Rod, thanks for taking the time to read my articles on Christian Fundamentalism and to comment on them (see Rod Heggy’s comments, “Fundamentalism: Is It a Name or a Slur?”). Christian Fundamentalism in America history is a rich field of study, rooted in events which took place a century ago and which continue to reverberate in many significant ways in both the churches and the politics of modern culture.

In the three brief articles I have written so far, I have touched on some of the key points of that history. Article 1 provides a brief account of the original Fundamentalist Movement; Article 2 describes the relationship of Fundamentalism to Premillennialism; and Article 3 describes its relationship to Prohibition. I have outlined at least four subsequent articles, covering the relationship of Fundamentalism to racism and the Ku Klux Klan; the role of anti-intellectualism in Fundamentalist history; what emerged as the predominant tenet of Fundamentalists after 1930: separatism; and explaining what “new evangelicalism” is.

Rod, the questions you raise about my first three articles give me a welcome opportunity to fill in a few blanks. I think the best way for me to explain some of the issues you ask about is to address them in the form of Q & A.

(1) DID THE FUNDAMENTALIST MOVEMENT EVER EXIST?

Rod, you write that you are “not so sure ‘fundamentalism’ existed.” There is certainly no question among historians or theologians that the Fundamentalist Movement existed and continues to exist, both in the U.S. and in other countries. That is simply a matter of history.

To quote the scholar you referenced in your comment, Larry Eskridge of Wheaton College:

Fundamentalism was a movement that arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries within American Protestantism reacting against “modernist” theology and biblical criticism as well as changes in the nation’s cultural and social scene. Taking its name from The Fundamentals (1910-1915), a twelve-volume set of essays designed to combat Liberal theology, the movement grew by leaps and bounds after World War I.

Most historians define the time period of the original Fundamentalist Movement as approximately 1880-1930. The movement was emerging by the late 1800s in direct response to the three forces I described in my first article: higher criticism, evolution, and the social gospel. It was not until the early 1900s that this growing movement gelled and gave itself a name: Fundamentalism.

By the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, fundamentalism was a clearly defined movement on the American religious and political scene. William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State in the Wilson administration, a three-time presidential candidate himself, and a Presbyterian preacher from Nebraska, was a well-known fundamentalist spokesman. Bryan was contracted by the World Christian Fundamentalists Organization to go to Tennessee and assist in the prosecution of teacher Scopes. Defense attorney Clarence Darrow called Bryan to the stand as an expert witness on fundamentalist views about evolution and the literal interpretation of the Bible. Darrow’s questioning of Bryan became so pointed that Bryan complained that his purpose was “ridiculing every Christian who believes in the Bible.” Darrow responded, “We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States.”

The Scopes trial was an international event, covered on the front pages of the New York Times and other newspapers around the world. H.L. Mencken, the cynical secularist newspaper columnist (“I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind”), went to Tennessee to cover the trial, and provided the world a very lopsided report of what transpired. The effect of the trial was a strong reaction against fundamentalism and the rapid decline of the movement. Thus, most historians see the Monkey Trial as marking the end of the original phase of Christian fundamentalism in America. Continue reading

Time for a Little Q&A →

Terry has been explaining why he is “no longer” a fundamentalist. Those articles are carefully thought out and should be as carefully reviewed by anyone interested in church trends. Those articles have been founded on the premise that “fundamentalism” existed, has an organized system of beliefs, and has an identifiable membership. I’m not so sure “fundamentalism” existed, much less had an organized system of beliefs. But, I am sure it never had an identifiable membership and that Terry was never a card carrying member.

Larry Eskridge, Wheaton College, posted a recently updated definition of “evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism.” Eskridge claims that “fundamentalism” arose in the 1920s among American Christians committed to resisting the advance of theological “modernism.” In other words, it was the label attached to a group of Christians trying to win but one of the early culture wars in American cultural history. Terry has recited a similar history. But, “fundamentalism” was, at most, a label of a point of view; it was not a denomination, or a group of churches or even a structured philosophy. It was an ad hoc rationalization that was adopted by some Christians but not all. Eskridge claims it was discredited during, or as a result of, the Scopes Trial and faded from the panoply of ideas.

