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.“