a series of organized activities working toward an objective also<\/em> : an organized effort to promote or attain an end, the civil rights movement<\/em><\/p>\n Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary<\/em>, Eleventh ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Based on this definition, one could dispute whether there has ever been much of a fundamentalist movement<\/em>, especially if the word \u2018organized\u2019 is emphasized. Apart from some denominational fundamentalists in the early days (GARBC, CBA, OPC), my perception of fundamentalism is that it is largely a very loosely organized group of independent individuals and churches. By \u2018very loosely organized\u2019, I\u2019d have to say \u2018so loose as to not be organized at all\u2019.<\/p>\n However, in the sample phrase the dictionary gives (\u2018the civil rights movement<\/em>\u2019), tight organization is not much more evident than we have seen in fundamentalism or evangelicalism, so I suspect the emphasis of the definition should fall on \u2018activities working toward an objective\u2019 or \u2018effort to promote or attain an end\u2019 rather than on the word organized.<\/p>\n In this sense, I think we can safely say there has been a fundamentalist movement and an evangelical movement.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Some may quibble and say the fundamentalist movement is merely a subset of the evangelical movement. There is a sense in which this could be true, but in fact the general use of the two terms in contrast is meant to suggest divergent ends, two distinct movements pursuing differing goals. In other words, when you construct a sentence saying, \u201cI\u2019ve previously argued \u2026 that there are no coherent and distinct movements that fit the Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism labels\u201d, you mean to contrast the two terms as something different from each other. If one were merely a subset of the other, there would be no conflict, only tighter definitions for the subset. The contrasting element would have to be called something other than the header term \u2013 you would have Evangelical Fundamentalists and Evangelical Non-Fundamentalists (or something else for the latter).<\/p>\n Instead, in common usage, we refer to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in contrast. By that, we mean that these are two groups with an essential difference between them. If you were to use the terms \u201cEvangelical\u201d or \u201cEvangelicalism\u201d by itself, without reference to Fundamentalism, you might mean something different entirely, but when the two terms are used together, it is their distinctives that are in contrast.<\/p>\n Our definition says that a movement involves efforts or activities working towards an objective or end. What is the end of Evangelicalism (as distinguished from Fundamentalism)? What is the end of Fundamentalism (as distinguished from Evangelicalism)?<\/p>\n Quite clearly we have to discard objectives that are common to both movements. In such activities, both are subsets of another movement \u2013 could we call it simply Christian? Thus, evangelism and discipleship, common objectives of Christianity, are not defining ends for Fundamentalism or Evangelicalism. They are common ends of a common cause both are involved in.<\/p>\n For an article such as this, it is impossible to survey the many attempts to define the objectives and distinctives of Evangelicalism, so these paragraphs from Wikipedia will have to suffice:<\/p>\n The contemporary North American usage of the term is influenced by the evangelical\/fundamentalist controversy of the early 20th century. Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism.[9]<\/a><\/sup> Evangelicalism has therefore been described as “the third of the leading strands in American Protestantism, straddl[ing] the divide between fundamentalists and liberals.”[10]<\/a> <\/sup>((Wikipedia, \u201cEvangelicalism<\/a>\u201d Accessed 9\/23\/10.))<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Later in the same article, we read this:<\/p>\n Evangelicals held the view that the modernist and liberal parties in the Protestant churches had surrendered their heritage as evangelicals by accommodating the views and values of “the world.” At the same time, they criticized their fellow fundamentalists for their separatism and their rejection of the social gospel as it had been developed by Protestant activists of the previous century. They charged the modernists with having lost their identity as evangelicals and the fundamentalists with having lost the Christ-like heart of evangelicalism. They argued that the gospel needed to be reasserted to distinguish it from the innovations of the liberals as well as the fundamentalists. ((Wikipedia, \u201cEvangelicalism<\/a>\u201d Accessed 9\/23\/10.))<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now I acknowledge, with the Wikipedia article. that \u201cmost conservative evangelicals believe the label has broadened<\/em> too much beyond its more limiting traditional distinctives.\u201d ((Ibid<\/em>.))<\/p>\n However, I would contend that conservative evangelicals by and large<\/em> have not abandoned the essential distinctives that make evangelicalism a \u2018middle ground\u2019 between Fundamentalism and Liberalism today. Their objectives are related to that middle ground position and how to maintain orthodoxy in the middle ground, between the hard separatism of the Fundamentalist and the heterodoxy of the Liberal.<\/p>\n These comments from R. Albert Mohler may suffice as evidence of my contention:<\/p>\n The error of theological liberalism is evident in a basic disrespect for biblical authority and the church\u2019s treasury of truth. The mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist. Liberals treat first-order doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance, and doctrinal ambiguity is the inevitable result.<\/p>\n Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends toward the opposite error. The misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided.<\/p>\n Living in an age of widespread doctrinal denial and intense theological confusion, thinking Christians must rise to the challenge of Christian maturity, even in the midst of a theological emergency. We must sort the issues with a trained mind and a humble heart, in order to protect what the Apostle Paul called the “treasure” that has been entrusted to us.\u00a0 ((R. Albert Mohler, \u201cTheological Triage<\/a>\u201d, 9marks e-journal, Mar-Apr 2008, Accessed 9\/23\/10.))<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I can\u2019t find the specific references right now, but I have read conservative evangelicals acknowledging new evangelical mistakes while at the same time crediting the new evangelical efforts as necessary correctives of fundamentalist excesses.<\/p>\n The evangelical objective is cooperation with as many as possible while maintaining in some fashion the integrity of the gospel. Mark Dever illustrated this spirit when he said to Mark Driscoll\u2019s Acts 29 organization:<\/p>\n Our differences are enough to separate some of my friends\u2014your brothers and sisters in Christ\u2014from you. And perhaps to separate them from me, now that I\u2019m publicly speaking to you. And I don\u2019t want to minimize either the sincerity or the seriousness of some of their concerns (things like: humor, worldliness, pragmatism, authority).<\/p>\n But I perceive some things in common which outweigh our differences\u2014which the Lord Jesus shall soon enough compose between us, either by our maturing, or by His bringing us home. I long to work with those, and count it a privilege to work with those whom My Savior has purchased with His blood, and with whom I share the gospel of Jesus Christ. I perceive that we have in common the knowledge that God is glorified in sinners being reconciled to Him through Christ. ((The link for this post is no longer active, but you can read a fuller quote from my post, \u201cOutrage is Easy \u2026 or is it?<\/a>\u201d))<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On the other hand, there is a group of churches, individuals, and Christian institutions that pursue separatism as an objective. We are as motivated (or perhaps more motivated) for evangelism and discipleship as the best evangelicals. But there is more \u2026 we are concerned that we proclaim the gospel without the entanglements of errant theology, errant practices, or worldly contamination. We may not entirely succeed in these objectives, nevertheless these objectives remain the common objectives of an identifiable group of Christians called Fundamentalists. Some of us may have significant differences with one another over soteriology or bibliology, but we all share these common objectives.<\/p>\n So \u2026 is there an Evangelical movement today? Is their a Fundamentalist movement? Yes. The two movements still exist, with many permutations within each of them, but we can still identify objectives that both movements pursue, objectives that distinguish them from each other.<\/p>\n When people from each of the two movements join together in some ecclesiastical endeavors, we can legitimately ask the question, \u201cWhat objective are they pursuing?\u201d<\/p>\nThe Defining Ends<\/h4>\n
\n
![\"don_sig2\"](\"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/don_sig25.png\" "\\"don_sig2\\"")
<\/p>\n