The Ever-Changing Definition of a Fundamentalist

Our mouths are moving. Our tongues are wagging. The words coming out of our mouths sound familiar to each of us, but we do not seem to be communicating. Part of the problem is that we have the same vocabulary, but different dictionaries.

Curtis Lee Laws is credited with coining the term fundamentalist in the Watchman Examiner in 1921. His earliest definition of the term was one who “clings to the great fundamentals and mean[s] to do battle royal for the fundamentals.” It’s a simple definition, but it seemed to suffice at the time. For the most part, it still does.

However, the definition of the term seems to be morphing over time. The New Evangelicals of the 1940s through 1960’s abandoned fundamentalism as defined by Laws because, while they held the fundamentals, they did so loosely and without a willingness to battle for them.

Those who would claim fundamentalism today argue, and rightly so, that within that definition is an intrinsic requirement to practice biblical separation. After all, battling for the fundamentals requires doing so biblically, and separation is clearly a biblical requirement when contending with sinful error.

But we need to be clear, being a fundamentalist is not really the goal. Our objective is to be obediently biblical—fundamentalism was simply the tag our forbears attached to that pursuit.

It was originally a term that was intended to be inclusive as well as exclusive. It did not contemplate all of the denominational divisions that did and still exist—church government, views on baptism and the Lord’s table, etc. The idea of fundamentalism did not dismiss these distinctions as unimportant, just within the realm of genuine Christianity—within the realm of the real gospel.

Over the last 30 years or so, it has been increasingly more difficult to determine who is “in” and “out” of fundamentalism. The idea of fundamentalism is noble, essential, and essential to preserve since it represents an effort to be truly obedient New Testament Christians. Our difficulty is how to deal with the new issues not contemplated by orthodox leaders a century ago.

For the most part, fundamentalism was a theological movement, not a spiritual movement. This is an important distinction. While there is nothing wrong with a theological movement, its adherents can increasingly become confined to seminary classrooms (or internet message boards) and not connect the realities of their theology to life. It can become a dead or at least a belligerent orthodoxy. It can also so narrowly define itself it becomes incapable of addressing novel challenges.

Fundamentalism was not a moral movement. It did not have a clearly defined set of moral life standards. While many believe that early fundamentalism did have a cultural element, there were clearly distinctions based upon regional expectations. Having grown up early in the GARBC world (northern fundamentalism) and then later in a more southern brand of fundamentalism, it is clear that expectations regarding dress and other standards varied by region.

From the 1960s until the present, our culture has been in free-fall. The destruction of the home, marriage, sexual morality, gender, substance abuse, and popular culture, in general, has placed challenges before fundamentalists that leaders a century earlier did not anticipate.

So here is our dilemma. The term fundamentalist was intended to define not only the extent of essential Christianity but also the willingness to defend it. If so, can there be such a thing as an immoral but essential Christianity? Can one who approves of fornication, adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, or another of a host of present social constructs be considered within the fences of essential Christianity?

We must go to the Bible for that answer. While it might be possible for one involved in such sins to be saved, Paul’s instruction to the Corinthian (1 Corinthians 5:7-13) church is that they must not be recognized by the church as if they are true believers. While the essential battles of the early fundamentalists were not focused on moral issues, the precepts of biblical fundamentalism do have moral requirements.

And there are other important issues that were not included among the fundamentals of the first generation– Egalitarianism (specifically the role of women in ministry), tongues-speaking and the gifts of the spirit, health and wealth gospel, worship styles, local church ministry philosophy.

Because of this, we constantly try to change the definition of a fundamentalist and those new definitions often vary widely. We add these issues to the definition and often impose denominational distinctions as well as cultural choices. Is it right for us to change the definition of fundamentalist or is it better to just admit that the term fundamentalist does not encompass all that is important, even essential, to obedient biblical Christianity?  There is more to the gospel than just the definition of the gospel.

Our big problem is that we have used the fundamentals to paint ourselves into a corner. I would contend that while separation over the fundamentals is biblical and necessary, the fundamental doctrines of the faith are not the ONLY legitimate reasons for separation and whether a person (or church or institution) is fundamentalist or not must not be the only consideration in view.

Dead fundamentalism and worldly fundamentalism are equally disastrous. While our definitions of “worldliness” might vary, the pursuit of worldliness is something that we must flee. Dead orthodoxy is also infectious and, well, deadly. Fundamentalism must also be evangelistic, Spirit-filled, reverent, holy, and victorious or it is nearly pointless. In fact, dead fundamentalism often does more harm than good.

Fundamentalism is a noble and useful term, and we must stand for it, but we cannot forget that we must pursue more, or we still lose.  This is a work in progress.  May God help us.