Fundamentalists and Evangelicals

As I mentioned in a previous post, some men who have grown up in and/or are ministering in Fundamentalism are expressing discontent with it. Much of this discontent centers on the doctrine and application of separation.

First, most would admit the Bible teaches separation from unbelievers. Scripture is clear that believers ought not partner with unbelievers for spiritual work. Therefore, Bible-believing churches should not work together with apostate liberal churches in spiritual endeavor. There is little debate over this point.

However, there is heated debate over "secondary separation"; that is, whether believers should break fellowship with those who fail to separate with unbelievers. While most would agree that a local church should discipline disobedient members, there is great disagreement over how a "disobedient brother" outside one's local fellowship should be treated.

Historically speaking, ecclesiastical separation is what makes a fundamentalist. The difference that marked the early Fundamentalists (1915-1940) was separation from the apostate mainline denominations. In those days, the terms fundamentalist and evangelical were synonymous. Those who held their belief in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible left the denominations that denied the resurrection, miracles, inspiration, and the atonement of Christ. These men who held to the Gospel (the evangel) were known as Evangelicals. There was not a distinction.

However, a new movement arose within Fundamentalism that grew weary of its separatism, its lack of social involvement, and emphasis on dispensationalism. These men, spearheaded by Harold Ockenga, formed the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. They called themselves the "new evangelicals" (as opposed to the "old evangelicals," the fundamentalists). They still believed the Bible and preached the Gospel (the evangel), but they repudiated ecclesiastical separation and hoped to regain the respect of the intellectual community through their scholarship.

Historically speaking then, ecclesiastical separation is what makes the difference between what we know today as Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. Although some have claimed that there is no historical warrant for secondary separation (separation from disobedient brothers), this is an anachronism. There was no need for separation from brothers when all Fundamentalists/Evangelicals were in agreement on separation from unbelievers. However, when Evangelicals broke away, repudiating separatism, there was a break in fellowship.

Looking back, it may seem that Ockenga and the Fuller group were unintentional and unfairly persecuted for their choices. However, an excellent book by George Marsden (an evangelical himself), Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, demonstrates otherwise. Using primary sources, Marsden demonstrates that Ockenga and Fuller made an intentional break with Fundamentalism.

With these threats to the seminary’s influence explicitly in mind Ockenga attempted to pour oil on the waters. To do so, however, meant fueling a blaze on the seminary’s right. Not surprisingly, then, what he said on this subject in his convocation address, almost as an aside, was remembered far longer than what he said about transforming the culture of the West. The seminary, he announced, would be “ecclesiastically positive.” Although it would be free and interdenominational, “we do not believe and we repudiate the ‘come-out-ism’ movement.” Here was a direct attack on the McIntire camp in its insistence that separatism was basic to fundamentalism. “Come out from among them, and be ye separate” was the Bible passage endlessly repeated by Carl McIntire. Ockenga, however, had clearly decided it was better to let that small band of fundamentalist separatists flail away at them than to risk entering a conflict with the left that might cut the seminary off from wider influences. He was ready to move to Congregationalism rather than fight with Presbyterians. In his convocation address he threw down the gauntlet with an unmistakable reference to his onetime friend. “Now there are those who exist in the world simply it seems to attack others, and to derogate others, and to drag them down, and to besmirch them. Our men will have no time for that kind of negativism” (Reforming Fundamentalism, pp. 64-65, emphasis mine).

Complaints about Fundamentalism's separatism are nothing new (as Chris Anderson has said, "Déjà Vu"). Fundamentalism was not an offshoot of Evangelicalism, but it was the latter attempting to bridge the gap between the former and liberalism. The thinking that a Fundamentalist is simply one who affirms the fundamentals of the faith is historically inadequate. To remove ecclesiastical separation (even so-called "secondary separation") is to undermine the very foundation of Fundamentalism.