The Relation of Young-Earth Creationism to Fundamentalism

By Jacob Reinhardt | July 13, 2018

Young-Earth Creationism and Modern Fundamentalism: A Historical Study (Part 3)

Analyzing fundamentalism and its relationship to the Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) movement is necessary as both movements interact with another in the present and the future. The driving concern of Fundamentalism remains separation from apostasy and contention for the faith. The driving concern of Young-Earth Creationism is the recovery of orthodoxy in as broad a spectrum of churches as possible. By reviewing the associations that young-earth creationists have held and by considering the interactions of fundamentalists with the young-earth creationists, we can see what the relationship is at present and where it might go in the future.

Evaluating the Separatism of the Founders of Young-Earth Creationism

Dr. Morris’s life and ministry give a multi-faceted relationship with fundamentalism. Dr. Morris’s formative years spanned the final days of non-conformist and the early day of separatist fundamentalism. His early involvement was in a variety of churches. From a separatist perspective, one might question some of the church choices he made. Often, he simply made the best of a difficult situation. Like many evangelicals, he put a lot of energy into parachurch ministries such as the Gideons and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, especially when his local church was less than ideal. It is beyond the scope of this series to examine the state of these organizations during the 1940s and 1950s. However, it does seem they would have tended to be more of the non-separatist conservative approach rather than the then emerging separatist fundamental approach. Nevertheless, one detects in Morris a rejection of neo-evangelicalism and, in fact, a certain sympathy for the fundamental separatist approach.1 In the 1960s after the publishing of The Genesis Flood, Morris interestingly left the less conservative Baptist church he was a member of at that time and instead started a church that was fundamental.2 An additional noteworthy associate of Morris’s was Dr. Tim LaHaye, a partner in California in the original founding of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). LaHaye later was involved with Dr. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and the “neo-fundamentalist” movement Falwell stood for.3 This connection could explain the lack of any statement on apostasy or separation in the Christian Heritage College statement of faith.4 However, it is uncertain whether LaHaye’s positions at this time were the same as his later positions leading to involvement with Falwell. This matter notwithstanding, it is noteworthy that Morris did not seek political solutions to issues.5 Instead, his approach seemed to be one of strong proclamation of the truth. This approach is similar to the non-conformist fundamentalists who generally sought to defeat apostates by preaching them out of denominational leadership.6 In sum, it seems reasonable that Morris sought to live and minister like an early fundamentalist. Thus, he did not talk a lot about separatism, but he surely did have a sensitivity to defending the faith against those opposing the truth, especially with regard to creationism. He may also have had little desire in the early years to join with separatist fundamentalists, seeing that many still compromised with old-earth views inherited to some degree from their predecessors. Today, although fundamentalists benefit from its ministry, ICR works primarily in the conservative evangelical world.7

Ken Ham’s approach is similar to Dr. Morris, though perhaps further down the non-conformist line. (Information about Ken Ham’s background is harder to come by, and so this discussion focuses on his current practices.) The overall posture of AIG today is definitely one of friendliness towards the conservative evangelical movement. He regularly speaks well of Southern Baptist leaders,8 and also speaks in their churches. He also has spoken in Calvary Chapel churches, a moderate charismatic church movement, and spoke well of the founder of that group on his passing a few years ago.9 Admittedly, there is no strategy of infiltration like that of the neo-evangelicals of the mid-20th century, but one can detect a tone of non-separation in his now common refrain that he wants to bring a “new reformation in our church.”10 These points are part of what makes the decision by some fundamentalist ministries to welcome him to their institutions significant.11 Ken Ham’s impact and influence parallels the role William Jennings Bryan played in the early 20th century. Like Ham, Bryan was not quite of the same mind as other fundamentalists in his time.12 Bryan’s popularity seems to be the result of his ability to speak and strong defense of the faith in a key area when sorely needed. This is much like Ken Ham. This parallel should be cause for fundamentalists to pause and reflect on what lessons, either good or bad, may derive from considering this historical antecedent.

Dr. Whitcomb is the most fundamentalist figure of the three key founders of YEC. His school was a bastion of fundamentalism during much of the separatist fundamentalist era. It is also noteworthy that he taught a class on Biblical fundamentalism, and critiqued the neo-evangelical movement in his syllabus for that class.13 His approach to “second-degree separation” may differ from other separatists, given his association with Henry Morris. One could say Dr. Whitcomb’s views represent a moderate separatist fundamental perspective. His relationship with both YEC and fundamentalism continues to the present, as evidenced in 2016 by his presence both at Ken Ham’s opening of the Ark Encounter as well as at the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship’s annual meeting that same year. Dr. Whitcomb serves as a vital link between the less separatist fundamentalism of Morris and Ken Ham and the typical separatist fundamentalism. The real question for fundamentalists is whether they compromise separatist convictions by involvement in YEC. Can fundamentalists have fellowship with YEC ministries and still maintain Biblical separatism?

The Future for Fundamentalist Association with Young-Earth Creationism

As I consider the history, I conclude that the YEC movement represents a step back to a non-conformist fundamentalism of the decades up to 1930. The movement is not against separatism, but separatism is not its emphasis. Thus, for the YEC movement, there is more latitude to work with non-separatist or even anti-separatist groups. However, YEC does not subscribe to the neo-evangelical strategy of infiltration. While we can’t see the future for fundamentalism and YEC, we can note some warnings and opportunities in conclusion to this series.