Eskridge asserts that “fundamentalism” arose again after World War II and manifested itself in separatist movements among some groups that might also be called evangelical, of which Eskridge provides examples. Terry was never a member of any of those groups or any separatist group.

Because of the use of the label “fundamentalism” in so many contexts, Eskridge concludes, it has no legitimate use. Thus, Terry is correct when he says he is not a “fundamentalist,” because the amorphous nature of the term makes impossible any application to much of anyone with any accuracy. Terry is right that it is a pejorative term. I would suggest it has never been much of anything else; a culture war weapon; a way to label friend or foe, but no more.

Therefore, Terry and I would disagree over his assertion that the term “fundamentalism” exists at this time as a cohesive movement, has a structured belief system, or that it identifies any group or denomination with accuracy. As such, his assertion that “fundamentalists” gave birth to “pre-millennialism” is in my view, wrong. Moreover, the thesis of many of Terry’s assertions that “fundamentalists” are wrong about so many issues would seem to argue persuasively that they were never able to formulate a cohesive theology. Many people are pre-millennial in their outlook, some of them have a cohesive theology that is accessible by discussion, but the “fundamentalism” that Terry describes would not be capable of developing and sustaining cohesive theological constructs. The “fundamentalism” he describes is more a product of ignorance and theology of the mob.

In the culture wars, in the early Nineteenth Century, the rise of evangelicalism from the Revival Movement, was also a response to some of the same cultural forces. Indeed, many “fundamentalists” in the 1920s were also what today would be considered evangelicals. Today, liberals would label evangelicals as “fundamentalists.” Terry linked “fundamentalism” to the prohibition movement that resulted in the 18th Amendment in 1917. Did “fundamentalism” recede such that the 18th Amendment was then repealed in 1919? It would be just as easy to link prohibition to evangelicalism. Indeed, just as Terry linked Billy Sunday to “fundamentalism,” Larry Eskridge linked him to evangelicalism. Terry linked Dwight L. Moody to “fundamentalism,” and Eskridge linked him to evangelicalism. But, Terry seems to suggest that “fundamentalism” is an organic construct while Eskridge does not think the term has a meaning sufficiently stable to use in identifying anything substantive or anyone.

Eskridge also uses the term “Protestantism,” instead of as a label only for those movements arising from the Reformation, but in conjunction with evangelicals. In that sense, he seems well on his way, probably unintentionally, of “dumbing down” the usefulness of the label “evangelical.” Many lay Roman Catholics use the term “Protestantism” as a label that means “non-Catholics.” To some of them, the terms “fundamentalists,” “evangelicals,” and “Protestants,” all mean the same thing. Do they, in fact, all mean the same to evangelicals, as well?

I do agree that Christians should reject labeling. Thus, if Terry is rejecting application of the term “fundamentalist” to himself, with that I agree wholeheartedly. I would agree because it is a term without stable meaning and it is a term used in a pejorative sense, both of which subject it to abuse. Therefore, Terry is right to reject the term. But, Terry’s rejection of the term goes further, and suggests that there are identifiable groups of “fundamentalists” that have left some identifiable moderate path and become immoderate, or immoral or something perverted. It could be equally said of “evangelicals,” because most “labels,” even stable and substantive labels, suffer from application that is either too near or too far, too inclusive or too exclusive. Rather than engage in labeling, or just rejecting a particular label, we should reject the concept of labeling and substitute for it personal responsibility.

If any person, group or movement in the name of Christ espouses false teaching, they bear personal responsibility for that both before the Judgment Seat of Christ but in the court of ideas. In the modern world, especially with the advent of micro-publishing, personal responsibility may reach farther and faster than anyone ever dreamed.

