my husband and I and his siblings were chatting about how his siblings got into fundamentalism coming from a mainline denomination. They came of age during the Jesus movement and encountered Jesus in a personal way. This led them to "evangelical" churches which were actually quite fundamentalist. Currently they have each one walked away from their evangelical affiliation--not leaving their relationship with Christ but their evangelical/fundamentalist community. In the conversation, each noted that what they believed to be a church that supported a personal relationship with Jesus had become a nationalist/fundamentalist church that they could no longer be a part of.
Once again, another helpful essay, Dr. Bass. And, I suppose, that's why I’m left with more questions than I had when I started reading.
You’ll probably get into this next week; I’ll ask now anyway. Is the mid-18th century birth of evangelical Christianity a North American (or even specifically USA) phenomenon, or were similar shifts happening in Protestantism elsewhere?
If (the original) “Evangelicalism is not a denomination,” is it fair to say it is a “theology”? Or would it be better to say it is a “practice”? Or is there another term that you favor?
While evangelicalism was born out of a mid-18th century Protestantism “that emphasized the experience of bing ‘born again’” and is primarily held (for lack of a better term) by Protestants, are there nonetheless evangelical Eastern Orthodox Christians and/or evangelical Roman Catholics?
While “Evangelicalism is not a denomination,” are there denominations that were birthed by the mid-18th century form of evangelical Christianity? (I’m thinking particularly of denominations that came out of the Stone/Campbell movement, though perhaps others.)
My summary: Evangelicalism lived in the USA for over a century and a half before fundamentalism was born. Fundamentalism was essentially a set of doctrines that the fundamentalist thought all Christians (starting with their fellow evangelicals) should hold. I would have thought that non-creedal denominations (like the Congregationalists, Baptists, and Disciples) would have resisted this doctrinal approach, and yet I see in the a fundamentalist take-over of the Southern Baptists in the last 20th century.
I’d love to hear your take on this.
In your description of “Stage Two: Shame,” you write that shamed people withdraw and find others with the same experience of shame to corm community. I think this has been true of the gay community and the trans community in 1950-2000 (in the USA), that came about by shamed people creating “gay ghettos” and “Ball culture.” And I reflect on how Pride Parades were so important as the LG and now LGBTQ+ community claimed pride as a way of throwing off shame. Not a particularly theological reflection, though it is a place that I, as a gay man, can connect emotionally with fundamentalists—strangely enough.
Another question I had as I read about “Stage Two” is, What role does Calvinism (particularly ‘utter depravity’) play in fundamentalist theology and identity at this stage and today?
During “Stage Three: Conflict Within,” you mention that the neo-evangelicals “retained fundamentalist theology with little alternation.” What were those alterations? My experienced difference between Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell suggest there have to be theological differences—though I suppose they could be strategic differences.
Jimmy Carter saw himself as an evangelical in the 70s. Do you think he would still call himself an evangelical? The fundamentalists who we calling themselves “evangelicals” or “neo-evangelicals” saw him as a “liberal.” Did the orginal evangelicalism (from the 18th century) embrace/allow a wide variety of theologies, including Carter’s alleged liberalism and Billy Graham’s fundamentalism? Would the contemporary “Red-Letter Christians” movement be part of the original evangelicalism? Would that claim that identity?
The bottom line take-away for me is that when I hear someone say “evangelical,” I don’t know what they mean. Are they talking about the sweeping and theologically diverse theology/practice born in the mid 18th century? Are they talking about the neo-evangelical movement and the theology/practice of Billy Graham, et al (that you sort of call intellectual fundamentalism)? Or are they talking about pre-Scopes Trial fundamentalism rebranded as evangelical?
Do you have any pointers for better understanding what someone means when they say “evangelical”?
I grew up in a Southern Baptist church which was across the road from BJU in the 50’s and 60’s. If any of their students attended our church they would be expelled. In 1965 Billy Graham had a crusade in Greenville and good ole Dr Bob forbid his students to pray for the crusade. The students I came in contact with were brain washed and were not highly thought of in the community. I spent many years away from the church because of such hypocrisy. However now I’m clergy in the UMC which has been infiltrated by many fundamentalist even though they deny it. And now they are tearing us apart.
