One of the problems with conversion is that not everyone has the same experience. I grew up in a Calvary Chapel and you were supposed to have this really strong moment where your life went from Before to After. Despite following Jesus for over 30 years, I've never had a "conversion experience". People would say that "you know you're saved because you can look at your life before Jesus and after and see the difference" except I couldn't, I converted as a child. Other people said, "Christian kids should have a wild youth so they have something to convert from" except I didn't, I had a normal youth where I did my best to be faithful to Jesus. There's an interview with Sean McDowell where he said when he talked to people who were deconstructing that most of them had never had a conversion experience as if that meant they were never Christian and it really awoke something in me. I would love to see an honest look at how many people really have these conversion experiences vs how many people like me feel like we have to gin up some experience just to be part of the in-group. I've decided that rather than have faith in an experience, I'm just going to have faith in Jesus and let him sort it all out.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I resonate a lot, and I've had this notion that studying the phenomenon of "conversion" would be a fascinating, doctoral-level project. It's so much more complicated and mysterious than many church setting portray it......perhaps one day......
I was recently being considered for speaking at a luncheon for a fairly well-know men's ministry. In the vetting meeting with leaders, it was pretty clear that my testimony was not dramatic enough. They were looking for "Paul on the Damascus Road," but all I had was "John the Beloved Disciple." Why is the story of faithfulness in following Jesus not of interest, how Jesus has been and continues to be progressively sanctifying me these past 40-some year?
I'm currently studying at an evangelical seminary here in Australia and being able to learn the faith at a deeper level has left me feeling very alienated from the broader evangelical-reformed culture around me. My family started a church here in Australia that was a plant from Macarthur's Masters Seminary, in the late 90's it was probably one of the only reformed baptist churches in our entire state. There were some good elements but a lot of the ABCD was there too, suspicious of science, public schools, culture at large and other denominations were often seen as problematic, charismatics and catholics in particular. In the late 2000's to mid 2010's our church had massive growth as it was next door to a local mega church and the neo-calvinist movement was in full gear. Suddenly all of these guys in their 20's came flooding in, hyped up about Piper, Spurgeon etc... The only one of those guys I ever really resonated with was Tim Keller, the rest I always found uncharitable, angry or faux-authentic. To make things harder I realised I had same sex attraction right around the time gay marriage was being legalised in our country, all of a sudden I felt as though I had become "the enemy" in a lot of my circles and I went through a sort of deconstruction process. What helped me keep my faith was reading Endo Shusaku's novel Silence as the author himself was a minority in his country and grappled deeply with themes of faith and doubt. Fundamentalism feels really comfortable and safe if you are in the "in-crowd" but the moment you become one of their heretics you realise they've lost the simplicity of the gospel and the disregard complexity of theology/culture.
@@JoelWentzno thank you I’ve found your videos really helpful, I think a lot of younger people in my circles are currently going the Pete Enns/ John Mark Comer route to sorta open theist or progressive Christian route or they are becoming RC or Orthodox. I find you give a nuanced and helpful look at these issues. Happy to chat about the Australian evangelical scene anytime too ;) God bless
Thank you! I find your categories incredibly helpful in describing what is happening. They provide a valuable framework for organizing our thoughts and staying grounded as we navigate the intense challenges that fundamentalist ideology can impose on us.
This is an excellent summation of fundamentalism, and I expect I’ll be referring back to it from time to time. I’m glad you mentioned the earlier video on Preston Sprinkle and Alissa Childers. I had a memory of someone talking about a “purity test” as a feature of fundamentalism, and it had been a lightbulb moment for me. I thought it might have been you. Now that I know the specific video, I’m going to give it another listen!
I was a card-carrying fundamentalist. First a SBC Baptist, then 😊under Carl McIntyre, then under Lee Roberson in Chattanooga , learning at BJU, and at Liberty U, often visiting Jack Holes. I know something about the movement. I left it when I learned that Separation was their most important doctrine. You presented this well, but I would differ a little about the Anti-intellectualism. It's not the result, but the motivation. They hate truth.
