Why I Am Not a Fundamentalist

Why I Am Not a Fundamentalist August 12, 2013

A Review of Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism by George M. Marsden

I am a fundamentalist. I believe in the “five fundamentals” that originally defined the term: the divine inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the atoning work of Jesus’ death on the cross, Jesus’ bodily resurrection, and the historicity of Christ’s miracles. These five beliefs were spotlighted by The Fundamentals, a series of books published starting in 1910 about the core doctrines of Christianity from which the word “fundamentalist” was coined.

But I am not a fundamentalist—not in the sense that most people use that term. The “five fundamentals” are actually a pretty bad summary of the Christian faith. I’ll take the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed, plus the Reformation “solas,” over the fundamentals any day. The “five fundamentals” omit, for example, the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, which are sort of important.

More importantly, other meanings have accreted to the term “fundamentalism” in the century since it was first coined, most of which for the worse. 


To understand these additional meanings, it helps to know something of the history of the movement. George Marsden, one of the foremost historians of American religion, covers this ground in his book Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (1991). He reviews the history in a couple of chapters that occupy almost the first half of his book, then addresses fundamentalists’ attitudes towards politics and science in a pair of essays each.

Fundamentalism was one wing that emerged from the fracturing of the broader evangelical movement of the 19th century. The broader movement arose from the Second Great Awakening of the 1830s. The Second Great Awakening was in large part responsible for the Christianization of American culture and the moral crusades of the era, including abolitionism, prohibition, and, to some extent, women’s suffrage. American Protestants in this era were theologically traditional and politically engaged.

Urbanization, the Civil War, immigration, and new intellectual movements confronted the Evangelical establishment with insurmountable cultural challenges. “Higher criticism” seemed to challenge the inspiration of the Bible. Evolutionary theories seemed to challenge its accuracy. Science, generally, seemed to make supernatural explanations of the world unnecessary and quaint.

The evangelical movement split: one wing of Christians abandoned traditionalism in favor of theological liberalism. They jettisoned belief in supernaturalism, miracles, or even Christ’s divinity. They tried to reduce Christianity to a core of admirable moral maxims—and abandoned any semblance of historic Christianity in the process.

The other wing became the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists came from 19th century American protestants who correctly saw that theological liberalism was heresy, but who overreacted in the opposite direction by making every tenant of cultural and theological conservatism an unquestionable test of faith.


Two doctrines in particular have come to define fundamentalism, and explain why I am not a fundamentalist.

First, fundamentalism means a belief in seven literal days of creation, and it means believing that Charles Darwin’s scientific theory of biological evolution by natural selection is fundamentally anti-Christian.

The interesting thing that Marsden helpfully highlights is that most American evangelicals from the 1860s through the end of the century—including theological conservatives—did not immediately reject Darwinism as necessarily incompatible with the Bible’s inspiration and authority. In fact, many Christians had already come to an “old earth” view because of the much earth’s apparently old geological age, which scientists had described long before Darwin arrived.

They reconciled these scientific theories with the Bible through the commonsensical and, I think, correct solution of understanding Genesis 1 primarily to be about God’s sovereignty and power, the goodness of creation, and mankind’s privileged place within it. It was not meant to describe literally how God created, but what he created and why. Obviously an omnipotent God could create in seven literal days if he wanted: the argument is not about God’s nature or power, but about the relationship between scientific observation, which plainly suggests an old earth, and how to interpret Scripture.

Seven-day creationists proudly insist they are simply reading the “plain meaning” of Genesis 1, and accuse their opponents of not submitting to the authority of Scripture. That strikes me as disingenuous. Fundamentalists and evangelicals read the same Bible and hold to the same doctrine of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. The disagreement is over hermeneutics (how to interpret Scripture) not over doctrine (what Scripture actually is). Marsden unfortunately does not go into great depth here, which would have been beneficial. My own response is that fundamentalists should be charitable enough to acknowledge that evangelicals do submit to the authority of the Scripture—we just disagree with them about what Scripture authoritatively requires us to believe—and that fundamentalists should engage more critically with evangelical hermeneutics.