One facet of Fundamentalism that I have not seen explicitly discussed is their (hopefully fragile) liaison with Roman Catholics — especially ultra conservative ones. My hope is that these groups are inherently immiscible and some theological train wreck is plausible.
As a former Southern Baptist, married to a Catholic convert who rages at the "fundamentalism" of many Catholic bishops and priests, I'm curious as to why this group wasn't mentioned in your otherwise excellent piece.
I admire your effort to develop a contextual and political history of fundamentalism. I’d love to see a reference list oor at least bibliography for your work (This is by no means a criticism; zi do similar work in a sub-field of education, and often I write based on my lived experience and knowledge and don’t make attributions I could make, but feel ok based on the feeling of knowing what I know.. Suffice it to say, I admire and appreciate your work.
I do have one question: Where is Jesus in all this? How did folks embrace or disregard his message in the processs of growing their religious//political camps? I know it’s easy to find a lot of hand-waving displays of adoration for the lord, but it seems the Gospels are rarely mentioned from the pulpit - at least in gatherings that would identify as evangelical these days. He was notably missing this past Easter (there were no “Life of Jesus” Natgeo types of shows, and they didn’t replay “Superstar.” More importantly, the Beatitudes and such seem to be largely ignored or almost embarrassing to religious folks. (At least we still have the bunny and eggs.) Andy Stanley has done some sermons that get right to the point, but I’ve noticed people look away when I mention him. Are we moving into a post-Jesus phase of fundamentalism? Is that how it has won?
( will read your book. ThNks for what you’re doing!
I so enjoy your writing. I completed reading Finding Jesus. Great book! I hope we will select it for a book study at church. I have recommended it. I first heard you speak years ago at an ELCA Rocky Mountain Synod Assembly.
It is so refreshing to read the truth about how Christianity has been co-opted for political gain. At the same time it is so profoundly sad. Thank you for sharing historical truths. In the words of John Dominic Crosson: "My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally." Keep preaching!!
I’ve dealt with this particular religio-sociological trend all my career as a pastor and teaching theologian (btw, I inhabit all your descriptors of mainline, liberal, liturgical, confessional and ecumenical). I agree with your analysis of the multivalent character of “fundamentalist” and, now, “evangelical,” and I deeply rue the passivity with which “my tribe” generally has responded to the whole trend, even as I’d rather be irenic. The “Christian Century” is so long gone. So what indeed “smells sweet” to you *and* bears strategic political-democratic-inclusive-just purpose? After all, there will be no such thing as a genuinely ecumenical council again, and enclaves of resister house churches can’t answer mainline feebleness either.
Forty years ago, sitting in a church history class in a Southern Baptist seminary (before seminary taken over by the Fundamentalist), the professor said two things that I wrote down in the margins of my notes and memorized: 1) Fundamentalism with a capital F is always mean at its core. 2) Scratch down hard enough on a Fundamentalist and you will discover an atheist, because when you remove the propositions about God you eventually are left without anything to base your faith.
I have a bachelor's degree in biblical studies from Faith Baptist Bible College, Ankeny, IA, another bastion of fundamentalism. Like BJU buried on a PDF is this: The Board of Directors of Faith has affirmed the historical position of the school as our continuing commitment. It is our earnest desire to maintain our historical purpose and tradition and to continue to train students to be leaders in fundamentalist Christianity. We intend to stand for the great principles of Bible-believing Christianity, our separatist Baptist heritage, and the authority of the inerrant Word of God. While many educational institutions are softening their stand and broadening their fellowship to be more inclusive, we intend to militantly honor Christ and the purity of the Church, even if we must do so independently.
I now cringe at the thought I was proud of this stance. My stomach turns at what this now means in current cultural context. I thank God I was delivered from this hateful, discriminatory, and unloving mindset.
Diana - you mentioned on the bird site (and perhaps you were simply musing out loud) the possibility of teaching a class on this. I (and I am sure a magnitude of others) would be VERY interested in signing on to such a class. What you are trying to explicate here is critical to our understanding of how to live a life of faith in the midst of the craziness all around.
