Fundamentalism, How to describe it

Right now a young prof from Pensacola Theological Seminary is presenting his very interesting paper. He is in the PhD program at Midwestern, an SBC school. Looking at the faculty list at this large fundamentalist seminary, I see a direction away from a strict KJVO view: Graduate Studies Faculty · Pensacola Christian College

John of Japan said:

Who in the world is Gerald Smith? Never heard of him and I've been a fundamentalist all my life and studied it for years.

Click to expand...

I found Smith online. He is from the "Christian Church," and therefore I reject him as a fundamentalist. The Church of Christ/Christian Church is a separate historical movement from fundamentalism. Furthermore, that movement believes in baptismal regeneration, definitely not a fundamentalist belief, as seen from the articles in the original series of books called "The Fundamentals" from which the movement gets its name.

Salty said:

How would you describe Fundamentalism?

Do you agree with Mr. Webster ? "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"

Would you say the 5 points of fundamentalism sums it up?
In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church identified what became known as the five fundamentals:[19]

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Click to expand...

I think the fundamentals were written into the texts of scriptures and is summarized by passages such as this in Luke's gospel.

Lk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Since it is true that the Christian faith is dependent exclusively on the person and work of Jesus Christ from his incarnation on behalf of all sinners, the scriptures themselves has a built in defining term for the fundamentals of Christianity. It is the term "the faith." It is found in the KJV 42 times and refers to the doctrine of Christ that all born again Christians commonly (Titus 1:4) believes.

The first time one will find this term is in Acts 3:17 just after our Lord rose again from the dead. The last time is in Re 14:12.

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

There are things that can be learned by reading and comparing how the various authors have handled the terminology "the faith."

This is one of my favorite verses;

1 Cor 16:13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.

What is a fundymental -Biggrin) is like asking what is an American. Can only citizens of the USA be Americans?
Can residents of South America be called "Americans"! No easy answer for either question!

John of Japan said:

This is a narrow view of modern fundamentalism. There are other fundamental groups: the IFCA, "God's Bible College" in Cincy, the Bible Presbyterians, John Macarthur's group (he told my uncles he was a fundamentalist), conservative SBC leaders (who sometimes would rather not use the term but in private will admit the movement), etc. There are also the BJU folks. I am currently at a meeting of fundamental Bible profs at BJU. None of us at this mtg. are KJVO.

Click to expand...

It is narrow, and only based on my experience. And I know my experience is not the truth about all IFB churches (I attended a few here and found a couple that were godly, and that God was using in the area).

Given the definition (the formal one) in the OP I'd say all SBC churches are "fundamental" and even that all true churches are "fundamental". But there is the definition (perhaps what it should be) and what I have witnessed.

To be honest, when I think FBC I think Westboro Baptist Church.

And I know that is not right. That is just the image that comes to my mind when I hear the word because it has been my experience for the most part.

AND I have a limited experience with the group.

My first experience was watching members of an IFB yelling at a 7 year old girl in the neighborhood telling her she is going to Hell for wearing shorts to play outside. That colored my opinion, and was reinforced by similar instances throughout my life.

And I know that colored my opinion ununfairly.

JonC said:

It is narrow, and only based on my experience. And I know my experience is not the truth about all IFB churches (I attended a few here and found a couple that were godly, and that God was using in the area).

Given the definition (the formal one) in the OP I'd say all SBC churches are "fundamental" and even that all true churches are "fundamental". But there is the definition (perhaps what it should be) and what I have witnessed.

To be honest, when I think FBC I think Westboro Baptist Church.

And I know that is not right. That is just the image that comes to my mind when I hear the word because it has been my experience for the most part.

AND I have a limited experience with the group.

My first experience was watching members of an IFB yelling at a 7 year old girl in the neighborhood telling her she is going to Hell for wearing shorts to play outside. That colored my opinion, and was reinforced by similar instances throughout my life.

And I know that colored my opinion ununfairly.

Click to expand...

I understand, I think. There are some fundamentalists like you mention, but few in my circles.

As for Westboro BC, it is not nor has it ever been a true fundamental Baptist church. I know of no fundamental Baptist which would approve of them, and I know many, many fundamentalists. They are simply WACKO!

I am currently at a meeting with about 40 other fundamental seminary and college profs, and every single one of us would categorically reject Westboro.

John of Japan said:

Who in the world is Gerald Smith? Never heard of him and I've been a fundamentalist all my life and studied it for years.

Click to expand...

Smith wasn't a Baptist. But he came to prominence organizing evangelical Christians in political activism to resist secularization, desegregation, and communism, and his Christian Nationalist Crusade in large part paved the way for Jerry Falwell and Moral Majority.

