Tad DeLay Philosophy & Theology

My final research paper for Systematics covers the history of Christian Fundamentalism. Though the term is now considered pejorative and thus seldom used in its properly historic meaning, this late 19th/early 20th century phenomenon lives on today in many rural separationist churchs as well as many suburban Evangelical churches. Its hegemony has the odd effect of hiding it- the vast majority of fundamentalists are not aware that they are fundamentalists, that fundamentalism has a specific definition, or that some of their core beliefs (about what a Christian is &should believe) have existed for little over a century.

I grew up in largely fundamentalist churches, so this has been a subject of interest to me over the past few years as I’ve outgrown it. Nobody ever told me the Rapture was invented in 1827 or that we didn’t have Biblical inerrantists and creationists before Darwin. Many beliefs i thought so important simply flourished as a innocent social narative/delusion. I think my awakening out of fundamentalism was the impetus for truely enjoying questioning my beliefs.

I hope you learn something. I learned much more than I expected to in the research process.

As always, here is the paper in proper format here: Fundamentalism, by Tad DeLay

——–

Fundamentalism (text only)

Origins of Early 20^th Century Protestant Fundamentalism

In common parlance, the term Fundamentalism has become a pejorative label for those viewed as religious fanatics. But the term, as applied to Christians, did not originate as pejorative and was in fact a self-selected descriptor for a specific American Protestant sect that emerged in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. The academic use of the term fundamentalist takes its definition from this early group of Christians seeking to define themselves over and against the broader spectrum of Christianity, and the academic and historical usage of this term is the subject of this paper. The purpose of this paper is to offer a history and summary of the key tenants of belief assumed by Christian Fundamentalism in the early 20^th century. The objective of this paper is to define the five tenants of Fundamentalism, to explore a summary history and specific significance of each belief to Fundamentalism, and to offer a brief commentary on why these beliefs, as well as Fundamentalism as a whole, have had so much staying power throughout the 20^th century and on into the 21^st.

A Brief History and Definition

The latter half of the 19^th century saw a number of challenges to Christian theology. In 1859, Charles Darwin published the origin of species, and as the scientific community continued to hone Darwin’s ideas, the reaction among many Christians was a sentiment that this threatened the Bible. In the academy, significant advances on Biblical scholarship as well as criticism of historic dogma gave birth to a movement¹ which came to be known as Modernism. This movement brought historical and critical methods to bear, and much of the historicity of Bible was put into jeopardy. The growing social gospel theologies were placing emphasis on progress in society and politics in a way that was foreign to much of Reformed Christianity in America to that point.¹ Along with social (rural versus urban) issues which lie beyond the scope of this study, Fundamentalism emerged as a reaction to these changes in scholarship; respectively, it is true to say that Darwinism, Biblical criticism, liberalism and provided the impetus for creationism, Biblical literalism, and fundamentalism. As a matter of general theology, fundamentalists were reacting to the Modernist movement, which were seen as too liberal for accommodating theology to science and textual studies. In a matter or only a couple decades, these reactions coalesced into a distinctive brand of Christianity represented among numerous denominations.

While John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was developing and propagating Dispensationalism and a new eschatology,² the Presbyterian church’s Princeton Theological Seminary faculty propagated both verbal plenary inspiration and the total inerrancy of the Bible in matters of not only faith, but also in science and history.³ By the turn of the century, the sect which would soon be called fundamentalism was expressed widely enough that if could not be tied to a single denomination (many of which were splitting due to the fundamentalist controversy). Though quickly gaining widespread acceptance among rural and Southern Baptists, the Presbyterian Church was the most visible early adopter of a fundamentalist doctrinal statement. After terminating the careers of several theologians decrying the fundamentalist wing, the 1910 Presbyterian General Assembly adopted five fundamental doctrines: Biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, Christ’s resurrection, and the authentic historicity of Christ’s miracles.¹ Each fundamental was chosen as a reactionary rejection to a specific trend in progressive Biblical and theological scholarship.

Before moving to The Fundamentals, we must turn to one last piece which fell into place only two years prior to the 1910 Presbyterian proclamation. In 1908, a group of dispensationalist evangelists founded the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, and published the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 (discussed in more detail below) as well as numerous other works warning of the immanent end times. The Scofield bible was a dramatic success, and instrumental in placing a dispensational eschatology at the forefront of the fundamentalist discussion over the next decade.²

