The Need for Healthy Fundamentalism

I recently read an article by Roger Olson, American Evangelical Christianity: A Failed Movement? Olson says that he “grew up in the ‘thick’ of American evangelical Christianity.” Olson has written much about evangelical Christianity, and recently wrote this post on patheos.com.

Needless to say, that is an intriguing title, and the article is a helpful glimpse into what Olson views as a healthier version of American Evangelical Christianity. You can read the article yourself, but I want to highlight the three primary “symptoms of this failure” as he calls them, then what he reminisces about from his younger years in evangelicalism. I will conclude with some things that may be helpful for us as fundamentalists to learn from his thoughts.

First, what are the symptoms of the failure of American Evangelical Christianity, as Olson describes them?

One, “There is no longer a center of the movement.” He points out that the human center of the movement was Billy Graham for many years. Now, however, there is no one figure-head, only a variety of well-known men, of whom “many…cannot or will not even talk to each other anymore.”

Two, “The movement has been hijacked by far right-wing American nationalists and they have turned it into something it never was.” He does not further elaborate, but I surmise that this would include a Christianity that is more politically or even morally oriented than it is theologically oriented.

Three, “American folk religion has risen up within the movement and pushed aside anything serious and profound about it – theologically, liturgically, doctrinally, homiletically, lifestyle-wise, etc. There is almost nothing distinctive about being ‘evangelical’ in America today except being pro-American in a religious way and being against things like abortion and homosexuality.” He is essentially saying that the serious nature of worship and theology has been pushed aside and replaced with folksy (and I would add pop-culture) versions that are more casual, “chill,” and less robust in nature. In other words, it has been dumbed down in some way, in his view.

So, what does he say was different about American Evangelicalism in his younger years? I will summarize these as follows:

One, sermons were more convicting then than they are now.

Two, Christians were taught the importance of evangelism and the possibility of persecution for the faith.

Three, Christians were expected to live differently than the world.

Four, biblical marriage was upheld, and marital infidelity was confronted.

Five, missions was more important.

Six, Christians were taught the value of self-sacrifice for Christ.

Seven, worldliness was warned against.

Eight, family devotions were a regular occurrence in the home.

Of specific interest is his analysis that there are still hold-outs to these things, “…mostly fundamentalist churches that still preach and live much the same as always. Mostly they are the fanatical ‘King James Only’ crowd.”

Now, let me offer a quick response as a younger fundamentalist.

One, Olson says he thinks the changes started in the 1980s, when the distinctives began to dwindle. I would say that it probably started long before that, even 100 years or longer. The revivalistic era began to knock down the sturdy walls of a theologically robust corporate worship of God, and this only increased over time. My thought is that with the advent of things like radio, then TV, then the onslaught of the rock music scene in the 1950s and 1960s, the slide quickly escalated.

Two, Olson is correct in saying that many of the things he fondly remembers are still the practice in fundamentalism today. It is true that modern fundamentalism is a fragmented group, but there are many like me who are seeking to maintain a healthy “brand” of fundamentalism. We are seeking to elevate our corporate worship to be more theologically robust, less emotionally/experientially driven, and even more purposeful in nature. We are seeking to encourage and teach our congregations to be greatly concerned about evangelism/discipleship, while pulling away from the false dichotomist position that those two concepts are mutually exclusive. We are encouraging evangelistic relationships with the lost, building those relationships, and seeking to faithfully win the lost to Christ and see them grow in Christ. We are challenging our people to live distinctly Christian lives as Scripture teaches in places like Romans 12:1-2, 1 Peter 1:13-16, and elsewhere. I could go on.

Three, this leads me to respond to his whole article in this way. I want to encourage fundamentalist church leaders to seek a healthy church life in our churches. What Olson has described in basically mainstream evangelicalism can happen in our churches too – and probably already is occurring. We must elevate a thoroughly biblical view of the gospel, rather than a political/moral gospel. We must elevate historic forms and elements of corporate worship – including our hymnody – teaching the next generation the value of such. We must elevate and cultivate biblical marriage, and confront the marital cancers that exist.

There are some who may say that fundamentalism is a failed movement. I do not believe so. But I do believe that pastors must learn the lessons of the past, and even from others in mainstream evangelicalism who are noting their own problems. We are not immune to these things. We must take heed ourselves, lest we fall into the same errors. We must seek to build biblically healthy ministries, and I believe that this best takes place in the context of historic fundamentalism.

May God help us to stay true to His truth, His gospel, His cause, and His glory.

---

Taigen Joos is the pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Dover, NH.