The other issue that has come to define fundamentalism is its adherence to dispensationalism and preoccupation with end-times prophecy. Marsden correctly argues that fundamentalists have come to adopt a frankly novel framework for understanding the relationship between Israel and the Church (I do not mean “novel” as a compliment). For most of Christian history theologians have understood God’s promises to Israel to apply to God’s people generally (i.e., to Christians) and those promises should be interpreted figuratively (e.g., God’s promise of a Promised Land is ultimately fulfilled by the new creation of Revelation 21, not by a specific piece of real estate in the Middle East). As a result, Christians traditionally did not look for signs of the end of the world in the political ups and downs of southwest Asia.

John Nelson Darby in the 19th century and C.I. Scofield in the 20th argued the opposite: God’s promises to Israel should be understood literally and, thus, they apply to contemporary Jews around the world today and preeminently in the nation-state of Israel. In their view, Israel’s establishment in 1948 was a fulfillment of God’s promise to give that piece of land to the Jews forever. Jesus will return and reign over an earthly kingdom for one thousand years with his capital in the city of Jerusalem. This interpretive framework has spawned hundreds of volumes of speculative end-times prophetic interpretation and a regular torrent of really bad analysis of mid-east geopolitics. Because God promised Abraham in Genesis 12:3 that “I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse,” support for Israel comprises a major element of fundamentalist sub-culture and, it should be said, Republican politics.

Dispensationalism is a good example of what happens when you let your dedication to the “literal” meaning of Scripture override good hermeneutics and common sense. If you read God’s promises to Abraham and think “Scripture must be literally true … God promised the land to Abraham’s descendants … the Jews are his descendants … therefore God promised the land to the Jews forever,” then you’re missing the point of God’s redemptive plan for humanity.

Romans 9:8 makes clear that Abraham’s descendants are those who have faith in God, not those of a certain physical lineage. God’s salvation isn’t really good real estate, as if his redemptive plan culminated in home ownership for all. God’s salvation is deliverance from sin, death, and this corrupt creation, which he will ultimately accomplish by putting us in a new heaven and a new earth. The danger of dispensationalism is that it implies God has two salvation plans—one for Jews and one for Christians—with two simultaneous covenants and two different forms of salvation. At its extreme, this view essentially argues that Judaism and Christianity are both true and complete means of relating to God—which any Christian should recognize is at odds with Jesus’ claim that he is the way, the truth, and the life.


Fundamentalist represents a good and true response to theological liberalism. Theological liberalism is heresy; given the choice, I’d choose fundamentalism any day. Fundamentalists preach a divine Christ, a real atonement, and an actual salvation. I am proud to call fundamentalists my brothers and sisters in the faith.

But fundamentalism also represents a phenomenon we’ve highlighted here on Schaeffer’s Ghost a few times: a form of Christianity shaped without the full use of all the gifts God intended for the edification of the church. Fundamentalism has too often taken its anti-intellectualism as a badge of pride and its distrust of learning as evidence of wisdom.  As a result, fundamentalism continues to hold to quixotic and unnecessarily strained interpretations of Scripture on matters of secondary importance. That is why I am not a fundamentalist.


"The movie is more Calvinist propaganda than Christian apologetics. There are two dozen Calvinist teachers ..."

Confronting the American Gospel
"I... what? I mean, thanks for reading, I suppose. But I don't know that I ..."

This is not our city
"Simply sad for you and all souls who remain bound in the chains of "strong ..."

This is not our city
"Oh I don't know, "it's still illegal but not penalized" would seem to mean that ..."

“The Most Dangerous Branch” catches up ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • 013090

    “Fundamentalism has too often taken its anti-intellectualism as a badge of pride and its distrust of learning as evidence of wisdom. ”
    So very true! Well stated.

  • Jan Hartma

    I agree. There are not now two covenants in force- as in one covenant for Jews and one for Christians. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant because the Old Covenant was fulfilled/finished by Jesus’ birth, his life, and his death on the cross.

    “Therefore he [Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that
    those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since
    a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under
    the first covenant.” Hebrews 9:15

    “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” Hebrews 8:13

    The Church is the new Israel/New Jerusalem: “There is neither Jew nor
    Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor
    female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

  • FA Miniter

    Suggested reading: Harold Bloom, The American Religion.