The publishing of The Fundamentals in twelve volumes from 1910 to 1915 solidified what fundamentalist theology would be, further coalesced the loosely affiliated groups, and set the stage for intense controversy in the late 1910’s and 1920’s. Conceived of by a California oil tycoon and backed by an ambitious cadre of American businessmen, an assortment of evangelists were hired to promote what they saw as the minimum fundamental truths one must assent to in order to be Christian.³ Mass financial backing allowed the free distribution of The Fundamentals, as well as the subsidizing of the Scofield Reference Bible and they aimed to reach not only pastors, but para-church ministries, Sunday school teachers, professors, and missionaries (success among Christian missionaries has expanded American fundamentalism to a global phenomenon). The volumes covered not only the five core tenants, but also touched every point of controversy in the early 20^th century American church. Theologian James Orr, after admitting somewhat cautiously that faith has often been on the wrong side of science, proceeded to attack evolutionary theory in volume four.¹ Criticism of philosophy and science was common, further lending themselves to charges of anti-intellectualism.² The recent popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible and the growing fascination with dispensational theology provided the ground for a pre-millenial eschatology to be introduced into The Fundamentals (which, in replacing the miracles of Christ, was the only key deviation from the 1910 Presbyterian declaration). Though not gaining quite as wide a reception as they had hoped for, The Fundamentals were successful in defining this theological movement and giving it a clear name; these volumes and their contents are the progenitors of the name Fundamentalism, a name which, far from a pejorative, the early fundamentalists took for themselves proudly.³

This paper assumes the historical and academic definition of Christian Fundamentalism (derived from The Fundamentals, volumes I-XII): a persons or group who adheres to belief in 1) the total inerrancy of the Bible, 2) the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, 3) the virgin birth of Christ, 4) the resurrection of Christ, and 5) the immanent second coming of Christ.⁴ A broader definition of Fundamentalism

would do well to include psychological, sociological, and political dimensions as well, but this is much more speculative and beyond the scope of this paper. We now turn to a discussion of the history and importance of each core belief.

Inerrancy of the Bible

The late 19^th century European academy sent shockwaves through the church as it began applying historical and textual criticism to the Bible. David Friedrich Strauss published Life of Jesus, to be soon followed by Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest for the Historical Jesus both of which critically questioned traditional dogma and hermeneutics. Harvard professor Charles Elliot’s influential 1910 address, The Future of Religion, advocated for a Christianity which would dissolve all doctrine into a primary focus on the love of God via rendering service to mankind. ¹ While the European academy was busy with textual criticism, Princeton Theological Seminary became the de facto academic leader in defense of both verbal plenary inspiration (the dictation model of scripture) and inerrancy by 1890.¹ It was at this time that a number of scholars in New Jersey and New York were terminated for criticizing what they saw as a dangerously anti-intellectual direction being taken by American theology departments.²

Before the late 18^th century, theologians and laity alike had the liberty of an undefined position on scripture; inerrancy or infallibility were not part of the theological vocabulary. The advent of Biblical criticism spurred the reactionary emergence of Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Literalist inerrantist theologians, notably Princeton’s Benjamin B. Warfield, tried to combat notions of anti-intellectualism by giving attention to textual criticism, but with additional criteria which liberal theologians criticized as nullifying any potential error a priori. The traditional protestant principle sola scriptura become the rallying cry for the inerrantists.¹

Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Since the 16^th century, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement has been a defining characteristic of Reformed churches. The term substitutionary atonement has long been a part of Christian theology, dating back to the Patristic era, and is in fact the specific term listed in The Fundamentals. But fundamentalists mean by the term is clearly a more specific variety of definition than has been historically applied. Patristic theologians were widely varied and often vague regarding how exactly Christ saves mankind. An example is seen in 2^nd century theologian Irenaeus, who included substitution language as part of his broader recapitulation theorem.² But one should note that, contrary to claims made by fundamentalists, it is difficult to substantiate the claim that Patristic theology and the early church held the modern view of penal substitutionary atonement. At the turn of the 12^th century, St. Anselm of Canterbury spared with Abelard (a proponent of an early moral influence theorem of Christ’s atonement) and wrote of a substitutionary view which is most commonly seen as the progenitor of the Protestant penal substitutionary perspective. In Cur Deus Homos, Anselm uses the medieval metaphor of a serf and feudal lord’s relationship to describe Christ’s death as vicariously restoring man’s honor to God, whom man has dishonored beyond any reparation with his sin. In the Reformation era, this conception was modified in legal terms so that Christ satisfied God’s justice, not his honor. In this view, the early formation of the modern penal substitutionary view, in his perfect justice, God cannot forgive sin without payment for sin. Man, being sinful, cannot make this payment, and thus Christ dies on man’s behalf. The injustice of a perfect Christ dying in man’s place is vicarious payment enough to satisfy God’s demands justice.

