamentals?
From this beginning, further revisions emerged. The most well-known listing is the famous "five fundamentals," which are commonly cited today. Pettegrew describes their origin and content:
The 1910 General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church listed the following five:
(1) Inerrancy,
(2) Virgin Birth,
(3) Substitutional Atonement,
(4) Bodily Resurrection, and
(5) Authenticity of Miracles.
Later fundamentalists usually combined number five with one of the first four and included some statement on the second coming of Christ.4
http://www.itib.org/articles/contending_for_the_faith/contending_for_the_faith_1-1.html
people who adhere to the 5 fundamentals
But with the first, you have so many people that are married to their particular dogma (so often which is another "gospel"), that you have to wonder if they're really saved. Those are the people I have the most problems with. The unbelievers may persecute, but NOTHING like this group.
Which of the 5 fundamentals [see post #8] do you think causes people to act in the way you describe?
Another way to ask would be: “Which of the 5 do you NOT believe, which belief has kept you from the sin you ascribe to fundamentalists?”
DG
I had looked online after I sent my post, and found what you listed. Thanks for providing the information for me.
I have no problem with 1 - 4. As for #5, is it correct to say that this means that miracles continue to this very day? If so, I disagree on that one. I also don't think we can know that Christ's coming is imminent.
I had the "privelege" of seeing Carl McIntire a few months before my own conversion. A few of the kids who'd been witnessing to me for months on end brought me to his "crusade," hoping I'd hear and recieve the life-transforming gospel of Jesus Christ. What we heard instead was the gravely ravings of a ranting hick, proclaiming anti-communism as godliness. The audience was swept off its feet in an avalanch of emotion, except for a few of us frightened unbelievers, and the folks who'd brought me. I saw tears flowing down Marypat Thompson's face, as she grieved over bringing me to this caricature, this mockery, of all she held dearest.
I agree. The proper term should be immediacy, not imminent. When He comes, He will come quickly. But He did prophecy of things that would happen first.
Are you referring to Matthew 24? If so, do you realize that Jesus is talking about 2 separate events in that chapter? The first part is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the last part is about His second coming.
The Rev. Paisley, in Northern Ireland is a carbon copy of McIntire and used to appear with him on McIntire's programs.
As for #5, is it correct to say that this means that miracles continue to this very day?
In my experience, I do not think that many fundamentalists hold to that view.
If so, I disagree on that one.
Personally, I believe that miracles do continue to this day.
I also don't think we can know that Christ's coming is imminent.
Agreed, except that we should always consider it to be immanent.
Matthew 24:44
44"For this reason (A)you also must be ready; for (B)the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
Matthew 25:13
13"(A)Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.
DG
I totally agree we must always be ready. We just can't be sure when it will happen.
I had the "privelege" of seeing Carl McIntire a few months before my own conversion.
I have no knowledge of McIntire, save for the articles cited. Neither do I endorse him or his idiosyncratic views.
I will note, without express or implied comment, that McIntire apparently was a Calvinist:
“…McIntire was originally committed to Westminster Seminary, the Independent Board, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church…”
http://www.ptsem.edu/grow/Library/collections/McIntire3.htm
DG
"We just can't be sure when it will happen."
Agreed.
DG
Jesus also said Christians would be persecuted in all nations, and that nations would rise against nations before he came.
It isn't those 5, really. Those are no-brainers. It's what fundamentalists add to those five:
1) assuming that anyone who hasn't met their standards of "repentance" isn't really saved.
2) assuming that anyone who hasn't met their standards of "works" isn't really saved (this group has "faith without works is dead" as their favorite verse to throw in ANY discussion
3) assuming that they are right, and no one else has the truth but them.
This is what makes fundamentalists so problematic, and pharisaically attacking of others.
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.