Here in the UK we tend to use the term 'evangelical' rather than 'fundamentalist'. A key book was the late JI Packer's book for the IVP student movement press, "Fundamentalism and the Word of God". And a key passage in that book is where he points to a passage from the Reformation-era Bible translator Tyndale to say that in the Reformation 'literal' interpretation of scripture did not mean what we might call 'dumb wooden literal' but a nuanced approach that understood that 'like other human writings' the Bible uses literary artistry and figures of speech and that as when you read other books you are meant to allow for, indeed rejoice in, that variety for a rich understanding.
Thanks, Joel! A couple of questions: 1) Can this definition work for non-Christian fundamentalism? Seems like there are fundamentalist movements in other religions too. Also fundamentalism in political movements too. Which leads to my second question, 2) Would you consider some of the current rise of fundamentalism to be Christian or Political? For example, it seems like a lot of what I've read and watched about Basham's book is more political than theological. She's obviously trying to make it theological. But the appeal they are making isn't to the Bible but just to loyalty to a political side. They are accusing some pastors of being unfaithful to Christianity because they are not picking a side in secular fights. It just seems like it has become less a theological intramural debate and has become more political. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the 80s wanted Christians to vote their values. Today's leaders want us to set our Biblical values aside and pick up other values. I'm not completely sure if I'm being clear here. I guess another way to say it is I'm not sure a Christian Fundamentalist of the past would agree with the Metaxas's of the world. Thanks!
Thank you! I find your categories incredibly helpful in describing what is happening. They provide a valuable framework for organizing our thoughts and staying grounded as we navigate the intense challenges that fundamentalist ideology can impose on us.
The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth (generally referred to simply as The Fundamentals) is a set of ninety essays published between 1910 and 1915 by the Testimony Publishing Company of Chicago. It was initially published quarterly in twelve volumes, then republished in 1917 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles as a four-volume set. Baker Books reprinted all four volumes under two covers in 2003. Wikipedia
The problem with "fundamentalism" is that one man's fundamentalism is another man's orthodox faith or traditional world view. It's often something akin to "I know it when I see it". The "fundamentalist" is always the other guy. (or conversely, on the other end of the spectrum, "I'm not theologically left leaning, the other guy is") I think your "A, B, C, D" points are all interesting, but taken together, they still don't get us to a place where we really know what we are discussing. As others have commented, and by the fact that you have caveats to the points, B and C have a place with the faith of most theological traditions, depending on how one understand the terms. I do think "A" is the point that I think deserves more discussion. On a personal level, anxiety does often lead us to make decisions we often wouldn't make. I would agree that anxiety about the culture and the world does influence the "fundamentalist". But sometimes that anxiety is due to a true understanding of what the world is and the need for God, and can often be a catalyst for coming to faith, or strengthening of ones faith. The question then becomes, how do you live out that faith? Your "D" point, when coupled with your discussion of the purity based separatism I would agree is an indicator of fundamentalism, particularly when including the "militant" part of the point. This is a jumping off point for sure, but it still could use some fleshing out.
I recently attended a church where I didn't know any of the songs, so in a distracted moment I asked ChatGPT to analyse the theology of the 1000 most popular worship songs of the 21st century, giving me the top ten theological themes. The narcissism of the results was not a surprise to me (6 out of 10 were about what God has done for me, two more were about what I want God to do in the meeting), but I was surprised to see that defeat of/protection from enemies was in there. OK, it's in the psalms, but it's not very Jesus! (I presume that ChatGPT will give everyone the same answer, although you may categorise the ten themes differently to me.) This focus on enemies as people to be defeated may reflect this growth of fundamentalism. What I remember from my youth was more singing about THE enemy... 🤔
First, can you explain how these four markers are different for any other strongly held paradigm (besides conservative Christianity)? You can see all four of the markers very clearly for other strongly held paradigms across the ideological spectrum (all strongly held paradigms?). CRT demands the same allegiance but to a different set of beliefs (including purity testing and anti-intellectualism). Higher Criticism is equally “fundamentalist”, while saying they aren’t. Second, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how truth plays into the discussion. If one defines “truth” as that which conforms to reality, then isn’t a certain amount of fundamentalism actually correct? (I’m all for patiently and graciously answering questions and engaging in discussion, but ultimately one has to clearly define and defend one’s strongly held paradigm.)