Great series of articles. I just tried to subscribe but it only takes Apple Pay which I don't have.
my husband and I and his siblings were chatting about how his siblings got into fundamentalism coming from a mainline denomination. They came of age during the Jesus movement and encountered Jesus in a personal way. This led them to "evangelical" churches which were actually quite fundamentalist. Currently they have each one walked away from their evangelical affiliation--not leaving their relationship with Christ but their evangelical/fundamentalist community. In the conversation, each noted that what they believed to be a church that supported a personal relationship with Jesus had become a nationalist/fundamentalist church that they could no longer be a part of.
Once again, another helpful essay, Dr. Bass. And, I suppose, that's why I’m left with more questions than I had when I started reading.
You’ll probably get into this next week; I’ll ask now anyway. Is the mid-18th century birth of evangelical Christianity a North American (or even specifically USA) phenomenon, or were similar shifts happening in Protestantism elsewhere?
If (the original) “Evangelicalism is not a denomination,” is it fair to say it is a “theology”? Or would it be better to say it is a “practice”? Or is there another term that you favor?
While evangelicalism was born out of a mid-18th century Protestantism “that emphasized the experience of bing ‘born again’” and is primarily held (for lack of a better term) by Protestants, are there nonetheless evangelical Eastern Orthodox Christians and/or evangelical Roman Catholics?
While “Evangelicalism is not a denomination,” are there denominations that were birthed by the mid-18th century form of evangelical Christianity? (I’m thinking particularly of denominations that came out of the Stone/Campbell movement, though perhaps others.)
My summary: Evangelicalism lived in the USA for over a century and a half before fundamentalism was born. Fundamentalism was essentially a set of doctrines that the fundamentalist thought all Christians (starting with their fellow evangelicals) should hold. I would have thought that non-creedal denominations (like the Congregationalists, Baptists, and Disciples) would have resisted this doctrinal approach, and yet I see in the a fundamentalist take-over of the Southern Baptists in the last 20th century.
I’d love to hear your take on this.
In your description of “Stage Two: Shame,” you write that shamed people withdraw and find others with the same experience of shame to corm community. I think this has been true of the gay community and the trans community in 1950-2000 (in the USA), that came about by shamed people creating “gay ghettos” and “Ball culture.” And I reflect on how Pride Parades were so important as the LG and now LGBTQ+ community claimed pride as a way of throwing off shame. Not a particularly theological reflection, though it is a place that I, as a gay man, can connect emotionally with fundamentalists—strangely enough.
Another question I had as I read about “Stage Two” is, What role does Calvinism (particularly ‘utter depravity’) play in fundamentalist theology and identity at this stage and today?
During “Stage Three: Conflict Within,” you mention that the neo-evangelicals “retained fundamentalist theology with little alternation.” What were those alterations? My experienced difference between Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell suggest there have to be theological differences—though I suppose they could be strategic differences.
Jimmy Carter saw himself as an evangelical in the 70s. Do you think he would still call himself an evangelical? The fundamentalists who we calling themselves “evangelicals” or “neo-evangelicals” saw him as a “liberal.” Did the orginal evangelicalism (from the 18th century) embrace/allow a wide variety of theologies, including Carter’s alleged liberalism and Billy Graham’s fundamentalism? Would the contemporary “Red-Letter Christians” movement be part of the original evangelicalism? Would that claim that identity?
The bottom line take-away for me is that when I hear someone say “evangelical,” I don’t know what they mean. Are they talking about the sweeping and theologically diverse theology/practice born in the mid 18th century? Are they talking about the neo-evangelical movement and the theology/practice of Billy Graham, et al (that you sort of call intellectual fundamentalism)? Or are they talking about pre-Scopes Trial fundamentalism rebranded as evangelical?
Do you have any pointers for better understanding what someone means when they say “evangelical”?
I grew up in a Southern Baptist church which was across the road from BJU in the 50’s and 60’s. If any of their students attended our church they would be expelled. In 1965 Billy Graham had a crusade in Greenville and good ole Dr Bob forbid his students to pray for the crusade. The students I came in contact with were brain washed and were not highly thought of in the community. I spent many years away from the church because of such hypocrisy. However now I’m clergy in the UMC which has been infiltrated by many fundamentalist even though they deny it. And now they are tearing us apart.