* * * * * *

See Terry Hull’s answers to Rod’s comments and questions in “Time for a Little Q & A.“

See: “Why I Am No Longer a Christian Fundamentalist: Part 1”

See: Part 2: “Non-Fundamental Fundamentalism and Premillennial Dispensationalism”

* * * * * *

Abstinence from alcohol is a peculiar characteristic of Christian fundamentalism, but it is hardly a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Nowhere does the Bible mandate or ever even suggest teetotalism, and the call for abstinence on any Biblical grounds was unknown to the church before the last two centuries.

Abstention from alcohol may be a fine personal choice. But to manufacture a doctrine, no matter how well-intended, and proclaim it as God’s Word, is the error of the Pharisees. Jesus condemned the Pharisees, charging that “in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9). Did God somehow overlook the virtue of teetotalism? Was God insufficiently informed about the dangers of alcohol when He inspired the prophets to warn against drunkenness, but stopped short of prohibition? Is God glad for the help fundamentalists have given Him by improving upon His Word?

Jesus also indicted the Pharisees for something else fundamentalists fall into easily: focusing on outer behavior rather than inner holiness. In the verses immediately following the one quoted above, Jesus said, “Hear and understand. It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man” (Matt. 15:10-11). But fundamentalists stubbornly refuse to hear or understand that simple spiritual truth.

Teetotalism, “T-total” abstinence from alcoholic beverages, is a perfect example of “non-fundamental fundamentalism,” which I described in the second article of this series. Non-fundamental fundamentalists elevate non-essential teachings to equal importance with the fundamental doctrines of the faith. It does not require much contemplation to recognize that if the goal of Christian fundamentalism is to identify and defend the essential doctrines of Christianity, then non-fundamental fundamentalism actually works against that goal.

THE TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT
The Temperance Movement’s campaign to prohibit alcohol in the U.S. dates back to one century before the emergence of the Fundamentalist Movement, but the two movements ultimately became entwined. The Temperance Movement began in the U.S. in the late 1700s. As the name suggests, the original goal was to promote moderation and curb drunkenness. However, during the 1800s, temperance advocates shifted their aim from moderation to the complete prohibition of alcohol.

The movement finally achieved its goal in 1919 with the ratification of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed the manufacture or sale of “intoxicating” beverages. However, Prohibition was such a disaster that it was repealed after just thirteen years. During the Roaring Twenties, Prohibition led to a proliferation of speakeasys, bootleggers, organized crime and government corruption.

Prohibition was the culmination of more than a century of earnest campaigning by many groups, including the Order of Good Templars, the Christian Women’s Temperance Union, the Anti-Saloon League, and the National Prohibition Party. Although religion was only one of many motivations behind the Temperance Movement, many Protestant ministers and churches were sympathetic to the cause, and some became active proponents. One prohibitionist who was a devout Methodist even developed a way to pasteurize grape juice so church-goers could partake of the Lord’s Supper without touching alcohol (See “How Grape Juice Was Invented to Make the Lord’s Super ‘Holier’”).

FUNDAMENTALISTS JOIN THE MOVEMENT
Christian fundamentalism arose in the late 1800s and early 1900s to protect the fundamental doctrines of Christianity against liberal thinking such as higher criticism, evolution, and the social gospel. However, fundamentalists quickly expanded their vision beyond Christian doctrine to the preservation of traditional values in a society that was changing rapidly. From 1900 to 1930, the rise of phonographs, the radio, and motion pictures introduced middle America to a broad range of cultural influences. It was the era of nickelodeons, jazz music and dancing, abstract art, and flapper girls. An unprecedented wave of European immigrants to the U.S. brought further change to the cultural mix. Fundamentalists believed American culture was going downhill fast, and saw the prohibition of alcohol as one way to slow the decline.

Some of the most visible representatives of fundamentalism were also the most vocal about the evils of alcohol. The most famous example is Billy Sunday, the professional baseball player turned fire-and-brimstone preacher. Sunday celebrated the ratification of Prohibition at one of his revival meetings by staging a funeral for “John Barleycorn.” He preached:

The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.

