Post Series

0—Intro
1—Fundamentalism (Kevin Bauder)
2—Confessional Evangelicalism (Al Mohler)
3—Generic Evangelicalism (John Stackhouse)
4—Postconservative Evangelicalism (Roger Olson)
5—Conclusion and Reflection

We’re at the front end of our walk through Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, which I received from Zondervan to review. I was excited for this book and excited to read through it because, as I said in the first post, “There is this sense nowadays, at least from my estimation, that the term evangelical means little to nothing because it means so much. Contemporary expressions of evangelicalism seem to be moving in several directions all at once.”

So today we begin at the farthest right on the evangelical spectrum: fundamentalism. And this chapter was close to home as I grew up in an IFCA church in Grand Rapids, which used to stand for Independent Fundamental Churches of America, or as it’s affectionately been know: I Fight Christians Anywhere. That last moniker isn’t too far off the map, either, especially in light of Bauder’s description of fundamentalism, which he describes as being primarily motivated for “the unity and fellowship of the Church” as centered around the gospel. (21)

Bauder says fundamentalism begins with this question: “What unites Christians? What do Christians hold in common? Since Christian unity and fellowship may be greater or less, this question has both a minimal and a maximal answer. At the minimal level, some criterion must exist for differentiating Christians from other people. Otherwise, all humans would be recognized as Christians. What is that criterion?” (21) At this point I am basically with Bauder, especially considering the confusion that exists within the Church nowadays with not only what is simply evangelical, but what is even Christian.

Bauder then points us toward Eph 4:4-6, in which Paul names seven factors that unite Christians—one body, Spirit, hope, Lord, faith, baptism, and God and Father—and “clearly these uniting factors pertain only to people who have received the gospel. The gospel is pivotal to Christian unity.” (22) Again, so far so good.

So as Bauder argues, “The thing that is held in common by all Christians is the gospel itself. Belief in the gospel is how people follow Jesus. Belief in the gospel is how people are Spirit-baptized into the one body. Consequently, the gospel is the essential ground of all genuinely Christian unity. Where the gospel is denied, no such unity exists. Even the most minimal Christian unity depends on common belief in the gospel.” (23) Furthermore, and here’s the kicker for fundamentalism, “Possession of faith int he gospel determines who really is a Christian. Profession of faith in the gospel determines who should be reckoned as a Christian. Profession of the gospel is the minimum requirement for visible Christian fellowship. The gospel is the boundary of Christian fellowship. The gospel defines fellowship.” (25)

But what is the gospel? Bauder seems to center it in the content of 1 Cor 15, much like a recent book by Scot McKnight on the subject. As Bauder says, “In Paul’s articulation, the gospel revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is news about specific events. Christ died. Christ arose. These are the decisive events of the gospel.” (26) But then he does something different that I’m not entirely comfortable with: “The gospel begins with events, but the events are not presented as brute facts. They are interpreted. The gospel discloses the meaning of the events, and that meaning explains why the good news is good. These explanations are doctrinal in nature. Therefore the gospel has an irreducibly doctrinal component. The gospel is not only events; it is also doctrines.” Then he says, “The gospel is always doctrine.” (29)

Any reaction to this statement: The gospel is always doctrine?

Because the gospel is doctrinal and functions as a boundary of Christian fellowship, the boundaries of Christian fellowship also include doctrines. (29) Chief among those boundaries are the creeds. Bauder does a nice job on this point of distancing what he terms mainstream fundamentalism from hyper-fundamentalism, which “adopt a militant stance regarding some extra biblical or even anti biblical teaching,” like insisting the King James Bible is the only acceptable English Bible or dispensationalism is the only eschatological view a Christian can hold. (43-44) Instead, what Bauder and other mainstream fundamentalists want to insist is that “the thing that Christians hold in common and that unites them, minimally, is the gospel itself,” (31) which leads to the secondary motivation: separatism.

As Bauder puts it, “The gospel is the ground of all Christian unity and fellowship. Christian recognition ought to be extended to all those, but only those, who profess the true gospel.” (38) And this excludes Roman Catholics. For Bauder, “The Roman gospel is false. Catholicism represents an apostate, rather than a Christian, system of religion. Christians cannot rightly extend Christian recognition or fellowship to those who endorse and proclaim the Roman Catholic gospel.” (32) And by his estimation, attempts by mainstream evangelicals in recent decades to partner with the Catholic church is anathema since they do no adhere to “the gospel.”

Any reaction to this second statement: “Fundamentalists believe that separation from apostates is essential to the integrity of the gospel.” (40) Is there a place for separation even in the Church?

In the end there were things I appreciated about the fundamentalist critique and some that went too far for me. To be honest I actually appreciate the perspective that moves the conversation about the gospel beyond it being simply about the proclamation of the story of Jesus, as McKnight seems to suggest. Now don’t get me wrong. I believe for too long the gospel has been much more about the dispensation of doctrinal positions at the expense of the broad Story of God’s rescue told from Genesis through Revelation. But it seems that story and doctrine go together to define the gospel, rather than existing as dichotomies from conservatives or liberals.

I also appreciated what John Stackhouse commented is a core value of fundamentalists: clarity—clarity about what the gospel says and doesn’t say, clarity about what the church is and isn’t, clarity about what we ought to do and ought not to do, clarity about who is in and who is out. I think evangelicalism needs a healthy dose of clarity. And I also happen to believe clarity is possible, because of God’s revelation and the testimony of the historic Church.

I stand with Bauder (and others) in saying there is a point at which the conversation is no longer Christian, as I believe is the case with the Emergent conversation and broader Protestant liberal one. But it seems like the separatism and bordering of Bauder’s mainstream fundamentalism is quite narrowing.

Where I don’t stand with Bauder and fundamentalism is the seemingly extreme valuing of separatism that is embedded in the fundamentalism ethos, especially regarding Roman Catholics. And this is something I get because I used to share this extreme sentiment, thinking there was no way a Catholic could be a Christian. But then I became friends with Catholics and even a Catholic priest and heard about their own belief in Jesus for salvation, forgiveness of sins, and personal relationship with God through Jesus. This position of separatism and bordering out regarding Catholics is also confusing when it comes to the boundaries that Bauder and his party themselves have defined: the gospel. I stand with Olson’s critique in agreeing Catholicism teaches false doctrines and rejects true doctrines, but insist these doctrinal aberrations don’t warrant disassociation or declarations they’re apostate. (65) While I agree clarity is needed within the Church regarding first-order doctrines (more on that with Mohler’s definition), fundamentalism tends to narrow that first-order to a degree that’s more exclusive than the gospel itself warrants.

In the end, I appreciated Bauder’s clear explanation and defense of fundamentalism, and the responses from Mohler, Stackhouse, and Olson that provide some needed pushback. And while I appreciate the clarity and unity fundamentalism brings regarding the gospel, their posture and narrowness is beyond me.

Next post: Confessional Evangelicalism, brought to us by Al Mohler.