    • cneal

      Agreed- Bloom’s book, while dry and repetitive, is the best survey of the American religious mentality I’ve read.

  • frjohnmorris

    Have these dispenationalists ever asked themselves why if what they believe is true, did God wait until the late 19 century to reveal the true meaning of the Scriptures to His people? Dispensationalism goes against almost 2,000 years of Christian theology and Biblical interpretation.

  • Jeffrey A Jones

    You don’t have to be an ignoramus to believe the earth was RECREATED in 7 days. The earth is as old as you want it to be. Genesis 1:1 it BECAME confusion and chaos (God is not the author of confusion) Isaiah explains how it lost the original glory the angles sang about at its original creation; The commandments are still in force including the 4th (that day was part of creation – pretty important to God. I have an 11 page Word document, singe spaced with quotes from writers of every Christian religion that exists admitting the 7th day is the Sabbath, and was never changed); Christ is the God of the Old Testament – whatever he said then he supports in the New; Christ was not born at the pagan winter solstice; there is no such thing as a Godly trinity, easily proved and I also have a bunch of protestant quotes admitting that; Christ was crucified and buried on Tuesday evening, resurrected on Saturday evening just before sundown, easily proved by any grammar school student assigned to read the Gospels and report on its story; evolution is easily disproved with basic physics and spontaneous generation of life is a ludicrous concept if you subscribe to physics and mathematics.
    Little known and less cared about facts.

  • Grotoff

    I understand why Christians define Christ’s death as an atoning work for theological reasons. It resonates with the ancient Hebrew’s barbaric practice of animal sacrifice and dubious attitude that blood cleanses sin. But I don’t understand it logically.

    Say I took out a large mortgage that I was unable to pay back. We’ll have two scenarios that resolve my predicament. (1) I have a rich friend who gives me the money to pay back the bank. Now my debt is clear. (2) I have influence at the bank; the chief manager decides to forgive my debt. My debt has once again been cleared. In the first case, I could say that my friend sacrificed for my debt. He made me right with the bank. But I wouldn’t say that the bank forgave my debt. They got their money. In the second case, I would say that the bank forgave the debt. It was outstanding and there was no chance of it being paid back, so the manager just decided to forgive.

    So here is the conundrum. (1) Christ’s work on the cross was an atonement for sin, and thus God does not need to “forgive” anyone. He’s been paid in full. Or (2) God forgives the debt and Christ’s death is merely a symbol or something.

    It’s an either/or proposition. God can’t have both been paid in full AND forgive.

    • FA Miniter

      The bigger problem is that it is forgiveness without forgiveness, because you can still end up damned anyways. So the debt is both paid and unpaid.

  • Paul

    It’s a good thing that a part of the Church supports Israel, the Jewish people. For two thousand years the Church has abused, and that is putting it mildly, the Jewish people. We forget Jesus’ word that “Salvation is from the Jews” (him) and that “the Gospel is for the Jew first and also the Greek” (gentile) Your article raises a question: Does God ever break his part of a Covenant? I would say no.

  • Mark McDaniel

    I have several responses to this piece. The first issue to address is to the following quote: “The “five fundamentals” omit, for example, the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, which are sort of important.” In fact, Volume II deals directly with these issues. Chapter X specifically addresses “The Deity of Christ;” Chpater IX addresses the Trinity in its article “God in Christ the Only Revelation of the Fatherhood of God” and Chapter Chapter XV “The Deity of Holy Spirit.” There would be no doubt that the Creeds are important responses to heresy in their time, just as The Fundamentals were in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In fact, the existence of the Creeds did little to stem the tsunami of liberalism that sought to deconstruct all Christian Orthodoxy. Fundamentalism, in a sense, “saved” Christianity from falling off the cliff as liberalism had taken over every mainline denominational seminary. The Fundamentals provide a very important foundation to “conservative” Christianity today and should be appreciated for its contributions. Evangelicalism would not exist without fundamentalism. In the early 1900s every fundamentalist was an evangelical and every evangelical was a fundamentalist. That is not the case today. I will continue to deal with the other issues throughout this piece in subsequent posts.