I'm pretty much the opposite of a fundamentalist and I can't stand the way Joel is pathologizing fundamentalism here, or speaking as if it were a *response to urbanization* of all things, as if it weren't the primary mode of so much of humanity for most of history.
The question of whether or not fundamentalism is strictly an American-Christian phenomenon is very interesting to me (Marsden seems to think it is - he is cautious about applying the label 'fundamentalist' to other movements, even if they have some of the same markers, like my "A,B,Cs" here). I'm just not sure, though I resonate a lot with the idea that there are "fundamentalists" of other stripes, on the political left, for example. And on the truth question, I draw a major distinction between holding to truth in a philosophical (idealist?) sense, but with a humble posture, rather than holding to truth with a fundamentalist posture, which is part of what I'm trying to flesh out with the 'A,B,C's in this video. Not sure if that's helpful, but I don't at all think that one needs to believe objectively in truth, as such, and be a fundamentalist.
I'm most definitely not trying to pathologize anything here, just describing and historicizing. The historical point about urbanization doesn't account for the entire foundation of fundamentalism (I though I was pretty clear on that), but it is merely one aspect of the social changes that precipitated fundamentalism in a particular time and place (and again, the name fundamentalism itself points to that specificity - the "fundamentals" pamphlets were published in early 1900s America). I also wouldn't so simplistically universalize fundamentalism as you have, either. We can be more precise than that in describing movements like this over history.
@@JoelWentz I better understand that you are confining your definition to late 19th/early 20th century "Fundamentalism" - you said it, but I missed it! (I fear that many people will not fully appreciate the limitation of your scope, as the term underwent continual redefinition throughout the 20th century both inside and outside of Christianity.) I raised the question of "truth" because of the pejorative implication that I read in your ABCD terms (perhaps unfairly on my part!). Is it Anxious, Binary, and Divisive to tell children to stop playing on a busy street? If those reacting to Modernism (i.e. German Higher Criticism) were saying "you're outside of the faith, come back," it seems like a wise admonition rather than anxious and divisive, although it is clearly binary. You may say that Higher Criticism is still inside the faith and therefore shouldn't have been admonished, but the remainder of the 20th century would indicate otherwise. When considering the Fundamentalism of that time, it seems like J. Gresham Machen needs to be a central figure. Do you feel your terms apply to him? Do you feel like his posture was "out of bounds?" He was clearly saying that Modernism was outside of orthodoxy, but if it is, didn't he have an obligation to say so? Perhaps all people or groups that draw hard lines are anxious, binary, and divisive to some extent (and perhaps in that sense, it doesn't include the negative connotations that I hear in those words). Lots of people or groups are Anxious, Binary, Conversionist, and Divisive without being Fundamentalist as defined. WRT a resurgence of Fundamentalism - is there a resurgence, or simply the same argument that's been going on for the last hundred years and more? It feels like the latter to me for what it's worth... Finally, I heard a podcast with Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones who have edited the recently published "Oxford Handbook of Christian Fundamentalism." The podcast was interesting, but I'm not brave enough to attempt the book!
@@JoelWentz Fair enough re:scope, I also missed the limitation. People throw the term 'fundamentalist' around quite liberally, applying it to muslims or mormons, and the general usage seems to be 'people who believe in the fundamental texts of their religion at face value'. I can respect that you are speaking more specifically about a very precise American phenomenon. However, when you ascribe someone's beliefs to 'Anxiety', as you did in this video, it absolutely *does* pathologize it. Again, I'm not a fundie--attack them all you wish--but ascribing belief systems to psychological malfunctions attempts to dispose of their position without actually addressing it.
I think it's a pretty novel interpretation of "Fundamentalism." I think that the "B" and the "C" are squarely founded on a consistently biblical worldview. The "D" probably arises from the "A." But we need to put our trust in God.
One of the problems with conversion is that not everyone has the same experience. I grew up in a Calvary Chapel and you were supposed to have this really strong moment where your life went from Before to After. Despite following Jesus for over 30 years, I've never had a "conversion experience".