Given that this theological formulation came so early in the Reformation ear, the model of atonement was naturally embedded into the Reformed tradition, which fundamentalism birthed in. Furthermore, American revivalism over a number of generations had solidified the prominence of the penal substitution model. Church historian Dr. James E. Bradley notes that the simplicity of the revivalist penal substitution model, with both its ease of explanation and its dependence on a single moment of prayer for conversion, made for an apt tool for the revivalist preacher.¹ Thus, in addition to America settlers carrying this model of atonement across the Atlantic, centuries of reinforcement in pulpits and preacher circuits made the model of atonement seem both self-evident and absolutely foundational to Christian theology. As the aforementioned onslaught of Biblical criticism and novel field of Jesus studies called into question much of the basis which this theology was constructed around (and with liberal theology placing increasing emphasis on the moral influence perspective of Christ), Reformed theology in fundamentalist circles saw a renewed need to combat alternate explanations of salvation. Neither should it comes as a surprise that the Reformed, birthed in the penal substitutionary view and traditionally emphasizing the importance of doctrine, saw any deviation from this atonement theorem as a deviation from historic Christianity. Evangelist Dwight Moody (1837-1899) characterized the fundamentalist perspective on salvation when he claimed, “The Lord told me, ‘Moody, just get as many into the lifeboat as you can.’”¹ Moreover, with liberal scholars trending towards reducing the message of Jesus to love of the other and nothing more, the fundamentalist position on atonement was the first in several statements about Christ to emphasize his deity.

Virgin Birth of Christ

The doctrine of the virgin birth (or more accurately, virgin conception), is one of only two doctrines among the five which can be cogently traced to the 1^st century church. Though some scholars have contested the virgin birth on the textual grounds that it was a late edition by Matthew and Luke due to a misreading of a of prophecy in Isaiah, its appearance in two of the Gospels lends its credibility as a common early Christian belief. This being as it is, it was one of the stronger claims made by the early fundamentalists to link themselves to the early church. In short, the virgin birth saved Jesus from reduction to an itinerant, apocalyptic, philanthropic rabbi.²

Resurrection of Christ

The resurrection of the Christ is the second of the two doctrines that can be traced back to the 1^st century church, appearing even earlier than the virgin birth (an empty tomb, implying resurrection, was the original ending of the earliest Gospel account in Mark). Though neither doctrine has textual support for the first two to three decades after Christ, their early inclusion into the Gospels and Christian theology made for easy inclusion as core tenants of belief. Given the atonement theorem held as a fundamental, resurrection did not seem to be crucial supporting point for fundamentalist soteriology (a common criticism of penal substitution is that only Christ’s death is required to make it functional, with the teaching and resurrection of Christ being marginalized), but, like the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ appears prominent in the fundamentalist movement as a reaction to the de-deification of Christ in Jesus studies and textual criticism. We should not be mistaken; fundamentalist movement believed all five tenants to be shared among the early church, but the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ appear to be the only doctrines able to withstand the scrutiny of historical theology.

The Immanent Second Coming of Christ

The eschatology adopted is perhaps the most interesting point of the five, both due to its rather late development and the process of its construction. Fundamentalist theology is dispensational, and its eschatology subsumed the doctrine of a mass rapture of Christians from the earth before a coming tribulation period. The 18^th century had no shortage of speculation on end times and anti-christs. The millenarianism movement, a popular theological conversation emphasizing a literal thousand year reign (either by Christ or by benevolent rulers), had excited the public interest in eschatological speculation.¹ If the alternate four tenants of Fundamentalism are difficult to trace, this eschatology can be traced almost entirely to one man. Plymouth Brethren pastor John Nelson Darby is the author of dispensational theology, a school of thought which divides the Bible and history itself into eras, or dispensations. Ostensibly, this is done in order to account for apparent contradictory messages in scripture, contradictions which disappear when applying a theological grid by which certain verses apply only to the Jewish people or a to the Old Covenant, but do not apply under the New Covenant of Christ. After ousting his one-time colleague-turned-adversary Benjamin Wills Newton during a quarrel to gain power in his Brethren congregation, Darby had a small but well-connected pulpit to promote his theology.¹ The focus of their argument had been Darby’s creation of a doctrine of a rapture, a doctrine which Newton would spend the rest of his career trying, without success, to dispel. In 1840, Darby took his eschatology public and lectured on the rapture for the first time in Lausanne. To pin the creation of the Rapture to a specific year, Darby claims to have realized this doctrine in as early as 1827. Accounts on the origin of this new idea vary (one story posits Darby adopted the Rapture from another Scottish mystic), but Darby’s belief in a Rapture can be seen as a necessary consequence of his dispensational theology;² that is, the Rapture was created two make contradictory Biblical passages on the return of Christ cohere. Darby solved these differences by dividing them into two “second comings,”[sic] one a secret rapture and the other a post-tribulational announcement in glory³ Darby spread dispensational theology via writings and conferences, which effectively solidified his career as an novel theologian. In fact, both Dispensationalism and the rapture might have died out completely if not for Darby’s contact with one man; Cyrus I. Scofield. In the late 19^th century, a young pastor Scofield became convinced of Dispensationalism, and in 1909 the Scofield Reference Bible was published. Using the King James Version, Scofield’s highly successful Bible included copious footnotes explaining passages via dispensational theology. For many Christians in America, these footnotes were their first exposure to the rapture doctrine. The Scofield Reference Bible’s dispensational theology, as well as its penchant for literalism (Scofield introduced the date of creation as 4004 B.C.), made it a prime candidate for adoption into fundamentalist circles.¹ Over the next decade, dispensational eschatology focusing on the rapture of the church and speculation about the end times came to dominate conservative Reformed circles, and was canonized in The Fundamentals. Thus, the tenant of Fundamentalism requiring a belief in the immanent second coming of Christ means more than merely the belief that Christ shall return; it is specifically an affirmation of this pre-millennial, dispensational eschatology.