One facet of Fundamentalism that I have not seen explicitly discussed is their (hopefully fragile) liaison with Roman Catholics — especially ultra conservative ones. My hope is that these groups are inherently immiscible and some theological train wreck is plausible.
Any thoughts?
As a former Southern Baptist, married to a Catholic convert who rages at the "fundamentalism" of many Catholic bishops and priests, I'm curious as to why this group wasn't mentioned in your otherwise excellent piece.
I admire your effort to develop a contextual and political history of fundamentalism. I’d love to see a reference list oor at least bibliography for your work (This is by no means a criticism; zi do similar work in a sub-field of education, and often I write based on my lived experience and knowledge and don’t make attributions I could make, but feel ok based on the feeling of knowing what I know.. Suffice it to say, I admire and appreciate your work.
I do have one question: Where is Jesus in all this? How did folks embrace or disregard his message in the processs of growing their religious//political camps? I know it’s easy to find a lot of hand-waving displays of adoration for the lord, but it seems the Gospels are rarely mentioned from the pulpit - at least in gatherings that would identify as evangelical these days. He was notably missing this past Easter (there were no “Life of Jesus” Natgeo types of shows, and they didn’t replay “Superstar.” More importantly, the Beatitudes and such seem to be largely ignored or almost embarrassing to religious folks. (At least we still have the bunny and eggs.) Andy Stanley has done some sermons that get right to the point, but I’ve noticed people look away when I mention him. Are we moving into a post-Jesus phase of fundamentalism? Is that how it has won?
( will read your book. ThNks for what you’re doing!
Thsnks for your history…for how it matters, where living as 21st C. Christians is concerned in the real world!
I was told that half of the pamphlets known as The Fundamentals of the Faith were written by Episcopalians. Is this true?
I so enjoy your writing. I completed reading Finding Jesus. Great book! I hope we will select it for a book study at church. I have recommended it. I first heard you speak years ago at an ELCA Rocky Mountain Synod Assembly.
It is so refreshing to read the truth about how Christianity has been co-opted for political gain. At the same time it is so profoundly sad. Thank you for sharing historical truths. In the words of John Dominic Crosson: "My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally." Keep preaching!!
I’ve dealt with this particular religio-sociological trend all my career as a pastor and teaching theologian (btw, I inhabit all your descriptors of mainline, liberal, liturgical, confessional and ecumenical). I agree with your analysis of the multivalent character of “fundamentalist” and, now, “evangelical,” and I deeply rue the passivity with which “my tribe” generally has responded to the whole trend, even as I’d rather be irenic. The “Christian Century” is so long gone. So what indeed “smells sweet” to you *and* bears strategic political-democratic-inclusive-just purpose? After all, there will be no such thing as a genuinely ecumenical council again, and enclaves of resister house churches can’t answer mainline feebleness either.
Forty years ago, sitting in a church history class in a Southern Baptist seminary (before seminary taken over by the Fundamentalist), the professor said two things that I wrote down in the margins of my notes and memorized: 1) Fundamentalism with a capital F is always mean at its core. 2) Scratch down hard enough on a Fundamentalist and you will discover an atheist, because when you remove the propositions about God you eventually are left without anything to base your faith.
I have found this to be true.
I have a bachelor's degree in biblical studies from Faith Baptist Bible College, Ankeny, IA, another bastion of fundamentalism. Like BJU buried on a PDF is this: The Board of Directors of Faith has affirmed the historical position of the school as our continuing commitment. It is our earnest desire to maintain our historical purpose and tradition and to continue to train students to be leaders in fundamentalist Christianity. We intend to stand for the great principles of Bible-believing Christianity, our separatist Baptist heritage, and the authority of the inerrant Word of God. While many educational institutions are softening their stand and broadening their fellowship to be more inclusive, we intend to militantly honor Christ and the purity of the Church, even if we must do so independently.
I now cringe at the thought I was proud of this stance. My stomach turns at what this now means in current cultural context. I thank God I was delivered from this hateful, discriminatory, and unloving mindset.
Diana - you mentioned on the bird site (and perhaps you were simply musing out loud) the possibility of teaching a class on this. I (and I am sure a magnitude of others) would be VERY interested in signing on to such a class. What you are trying to explicate here is critical to our understanding of how to live a life of faith in the midst of the craziness all around.