People would say that "you know you're saved because you can look at your life before Jesus and after and see the difference" except I couldn't, I converted as a child. Other people said, "Christian kids should have a wild youth so they have something to convert from" except I didn't, I had a normal youth where I did my best to be faithful to Jesus.
There's an interview with Sean McDowell where he said when he talked to people who were deconstructing that most of them had never had a conversion experience as if that meant they were never Christian and it really awoke something in me. I would love to see an honest look at how many people really have these conversion experiences vs how many people like me feel like we have to gin up some experience just to be part of the in-group.
I've decided that rather than have faith in an experience, I'm just going to have faith in Jesus and let him sort it all out.
Most of the people who ginned up some experience will not admit it.
Probably it's a lot of them, but how could one know?
Thanks for sharing your experience. I resonate a lot, and I've had this notion that studying the phenomenon of "conversion" would be a fascinating, doctoral-level project. It's so much more complicated and mysterious than many church setting portray it......perhaps one day......
I was recently being considered for speaking at a luncheon for a fairly well-know men's ministry. In the vetting meeting with leaders, it was pretty clear that my testimony was not dramatic enough. They were looking for "Paul on the Damascus Road," but all I had was "John the Beloved Disciple." Why is the story of faithfulness in following Jesus not of interest, how Jesus has been and continues to be progressively sanctifying me these past 40-some year?
I'm currently studying at an evangelical seminary here in Australia and being able to learn the faith at a deeper level has left me feeling very alienated from the broader evangelical-reformed culture around me. My family started a church here in Australia that was a plant from Macarthur's Masters Seminary, in the late 90's it was probably one of the only reformed baptist churches in our entire state. There were some good elements but a lot of the ABCD was there too, suspicious of science, public schools, culture at large and other denominations were often seen as problematic, charismatics and catholics in particular.
In the late 2000's to mid 2010's our church had massive growth as it was next door to a local mega church and the neo-calvinist movement was in full gear. Suddenly all of these guys in their 20's came flooding in, hyped up about Piper, Spurgeon etc... The only one of those guys I ever really resonated with was Tim Keller, the rest I always found uncharitable, angry or faux-authentic.
To make things harder I realised I had same sex attraction right around the time gay marriage was being legalised in our country, all of a sudden I felt as though I had become "the enemy" in a lot of my circles and I went through a sort of deconstruction process. What helped me keep my faith was reading Endo Shusaku's novel Silence as the author himself was a minority in his country and grappled deeply with themes of faith and doubt.
Fundamentalism feels really comfortable and safe if you are in the "in-crowd" but the moment you become one of their heretics you realise they've lost the simplicity of the gospel and the disregard complexity of theology/culture.
Wow thanks for putting your story out there.
@@JoelWentzno thank you I’ve found your videos really helpful, I think a lot of younger people in my circles are currently going the Pete Enns/ John Mark Comer route to sorta open theist or progressive Christian route or they are becoming RC or Orthodox. I find you give a nuanced and helpful look at these issues. Happy to chat about the Australian evangelical scene anytime too ;) God bless
Thank you! I find your categories incredibly helpful in describing what is happening. They provide a valuable framework for organizing our thoughts and staying grounded as we navigate the intense challenges that fundamentalist ideology can impose on us.
This is an excellent summation of fundamentalism, and I expect I’ll be referring back to it from time to time. I’m glad you mentioned the earlier video on Preston Sprinkle and Alissa Childers. I had a memory of someone talking about a “purity test” as a feature of fundamentalism, and it had been a lightbulb moment for me. I thought it might have been you. Now that I know the specific video, I’m going to give it another listen!
I was a card-carrying fundamentalist. First a SBC Baptist, then 😊under Carl McIntyre, then under Lee Roberson in Chattanooga , learning at BJU, and at Liberty U, often visiting Jack Holes. I know something about the movement. I left it when I learned that Separation was their most important doctrine. You presented this well, but I would differ a little about the Anti-intellectualism. It's not the result, but the motivation. They hate truth.
Interesting nuance between 'result' and 'motivation' - that's given me something to chew on.....thank you!