He was instrumental in the success of Huey Long's campaign, was subpoenaed by Congress and vilified in the press.

The Great Passion Play in Eureka Springs AR is one of his legacies.

I mentioned his crusade as a significant event in American culture that helped define the Fundamentalist movement.

John of Japan said:

I understand, I think. There are some fundamentalists like you mention, but few in my circles.

As for Westboro BC, it is not nor has it ever been a true fundamental Baptist church. I know of no fundamental Baptist which would approve of them, and I know many, many fundamentalists. They are simply WACKO!

I am currently at a meeting with about 40 other fundamental seminary and college profs, and every single one of us would categorically reject Westboro.

Click to expand...

I have found that IFB churches are different where I live now than my past experiences with the denomination.

Here they are legalistic about dress (at church, women should not wear pants, men should wear a jacket and tie, etc) and KJVO, but they are not unchristian about their preferences. I would jave mo problem visiting IFB churches here (and I have, quite a few times).

One IFB I visited was interesting. It was KJVO, but set up like a movie theater. Lights, smoke, drums, guitars
...it was interesting because it seemed an odd mix of IFB traditionalism with modern devices. At the end they took us to a roped off area and the preacher came out, stood by us while they took a picture, didnt say a word and left. That was the strangest part.

But I get that IFB churches, just like SBC churches, are independent and cannot be judged as a whole group.

Where one lives certainly colors one's experiences.

JonC said:

I have found that IFB churches are different where I live now than my past experiences with the denomination.

Here they are legalistic about dress (at church, women should not wear pants, men should wear a jacket and tie, etc) and KJVO, but they are not unchristian about their preferences. I would jave mo problem visiting IFB churches here (and I have, quite a few times).

Click to expand...

We fundamentalists strongly object to this view of "legalism." Simply having standards of dress, etc., is not legalism, though many anti-fundamentalists like to say it is. If simply having rules or standards is legalism, then all Baptist churches with a church constitution are legalistic.

Here is a theological definition of it: “Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed., 908).

John, wasn't Billy James Hargis [also a Restorationist, in the Disciples of Christ tradition] considered a Fundamentalist? I believe the school you are at right now awarded him an honorary doctorate!

John of Japan said:

We fundamentalists strongly object to this view of "legalism." Simply having standards of dress, etc., is not legalism, though many anti-fundamentalists like to say it is. If simply having rules or standards is legalism, then all Baptist churches with a church constitution are legalistic.

Here is a theological definition of it: “Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed., 908).

Click to expand...

Standards of dress can be legalisism if it is imposing specific standards under the guise of modesty onto other people.

I wore a suit and tie (mostly because I had to wear this for work so I had a bunch of them). So I had no problem meeting the standards a church I considered joining held.

But the problem came in when I realized they expected men to wear a at least a coat and tie, and women to wear dresses. Women dressing modestly in pants was actively discouraged and excluded people from participating in the ministry.

It fits (in this church) the theological definition you provided, not towards salvation but to merit the right to participate in the ministry of the church.

Ironically, women would show up in very nice dresses wearing earrings and necklesses, the opposite of modesty.

Anyway, that wouldn't work in our church because we have homeless people often attending. Also, many members do not have the resources to have working clothes (typically blue jeans) and church clothes.

JonC said:

Standards of dress can be legalisism if it is imposing specific standards under the guise of modesty onto other people.

I wore a suit and tie (mostly because I had to wear this for work so I had a bunch of them). So I had no problem meeting the standards a church I considered joining held.

But the problem came in when I realized they expected men to wear a at least a coat and tie, and women to wear dresses. Women dressing modestly in pants was actively discouraged and excluded people from participating in the ministry.

It fits (in this church) the theological definition you provided, not towards salvation but to merit the right to participate in the ministry of the church.

Ironically, women would show up in very nice dresses wearing earrings and necklesses, the opposite of modesty.

Anyway, that wouldn't work in our church because we have homeless people often attending.

Click to expand...

What you are describing here is not legalism according to any theological definition, but more of a cultural definition. It is a way to accuse fundamental Baptists of legalism without any explanation. ("Those guys insist on dresses on women. What legalism!") The only way this description would be of theological legalism is if the church in question were to affirm that one could not be righteous without such standards.

John of Japan said:

What you are describing here is not legalism according to any theological definition, but more of a cultural definition. It is a way to accuse fundamental Baptists of legalism without any explanation. ("Those guys insist on dresses on women. What legalism!") The only way this description would be of theological legalism is if the church in question were to affirm that one could not be righteous without such standards.