After The Fundamentals: Separatism and Evangelicalism

By the time The Fundamentals were finished, theological infighting had escalated far beyond the termination of a few scholars and pastors seen in the previous decade. By 1920, fundamentalists lobbying power within numerous denominations were causing sectarian denominational and church splits. The 1920s was a decade of separationists, with several prominent fundamentalist leaders calling for the wholesale abandonment of congregations and denominations which were unwilling to promote fundamentalist theology.² Having little standing among the theological academy due to perceptions of anti-intellectualism, fundamentalist and dispensationalist leaders founded an impressive number of Bible schools for the training of pastors. Fundamentalism had been largely a northern and urban movement among the theological elite, but the success of The Fundamentals pushed the demographic profile towards that of the southern, rural, and less educated laity or Bible school-trained pastorate.¹ In 1924, dispensationalist theologian Dr. Sperry Chafer founded Dallas Theological Seminary, which would become one of the most well respected schools of dispensational and post-fundamentalist, evangelical theology. In 1925, the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in Dayton, Ohio, which ended in the court upholding a law banning the teaching of evolution, reinforced fundamentalist sentiment. Reacting to the separationist vitriol, the late 1920’s through the post-World War II years saw a group of theologians wishing for a moderate stance between Modernism and Fundamentalism, and this moderate voice came to be called Evangelicalism.² More ecumenical in nature, Evangelicals often held fundamentalist theology, but demonstrated both a willingness to consider and revise theology as well as a desire to engage Christians outside their theological fold. As part of this movement towards a more moderate Evangelicalism, Fuller Theological Seminary was founded 1947. Evangelicalism would continue to reflect much of its fundamentalist theological heritage, to degrees which varied widely between persons, schools, and denominations, but it was nevertheless a hopeful step forward in post-fundamentalist theology.

Conclusion

Fundamentalism emerged with all the reactionary force of one who feels threatened, and its doctrine has had staying power far outlasting all predictions. Many of fundamentalist points of debate (i.e. evolutionary theory, Biblical scholarship, atonement, and end times) live on. But in an ironic twist, many of the very items it arose to protest (scholarship and science, ecumenicism and globalization) are the very things that coded its perspective to strive toward obsoletion. Dwindling though it may be from broader cultural significance, much of the base ideology and significant theology of Fundamentalism lives on, both in marginalized rural separationist churches and in suburban Evangelical churches. In the opening of his book The Roots of Fundamentalism, historian Ernest R. Sandeen opines that the obituary of Fundamentalism has not been written yet:

“Ever since its rise to notoriety in the 1920s, scholars have predicted the imminent demise of the movement. The Fundamentalists, to return the favor, have predicted the speedy end of the world. Neither prophecy has so far been fulfilled.”

———

Bibliography

Bradley, James E. “Evangelical: A Most Abused Word.” Theology, News and Notes 1-12.

Coleman, Richard J. 1975. “Biblical inerrancy : are we going anywhere?.” Theology Today 31, no. 4: 295-303. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2010).

Cox, Harvey. The Future of Faith. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2009.

Hinson, E Glenn. 1981. “Neo-fundamentalism : an interpretation and critique.” Baptist History and Heritage 16, no. 2: 33-42. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2010).

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4. As cited in Bulletin in James Bradley, Early Church History, CH 500. Pasadena, 2010.

Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. 2^nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Melton, John G. “Christian Fundamentalism.” 2010.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/222234/Christian-fundamentalism (accessed December 3, 2010).

Sandeen, Ernest R. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Related posts:

1. a brief survey of American Fundamentalism (“the Future of Faith” by Harvey Cox, part 2)
2. Christopher Hitchens and the dilema of defining Fundamentalism
3. the tad delay lexicon: the words i use that bring lots of confusion on the blog
4. the future of faith: Globalization vs. fundamentalism, Yoda vs. al Qaida
5. my first paper: A Response to Jurgen Moltmann’s “The Crucified God”