Here in the UK we tend to use the term 'evangelical' rather than 'fundamentalist'. A key book was the late JI Packer's book for the IVP student movement press, "Fundamentalism and the Word of God". And a key passage in that book is where he points to a passage from the Reformation-era Bible translator Tyndale to say that in the Reformation 'literal' interpretation of scripture did not mean what we might call 'dumb wooden literal' but a nuanced approach that understood that 'like other human writings' the Bible uses literary artistry and figures of speech and that as when you read other books you are meant to allow for, indeed rejoice in, that variety for a rich understanding.
Thanks, Joel! A couple of questions: 1) Can this definition work for non-Christian fundamentalism? Seems like there are fundamentalist movements in other religions too. Also fundamentalism in political movements too.
Which leads to my second question, 2) Would you consider some of the current rise of fundamentalism to be Christian or Political? For example, it seems like a lot of what I've read and watched about Basham's book is more political than theological. She's obviously trying to make it theological. But the appeal they are making isn't to the Bible but just to loyalty to a political side. They are accusing some pastors of being unfaithful to Christianity because they are not picking a side in secular fights. It just seems like it has become less a theological intramural debate and has become more political. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the 80s wanted Christians to vote their values. Today's leaders want us to set our Biblical values aside and pick up other values. I'm not completely sure if I'm being clear here. I guess another way to say it is I'm not sure a Christian Fundamentalist of the past would agree with the Metaxas's of the world. Thanks!
Thank you! I find your categories incredibly helpful in describing what is happening. They provide a valuable framework for organizing our thoughts and staying grounded as we navigate the intense challenges that fundamentalist ideology can impose on us.
There used to be a purity test/quiz in the early days of the internet at which we would pride ourselves in scoring as impurely as possible 😄
Great video, thank you!
This was excellent!
The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth (generally referred to simply as The Fundamentals) is a set of ninety essays published between 1910 and 1915 by the Testimony Publishing Company of Chicago. It was initially published quarterly in twelve volumes, then republished in 1917 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles as a four-volume set. Baker Books reprinted all four volumes under two covers in 2003. Wikipedia
The problem with "fundamentalism" is that one man's fundamentalism is another man's orthodox faith or traditional world view.
It's often something akin to "I know it when I see it".
The "fundamentalist" is always the other guy. (or conversely, on the other end of the spectrum, "I'm not theologically left leaning, the other guy is")
I think your "A, B, C, D" points are all interesting, but taken together, they still don't get us to a place where we really know what we are discussing. As others have commented, and by the fact that you have caveats to the points, B and C have a place with the faith of most theological traditions, depending on how one understand the terms.
I do think "A" is the point that I think deserves more discussion. On a personal level, anxiety does often lead us to make decisions we often wouldn't make. I would agree that anxiety about the culture and the world does influence the "fundamentalist". But sometimes that anxiety is due to a true understanding of what the world is and the need for God, and can often be a catalyst for coming to faith, or strengthening of ones faith. The question then becomes, how do you live out that faith?
Your "D" point, when coupled with your discussion of the purity based separatism I would agree is an indicator of fundamentalism, particularly when including the "militant" part of the point.
This is a jumping off point for sure, but it still could use some fleshing out.
Good thoughts!
I recently attended a church where I didn't know any of the songs, so in a distracted moment I asked ChatGPT to analyse the theology of the 1000 most popular worship songs of the 21st century, giving me the top ten theological themes.
The narcissism of the results was not a surprise to me (6 out of 10 were about what God has done for me, two more were about what I want God to do in the meeting), but I was surprised to see that defeat of/protection from enemies was in there. OK, it's in the psalms, but it's not very Jesus!
(I presume that ChatGPT will give everyone the same answer, although you may categorise the ten themes differently to me.)
This focus on enemies as people to be defeated may reflect this growth of fundamentalism. What I remember from my youth was more singing about THE enemy... 🤔
First, can you explain how these four markers are different for any other strongly held paradigm (besides conservative Christianity)? You can see all four of the markers very clearly for other strongly held paradigms across the ideological spectrum (all strongly held paradigms?). CRT demands the same allegiance but to a different set of beliefs (including purity testing and anti-intellectualism). Higher Criticism is equally “fundamentalist”, while saying they aren’t.
