Is There a Difference Between Being Fundamental And Fundamentalism?
By Jess Smith
Mount Zion Baptist Church,  Huntsville, Alabama 

Baptists carry labels and assign them to others that characterize and define the day in which we live. The rhetoric of those in leadership can be both confusing and disturbing as evidenced in Southern Baptist life. 

Trying to define "Baptists" today is like trying to define "Americans." What categories do we use: cultural, geographical, financial or political? Obviously, we have many ways to describe who we are as Americans. However, should it be the same when we speak of Baptists? 

Again the labels are many: conservative, moderate, fundamentalist, independent, Calvinist, Arminian, Free Will, Seventh-Day, etc. However, are there not some well-defined historical, Biblical tenets that apply to Baptists? There are fundamentals that those who call themselves Baptists would widely accept. In this new century, we must distinguish between being fundamental and being Fundamentalist.

The great axioms of Baptist life and practice are freedom, soul-competency and the priesthood of the believer. Yet, in our day they are redefining these grand truths to fit into a fundamentalist agenda. On the surface that sounds reasonable. However, there is a difference between being fundamental and being a fundamentalist.

The first President and founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, James P. Boyce made this statement in the 19th century: I am fundamental but I am not a Fundamentalist.

To be fundamental is to believe in and declare the fundamentals of the faith. These fundamentals are stated clearly in The Apostles' Creed.1 Evangelicals embrace these fundamentals and define the content of our faith. 

Today's fundamentalism goes beyond these truths while presenting a pejorative rhetoric to establish its position. It has become ever more difficult to be fundamental without taking on the garments of Fundamentalism. In the 1920s when the debate between modernism (liberalism) and fundamentalism was at its height, to be a fundamentalist was a good thing. 

Men of the caliber of E.Y. Mullins and J. Gresham Machen, who was the founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, were considered fundamentalists. They upheld the fundamentals of the faith in the midst of a rising tide of liberalism.  However, in 2001 the term fundamentalist has changed. Even in Machen's estimate of fundamentalism, they were raising questions concerning its direction and intent. In an article by John Piper entitled J. Gresham Machen's Response to Modernism, he quotes Machen's response to statements calling him a fundamentalist.

"Do you suppose that I do regret my being called by a term that I clearly dislike, a 'fundamentalist?' Most certainly I do. But in the presence of a great common foe I have little time to be attacking my brethren who stand with me in the defense of the Word of God."2 

Machen and Mullins fought a great fight against the erosion of Biblical truth and a demeaning of God's word. Today the battle is not about the truthfulness or infallibility of the Bible, but about how one interprets the Bible. 

The discussion has moved from establishing an exegetical, historical, Biblical meaning to the text, to establishing a fundamentalist interpretation that lines up with a social and political agenda. Therefore, the issue is not about whether we have an infallible Bible, but whether we interpret that Bible according to a fundamentalist agenda. In this article by Piper, he outlined the issues that Machen disagreed with concerning fundamentalism. His opinion sums up the fallacy of fundamentalism: 

1. A historical perspective is absent. 

2. A lack of appreciation of scholarship is apparent. 

3. Brief skeletal creeds or confessions for historic confessions have been substituted. 

4. It shows a lack of concern for precise formulation of Christian doctrine. 

5. Pietistic, perfectionist tendencies (legalism) are present. 

6. One sees a "one-sided other-worldliness" (i.e., a lack of effort to transform culture). 

7. There is a penchant for futuristic chiliasm (pre-millenialism). 

Add to this list control, a sense of superiority and arrogance and one has defined fundamentalism in our day.

This description of fundamentalism shows the radical departure from the fundamental aspects of faith. Too often this fundamentalism seeks to indoctrinate rather than educate. It suppresses the pursuit of truth by substituting a rigid legalistic formula that all who come under its sway must strictly follow. At times it appears that they allow no room for scholarly debate and talk, or even an honest discussion on issues of doctrine and practice. To be a fundamentalist is to walk in absolute conformity to a dogma that stifles healthy discussion and removes the grandeur of our Baptist heritage. Being labeled as liberal is offensive to many conservative, God-fearing, Bible-believing Baptists because they do not buy into the legalistic, fundamentalist rhetoric. 

Again the words of Machen are prophetic: "The term fundamentalism is distasteful to the present writer and to many persons who hold views similar to his. It seems to suggest that we are adherents of some strange new sect, whereas in point of fact we are conscious simply of maintaining the historic Christian faith and of moving in the great central current of Christian life."

The great central current of Christian life is not using the Bible as a weapon of submissiveness to coerce men and women into one's political and dogmatic ideologies, but letting the Bible speak as the living Word of God. Jesus' response to the Sadducees recorded in Matthew 22:29 fits the issue well: "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures or the power of God." The tragedy of fundamentalism in its purest form is that it can never be satisfied or rest until it dominates every sphere of life. It can brook no rival nor tolerate any question that would threaten its position.

Fundamentalism today has raised its legalistic head and has corrupted the freedom and integrity of Baptist life. Many caught up in this crusade do not see themselves as disruptive or legalistic. They truly believe they are the saviors of Baptists. May we say firmly and clearly, Baptists do not need saviors. We already have One! In addition, it is by him that we must interpret and proclaim the Word of God. He is the criterion, standard and measure by which we must judge all things, live to the glory of God, and embrace one another.

So, can you be fundamental without being a Fundamentalist? Absolutely! Can you be radically in love with Christ without being legalistic? Absolutely! Can we walk together in unity without being uniform? Absolutely!

To God be the glory!

Endnotes:

1. The Apostles' Creed - I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy Christian Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

2. J. Gresham Machen's Response to Modernism, John Piper, Bethlehem Conference for Pastors, Jan. 26, 1993.

3. Stonehouse, Ned B., J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir. Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 1987.