Separatist fundamentalists can find YEC’s non-conformist practice challenging. Churches and ministries must be very careful in thinking through their doctrine of separation and the flip-side doctrine of fellowship.14 Three are key areas of consideration. First, there is the impact of citing and using resources in ministry settings. The popularity and accessibility of digital formats of the teachings of YEC make their materials more easily available than ever. Members and non-leaders of fundamental ministries and churches may draw heavily from these materials, even if there is no formal relationship ecclesiastically. This can be a good thing, but it may merit some teaching by local church leadership concerning the views of YEC ministries. Second, there is the very real question of having a YEC speaker come to a fundamental ministry. Some allow such speakers, drawing distinctions between different types of ministries and appreciating the strong stand for creationist orthodoxy. Nevertheless, warnings sounded by separatist Dr. Ernest Pickering of a generation ago regarding opening one’s platform to non-separatist speakers merit consideration.15 Finally, the question of whether to stand with young-earth creationists in a formal associational way or some kind of informal way also requires consideration.

These warnings could also represent an opportunity. Fundamentalists can and should seek to work with anyone they can in the cause of defending the truth, and the question is whether such cooperation can occur without compromising a Biblical theology of fellowship and separation. While every ministry must practice its beliefs in accord with conscience, Pickering’s counsel seems appropriate for all fundamentalists regarding the YEC question. With reference to decisions about separation, he said, “[Fundamentalists] must seek to be consistent … must allow for inconsistency … [and] must allow for honest differences.”16

Summary

The young-earth creation movement may have arisen during the separatist fundamentalist era, but the movement exhibits overall a non-conformist fundamentalist strategy.17 Early fundamentalism did have a problem with regard to the significance of the prevailing old-earth position. YEC has provided much-needed defense needed to restore this issue to a Biblical viewpoint in fundamentalism. However, fundamentalists also should carefully consider the impact of having formal relationships with the ICR and AIG ministries. We must develop a biblical viewpoint of separation and fellowship to ensure that we make Biblical decisions about the matter. Not all will reach the same conclusions; we should allow for difference in opinion without leading to separation. In the end, if all fundamentalists do is study the writings and materials of young-earth creationists, then they are likely to do well. Thanks be to God for the message of YEC and its impact on fundamentalism!

See Part One here, and Part Two here.

 

Jacob Reinhardt is an IT engineer and a M.Div. student at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. He blogs at Biblical Worldview Musings and he is a member of the First Baptist Church of West Seneca, New York, a suburb of Buffalo.

Check out our Resources page for recommended books and other materials helpful for your ministry.

  1. Unless otherwise indicated, information about Dr. Morris is from. Rebecca Morris Barber, Henry M. Morris: The Father of Modern Creationism, (Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2017). On this point, see 122. The source cited in the book is an unpublished manuscript by Dr. Morris written in 1997, titled “Contending for the Faith.” This is a crucial point to recognize regarding Morris’s posture toward these issues, regardless of how one may understand his decisions regarding associations. [↩]
  2. Barber, 169-170. [↩]
  3. Rolland D. McCune, Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism, (Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2004), 245. [↩]
  4. Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1994), 417-421. [↩]
  5. Barber, 189-190. [↩]
  6. David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 7-8. [↩]
  7. As an example, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., a conservative evangelical, gave the keynote address for ICR’s 40th anniversary celebration in 2010, see “Maker of Heaven and Earth: Why Creation is a Gospel Issue,” DVD (Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2010). [↩]
  8. Such names observed by the present author include previously mentioned Dr. Mohler, Johnny Hunt, and others. [↩]
  9. Ken Ham, “Jesus Movement Founder, Prominent Bible Teacher, and Defender of Genesis Now with the Lord,” Ken Ham’s Blog, accessed September 9, 2017, https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ministry/jesus-movement-founder-prominent-bible-teacher-and-defender-of-genesis-now-with-the-lord/. [↩]
  10. We can take this phrase, common enough in Ken Ham’s writings and speaking over the last decade at least, to mean that he wants to overthrow the compromisers, but doesn’t recognize an explicit separatist strategy. [↩]
  11. It seems unlikely that fifty years ago Bob Jones University would’ve welcomed him, given its then president’s position on secondary separation, see Bob Jones, Scriptural Separation: “First and Second Degree,” (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1971). [↩]
  12. Priest, “William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes Trial: A Fundamentalist Perspective,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 4, (Fall 1999): 68-69n72, accessed September 2, 2017, http://archive.dbts.edu/journals/1999/Priest.pdf, 60-61. [↩]
  13. John C. Whitcomb, Biblical Fundamentalism: An Historical Syllabus from Grace Theological Seminary by Dr. John C. Whitcomb Ca 1980 (Winona Lake: Morgan Library of Grace College, 2008), available through his own ministry Whitcomb Ministries, Inc. [↩]
  14. The two doctrines may be viewed in contrast to each other, see Larry R. Oats, “A Theology of Fellowship,” Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 4, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 3, accessed September 9, 2017, https://www.mbu.edu/seminary/journal/a-theology-of-fellowship/. [↩]
  15. See Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1979), 228-229. [↩]
  16. Pickering, 234. [↩]
  17. Note: Dr. Whitcomb represents a stronger separatist viewpoint. [↩]
Posted in Blog and tagged ,