Second, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how truth plays into the discussion. If one defines “truth” as that which conforms to reality, then isn’t a certain amount of fundamentalism actually correct? (I’m all for patiently and graciously answering questions and engaging in discussion, but ultimately one has to clearly define and defend one’s strongly held paradigm.)
I'm pretty much the opposite of a fundamentalist and I can't stand the way Joel is pathologizing fundamentalism here, or speaking as if it were a *response to urbanization* of all things, as if it weren't the primary mode of so much of humanity for most of history.
The question of whether or not fundamentalism is strictly an American-Christian phenomenon is very interesting to me (Marsden seems to think it is - he is cautious about applying the label 'fundamentalist' to other movements, even if they have some of the same markers, like my "A,B,Cs" here). I'm just not sure, though I resonate a lot with the idea that there are "fundamentalists" of other stripes, on the political left, for example.
And on the truth question, I draw a major distinction between holding to truth in a philosophical (idealist?) sense, but with a humble posture, rather than holding to truth with a fundamentalist posture, which is part of what I'm trying to flesh out with the 'A,B,C's in this video. Not sure if that's helpful, but I don't at all think that one needs to believe objectively in truth, as such, and be a fundamentalist.
I'm most definitely not trying to pathologize anything here, just describing and historicizing. The historical point about urbanization doesn't account for the entire foundation of fundamentalism (I though I was pretty clear on that), but it is merely one aspect of the social changes that precipitated fundamentalism in a particular time and place (and again, the name fundamentalism itself points to that specificity - the "fundamentals" pamphlets were published in early 1900s America). I also wouldn't so simplistically universalize fundamentalism as you have, either. We can be more precise than that in describing movements like this over history.
@@JoelWentz I better understand that you are confining your definition to late 19th/early 20th century "Fundamentalism" - you said it, but I missed it! (I fear that many people will not fully appreciate the limitation of your scope, as the term underwent continual redefinition throughout the 20th century both inside and outside of Christianity.)
I raised the question of "truth" because of the pejorative implication that I read in your ABCD terms (perhaps unfairly on my part!). Is it Anxious, Binary, and Divisive to tell children to stop playing on a busy street? If those reacting to Modernism (i.e. German Higher Criticism) were saying "you're outside of the faith, come back," it seems like a wise admonition rather than anxious and divisive, although it is clearly binary. You may say that Higher Criticism is still inside the faith and therefore shouldn't have been admonished, but the remainder of the 20th century would indicate otherwise.
When considering the Fundamentalism of that time, it seems like J. Gresham Machen needs to be a central figure. Do you feel your terms apply to him? Do you feel like his posture was "out of bounds?" He was clearly saying that Modernism was outside of orthodoxy, but if it is, didn't he have an obligation to say so? Perhaps all people or groups that draw hard lines are anxious, binary, and divisive to some extent (and perhaps in that sense, it doesn't include the negative connotations that I hear in those words). Lots of people or groups are Anxious, Binary, Conversionist, and Divisive without being Fundamentalist as defined.
WRT a resurgence of Fundamentalism - is there a resurgence, or simply the same argument that's been going on for the last hundred years and more? It feels like the latter to me for what it's worth...
Finally, I heard a podcast with Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones who have edited the recently published "Oxford Handbook of Christian Fundamentalism." The podcast was interesting, but I'm not brave enough to attempt the book!
@@JoelWentz Fair enough re:scope, I also missed the limitation. People throw the term 'fundamentalist' around quite liberally, applying it to muslims or mormons, and the general usage seems to be 'people who believe in the fundamental texts of their religion at face value'. I can respect that you are speaking more specifically about a very precise American phenomenon. However, when you ascribe someone's beliefs to 'Anxiety', as you did in this video, it absolutely *does* pathologize it. Again, I'm not a fundie--attack them all you wish--but ascribing belief systems to psychological malfunctions attempts to dispose of their position without actually addressing it.
What's the answer?
I'll take the orthodoxy that started 2000 years ago 😊
I think it's a pretty novel interpretation of "Fundamentalism." I think that the "B" and the "C" are squarely founded on a consistently biblical worldview. The "D" probably arises from the "A." But we need to put our trust in God.
this is analysis of a secular cultural scholar.
Poor Joel, you were just trying to be helpful.