Hi Keith,

Well, perhaps I should use the word ‘professing’ when attached to people in this list? And I guess my list of examples involves extremes.

There are some who would be co-belligerents over a fundamentalist issue but who wouldn’t cooperate with other fundamentalists because they don’t agree on some secondary doctrines. I don’t have a problem with that, they are free to cooperate or not to cooperate as they see fit. But if I am looking at them and analyzing their practice, they would still be considered fundamentalists and broadly speaking as part of the fundamentalist movement.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Yes, New Evangelicalism abandoned self-destructive separatism, and what do you know, it influenced people. Hmm.

Regardless of the nose count, there are significant groups today who were a part of neither the largely northern baptist and presbyterian denominational struggles over modernism nor the southern revivalism. If they are not a part of the overwhelmingly baptist fundamentalism today, they probably have been influenced by New Evangelicals, but being influenced by is different than “coming from”. Again, probably a quibble.

“They would be so hyper-separatistic that they would consider anyone who doesn’t hold to their view of the versions as being liberal. There are others who are so Calvinistic that they consider anyone who doesn’t agree with them not even to be Christians (not a lot, but there are some who use language like this). Some others have betrayed less than stellar moral behaviour and may claim fundamentalist beliefs, but their practices belie their words.”

Every item in your list sounds like either a violation of core Christian beliefs or works that are destructive to the faith or walk of Christians. So, again, in what way are these folks fundamentalists by your definition? In fact, in what way are they even “as good as” evangelicals?

Hi Keith,

With respect to the quibbles, I think we all have our interpretations of events that may or may not be entirely accurate. I agree that Evangelicalism is often said to go back to Whitefield/Wesley (anyone for a new label? “Classic Evangelicalism”???). But I contend that New Evangelicalism was so profound in its influence that the term Evangelical is entirely co-opted by New Evangelical ideas. Today’s Evangelicalism exists as a development from New Evangelicalism almost totally. The few groups that have never been part of New Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism would be very small and largely out of the mainstream. I see you use the word “many”, but I would see it differently, as only a few, not many.

As to why wouldn’t I work with some Fundamentalists – largely because they won’t work with me. They would be so hyper-separatistic that they would consider anyone who doesn’t hold to their view of the versions as being liberal. There are others who are so Calvinistic that they consider anyone who doesn’t agree with them not even to be Christians (not a lot, but there are some who use language like this). Some others have betrayed less than stellar moral behaviour and may claim fundamentalist beliefs, but their practices belie their words.

Finally, in disagreement over the implementation, I think you find the distinctive objectives of the two movements.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Well, that’s actually an oversimplification. Yes, New Evangelicalism was intended as a corrective to the excesses of Fundamentalism. However, if Evangelicalism goes back to Wesley/Whitefield and the Great Awakenings, which is how it is often dated, then both Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism are subsets of that Evangelicalism. Plus, there are many Bible believing churches and Christians who never were, and still aren’t, clearly a part of either the New Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism. They weren’t/aren’t “card carrying” (in Marsden’s lingo) members of either group. Furthermore, Bob Jones Junior was a member of the National Association of Evangelicals, and when he and his party lost control, he left for more fundamentalist groups.

But I quibble. Plus, I agree that all these groups are subsets of Christianity.

“There are some Fundamentalists who I don’t want to work with very closely, if at all.”

If they don’t attack the core of Christianity, if they don’t promote works and men who are destructive to the faith or walk of Christians — WHY NOT?

If they do, in what sense are they fundamentalists?

And, as to the evangelicals, all the ones I know would accept the Jude, Romans, and Acts passages you cite. They just disagree with you on the implementation. In fact, they’d probably cite Romans 16 as justification for the New Evangelical response to Fundamentalism.