Unfortunately, Prohibition failed to usher in the millennial kingdom as Sunday and other fundamentalist preachers had promised.

(Sunday’s famous “Booze” sermon in support of Prohibition can be found here. It is worth noting that this fundamentalist sermon contains not a single Bible reference and only two references to Christ, in the introduction and in the close. Audio recordings of Sunday’s preaching, mostly on the topic of Prohibition, can be found here.)

ANOTHER KIND OF SOCIAL GOSPEL
The fundamentalists’ campaign for prohibition was surprisingly similar to the very social gospel the fundamentalists denounced. Continue reading

Prohibition: Precepts of Men Are Not Fundamentals →

Do you like Welch’s grape juice? Did you know grape juice was “invented” by a devout Christian so church-goers could take the Lord’s Supper without touching a drop of alcohol?

A New York doctor named Thomas Welch (that’s right, the founder of Welch’s Grape Juice) was a devoted Methodist and prohibitionist. Welch was the first to apply the newly developed process of pasteurization to grape juice, so his pro-prohibition church could practice what it preached when it took communion. For the first 20 years of the company’s existence, their only customers were churches.

Jesus, of course, instituted the communion memorial during the “Last Supper” in the Upper Room, as He and His apostles celebrated the Passover meal. Although the Old Testament never specified that wine be part of the Passover observance, wine had become an integral part of the celebration long before the time of Christ. Jesus used the unleavened bread and wine there on the table to institute the Church’s holy feast. For almost all of the many centuries of church history since then, wine was used as part of the communion (Eucharist) observance. However, that all changed in the 1800s, as a result of the temperance movement that swept through the United States and around the world.

In 1862, French scientist Louis Pasteur developed pasteurization, a process to kill harmful organisms in milk. In 1869, Welch applied the pasteurization process to grape juice, discovering that it was thereby possible to prevent juice from fermenting. His product was originally called “Dr. Welch’s Unfermented Wine.” Thus the processed juice industry was born.

What was Welch’s motivation? In addition to being a doctor and dentist, Welch was a Methodist minister and a staunch prohibitionist. Welch lived in the day of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (est. 1873) and Carrie Nation, the six-foot-tall, hatchet-wielding minister’s wife who launched her crusade against saloons in the 1890s. Welch’s son, Charles Welch, said his father “invented” grape juice “out of a passion to serve God by helping his church to give its communion as the fruit of the vine instead of the cup of devils.” In other words, Welch’s grape juice made holy communion holier.

Churches were slow to give up centuries of tradition and, as at least some saw it, the instructions of the Lord Himself, by switching from wine to grape juice. In 1892, Charles Welch changed the name of the beverage to “Welch’s Grape Juice” and began promoting the drink to the general public. He made great use of advertising, including a popular magazine ad featuring a young woman saying, “The lips that touch Welch’s are all that touch mine.”

William Jennings Bryan, a famous fundamentalist preacher and politician, was Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson. Bryan drew further attention to Welch’s juice when he served it instead of fermented wine at a diplomatic function. Prohibition became the law of the land via the 18th Amendment in 1919, and by then, Welch’s juice was already a huge success.

Today many, perhaps most, Protestant churches continue to use grape juice rather than wine in their communion services. However, it has only been with the rise of fundamentalism in the 20th century that the choice between juice and wine has been turned into a full-blown doctrinal debate. Some fundamentalist churches go so far as to argue that even Jesus actually used grape juice instead of fermented wine. Other fundamentalists take the exact opposite view, contending that it is an affront to Christ and communion to substitute juice for the wine Jesus commanded that we drink. It’s a strange world.

As for me, I’m content that Jesus referred to the drink that fateful evening as “the fruit of the vine” (Luke 22:18), and think either grape juice or wine will do.

* * * * * *
To read more, see Welch’s own website, and this official Methodist site.
Here’s a well-reasoned argument for the continued use of fermented wine by a (very fundamentalist) Baptist church.