Click to expand...

I disagree that it is not legalism. But I do get that it is not legalism in the sence of earning salvation.

BUT if fundamentals believe the charge of "legalism" is being thurst upon them under the theological definition you provided then they do not understand what is being claimed.

The issue of legalism here is one among Christian denominations (particularly Baptist churches) so salvation so not the issue.

The definition used is the common definition : a strict, or excessive conformity to a religious moral code with a goal of refraining from sin rather than salvation.

Think of the laws the Pharisees made to make sure the Law was kept. It is this type of thing.


For example, men could be tempted to lust if a pretty woman is wearing a bikini to church. Therefore women must wear dresses. Rather than addressing the issue - lustful men and scantily clad women - the solution is to add rules in excess. If a man is tempted towards lust because a woman wears pants then the problem is the lustful man and not the woman wearing pants.

But I agree that much concerns culture when it comes to attire.

My view is churches become legalistic in a bad way when their "laws" not only exceed Scripture but also form a barrier to sharing the gosoel of Jesus Christ. This could be dress codes. This could be relying on antiquated translations. This could be adopting "sacred speech" (I have heard preachers deliver sermons and people praying in "King James" language (or try to anyway).

I believe that we should worship in spirit and truth, not be somebody other than ourselves. I also believe putting on airs can be an obstacle to our witness.

If you wear a suit, wear a suit. If jeans, wear jeans.

The only thing Scripture may prohibit is expensive clothes and jewelry, depending on how "literal" one takes the passage.

How about this example
I was talking to the pastor of an IFB (church A)in Princeton, WV.
He told me that at a volleyball game - the girls team in his church school wore culottes.
The team from the visiting team wore skirts. The pastor of church B told "A" that if your
team comes to our church for a game - they will not be allowed to wear culottes.
(I guess culottes are really shorts!)
So - If a church wants certain standards - that is their decision -
so the "problem" is when they demand another school go by their rules.

(the above actually happened)

But suppose a schools mascot was a "Demon Deacon" -- would you want them to play against your school.
Would you want to play against a Mormon school
What other things would keep you from playing another school?

Jerome said:

John, wasn't Billy James Hargis [also a Restorationist, in the Disciples of Christ tradition] considered a Fundamentalist? I believe the school you are at right now awarded him an honorary doctorate!

View attachment 11649

Click to expand...

I remember the name, but don't know anything about him. You're probably right, but if so I'm surprised that he was given a doctorate.

JonC said:

I disagree that it is not legalism. But I do get that it is not legalism in the sence of earning salvation.

BUT if fundamentals believe the charge of "legalism" is being thurst upon them under the theological definition you provided then they do not understand what is being claimed.

The issue of legalism here is one among Christian denominations (particularly Baptist churches) so salvation so not the issue.

The definition used is the common definition : a strict, or excessive conformity to a religious moral code with a goal of refraining from sin rather than salvation.

Think of the laws the Pharisees made to make sure the Law was kept. It is this type of thing.


For example, men could be tempted to lust if a pretty woman is wearing a bikini to church. Therefore women must wear dresses. Rather than addressing the issue - lustful men and scantily clad women - the solution is to add rules in excess. If a man is tempted towards lust because a woman wears pants then the problem is the lustful man and not the woman wearing pants.

But I agree that much concerns culture when it comes to attire.

My view is churches become legalistic in a bad way when their "laws" not only exceed Scripture but also form a barrier to sharing the gosoel of Jesus Christ. This could be dress codes. This could be relying on antiquated translations. This could be adopting "sacred speech" (I have heard preachers deliver sermons and people praying in "King James" language (or try to anyway).

I believe that we should worship in spirit and truth, not be somebody other than ourselves. I also believe putting on airs can be an obstacle to our witness.

If you wear a suit, wear a suit. If jeans, wear jeans.

The only thing Scripture may prohibit is expensive clothes and jewelry, depending on how "literal" one takes the passage.

Click to expand...

I don't have time to explain the whole story of where your definition came from, but I will just say:n
1. It's not a theological definition, but a popular one.
2. It is not accepted by fundamentalists, and we consider it to be pejorative. It is usually a way to insult fundamentalists, so I'm disappointed you are using it. You usually impress me with your posts.
3. It did not exist until the New Evangelicals started their movement in the 1940's and 1950's. Until then, everybody in evangelicalism believed in honoring God with their standards. Many were even against things we modern fundamentalists believe to be okay: the theater (for plays, not movies), etc.
4. If you think it's fine to go to church without a suit, or women wearing pants, etc., fine, but that is not what evangelicalism used to be. It's an invention of the New Evangelicals. At our church, anyone can wear almost anything, but they gradually learn what we believe honors God.

