I’m writing about the book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology, published by InterVarsity Press, by Roger Olson. I listed the roots of what Olson calls postfundamentalist evangelicalism (otherwise known as “evangelicalism” today). For a more detailed definition of postfundamentalist evangelicalism, see this post. For an expansion on the first two roots of evangelical theology, see this post. For a discussion of the next three roots, see this post. Roots six and seven come next, see this post. Today we move to the last root in Olson’s list.

Once again, I’ll list Olson’s roots, and then we’ll expand on the number 6 of them. The last two will be explained in the next post.

1. Pietism
2. Revivalism
3. Puritanism
4. Wesleyanism
5. The Great Awakenings
6. Old Princeton Theology
7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
8. Fundamentalism

Pietism (see this post), Revivalism (see this post), Puritanism (see this post), Wesleyanism (see this post), The Great Awakenings (see this post), Old Princeton Theology (see this post), Holiness-Pentecostalism (see this post)

Fundamentalism

At last we come to our favourite topic, right? I have to admit that it is a favorite topic of mine. I’ve read many pages on the history of fundamentalism, its theology, and its ethos. I’ve preached about it, taught about it, written about it. It’s one of the central foci of this blog. In my mind, fundamentalism as a philosophy of ministry is exactly where the Bible is. Some fundamentalists, on the other hand… (and no doubt I’ve failed my own ethos time and time again).

Olson starts this chapter, “In the immediate background of Evangelicalism and evangelical theology lies fundamentalism or the fundamentalist movement.” (p. 83) He distinguishes fundamentalism from evangelicalism and fundamentalism from revivalism. Each of these words represent things interrelated, but distinct. They are not exactly the same as each other. I suppose that’s why Olson is thinking about each of these movements as “roots” and not as the current phenomenon of evangelicalism.

For Olson, fundamentalism, when properly used, correctly describes three “distinct but interrelated religious phenomena.”

1. “Any and all militant religious reactions to modernity” — by modernity is meant the secularizing impulses brought on by the Enlightenment. In this sense, there can be “fundamentalist Islam.” Olson does not use the term this way in his book.
2. “The conservative Protestant reaction to the rise of liberal Protestantism” of the late 1800s, early 1900s … “All such fundamentalists also called themselves evangelicals.” These people engaged in the conflict with liberals in the Presbyterian and Baptist denominations especially. Some evangelical groups weren’t involved in these conflicts, Olson mentions “immigrant Pietist churches and Holiness-Pentecostals.” Olson calls this meaning “historically legitimate.”
3. “A third, more historically legitimate, definition of fundamentalism is the narrower, more militant and separatistic movement of conservative Protestants that emerged out of the disappointment and despair in the 1920s and 1930s, as the major Protestant denominations of North America were lost for conservative theology and became increasingly liberal and pluaralistic.” (All notes on these three phenomena from pp. 83-84, bold on the last point is mine)

If there is a distinction between meaning 2 and meaning 3, it is that the early fundamentalists were optimistic that they could expel liberalism, whereas the later fundamentalists realized that they had to get out or be absorbed. Consequently, the later fundamentalists looked with suspicion on anyone who would not likewise separate from liberal ties. This suspicion characterized all fundamentalists from the beginning of the GARBC on through the other “separatism events.” (This paragraph includes my views, bolstered by Olson’s writing.)

Olson goes on to describe briefly the history of fundamentalism as it began to break out of the old denominations and create its own institutions. His summary of this history is correct. After surveying the history, he comments on their theology. Fundamentalists began to insist on six day creationism (with no compromise in any way with “Godless evolution”), generally came to insist on dispensationalism, especially in eschatology, and developed the doctrine of separation to include separating from Christians who wouldn’t join them in separating from liberals. He also links fundamentalism with legalism (lists of right and wrong behaviour), racism (segregation), and a reversion past Princtonianism to the dictation theory of inspiration (John R. Rice).

Many other Christians continued to describe themselves as fundamentalists through the 1930s and 1940s, but “the label became more problematic for anyone who wished to be taken seriously as thoughtful, reflective, and even relatively gentle and open-minded.” (p. 89) These men decided to reform fundamentalism by founding new institutions. One of these men was Harold Ockenga. He first formed the New England Fellowship, and from this group the National Association of Evangelicals sprang. “In 1942 the National Association of Evangelicals emerged out of the New England Fellowship and postfundamentalist, new Evangelicalism was born.” (p. 90)

The important point to draw from this brief description is that Fundamentalism forms a direct root of Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism grows directly out of Fundamentalism. Subsequent changes modified the direction of evangelicalism still more, but evangelicalism undeniably begins as a reaction to fundamentalism. As I said before, both of them share the distinction as reactionary groups against the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, evangelicalisms immediate antecedent is fundamentalism.

This concludes the description of the eight strains of thought influencing evangelicalism. Olson has more to say. His next chapter introduces postfundamentalist evangelical theology, then he surveys four representative theologians to paint a picture of what exactly evangelical theology is. The last two chapters describe Postconservative Evangelical Theology and Tensions in Evangelical Theology. All of this provides “grist for the mill” of more blogging, so stay tuned, more to follow.