That's all I'll say. I'm away from home at the Bible Faculty Summit, or I could give plenty of evidence in the form of historical events, quotes, and the like.

You are obviously convinced of your position and willing to call me a legalist, so I'll bow out now.

It was Harold John Ockenga who invented the term "New Evangelicalism" in, I think, 1946. Graham became the face of the movement, and Carl F. H. Henry was the theologian, and the editor of Christianity Today, founded by Graham. Henry told one of my seminary prof friends that the movement had gone too far in leaving fundamentalism. Francis Schaeffer said something similar in his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. So, a couple of years ago I read a movie review in Christianity Today in which the author described a movie with nudity, swearing, a love scene, etc., but then recommended the movie. Is that what you guys think is "freedom"?

I use the term ifbX - stealing the name of independent fundamental Baptists but then adding to it "x" - false doctrine (like KJVonly), false sanctification (like man-made standeeerds for one to be considered spiritual), false Gospel (replace truth with a simple "just belief" mantra)

I do not consider them to be historical fundamentalists, but modern charlatans who are stealing sheep.

John of Japan said:

I don't have time to explain the whole story of where your definition came from, but I will just say:n
1. It's not a theological definition, but a popular one.
2. It is not accepted by fundamentalists, and we consider it to be pejorative. It is usually a way to insult fundamentalists, so I'm disappointed you are using it. You usually impress me with your posts.
3. It did not exist until the New Evangelicals started their movement in the 1940's and 1950's. Until then, everybody in evangelicalism believed in honoring God with their standards. Many were even against things we modern fundamentalists believe to be okay: the theater (for plays, not movies), etc.
4. If you think it's fine to go to church without a suit, or women wearing pants, etc., fine, but that is not what evangelicalism used to be. It's an invention of the New Evangelicals. At our church, anyone can wear almost anything, but they gradually learn what we believe honors God.

That's all I'll say. I'm away from home at the Bible Faculty Summit, or I could give plenty of evidence in the form of historical events, quotes, and the like.

You are obviously convinced of your position and willing to call me a legalist, so I'll bow out now.

Click to expand...

1. It came from the dictionary.
2. I am not calling you anything.
3. I am not denying your "theological definition".
4. I am saying that those who call FBC "legalistic" are using the "popular definition".

And I know that not all IFB churches are legalistic per the popular definition of the word.

I was relating my experiences explaining how I view "fundamentalism" as asked in the OP.
I even acknowledged that my view of IFB churches is based on limited experience and that I know it is not correct t towards the whole denomination.


I also know that decades ago evangelism meant wearing a suit to church. I grew up polishing my Sunday shoes on Saturday. I am not doubting the history.

And maybe not requiring men to wear a suit and tie to church is "an invention of New Evangelicals". If so, at least it is a more biblical view (a suit and tie, while once common dress when not working, is no longer modest dress).

Would I turn away a brother coming to worship God, or somebody seeking God, because they wear blue jeans and a t-shirt? No. I guess all I can say is I am glad to be a "New Evangelical". I have not worn a suit in years.

JonC said:

1. It came from the dictionary.
2. I am not calling you anything.
3. I am not denying your "theological definition".
4. I am saying that those who call FBC "legalistic" are using the "popular definition".

And I know that not all IFB churches are legalistic per the popular definition of the word.

I was relating my experiences explaining how I view "fundamentalism" as asked in the OP.
I even acknowledged that my view of IFB churches is based on limited experience and that I know it is not correct t towards the whole denomination.


I also know that decades ago evangelism meant wearing a suit to church. I grew up polishing my Sunday shoes on Saturday. I am not doubting the history.

And maybe not requiring men to wear a suit and tie to church is "an invention of New Evangelicals". If so, at least it is a more biblical view (a suit and tie, while once common dress when not working, is no longer modest dress).

Would I turn away a brother coming to worship God, or somebody seeking God, because they wear blue jeans and a t-shirt? No. I guess all I can say is I am glad to be a "New Evangelical". I have not worn a suit in years.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarifications. Sigh. I have to return to the paper being presented on existential theology and worldview.

John of Japan said:

Thanks for the clarifications. Sigh. I have to return to the paper being presented on existential theology and worldview.

Click to expand...

"Existential theology"....is that some sort of legalistic thing??

Just kidding...and poking....us Southern Baptists do that....its a gift.

JonC said:

"Existential theology"....is that some sort of legalistic thing??

Just kidding...and poking....us Southern Baptists do that....its a gift.

Click to expand...

I Kant tell.