SAET » Why Fundamentalism is Better than Liberalism » The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology

September 2, 2011 by Gerald Hiestand

Why Fundamentalism is Better than Liberalism

Matthew sent me this quote today, taken from the postscript of John Frame’s, Doctrine of the Word of God.

If I lost some of my conservative friends through my progressive ideas, I will now probably lose some progressive ones on the publication of this book. It may be called fundamentalist. If so, fine. I realize that fundamentalist is a term of derision, and for many reasons I would rather not be called by it. But I know through experience that name-calling is a staple of theological debate, and I have a thick skin. For all their frequent literalism, dispensationalism, and anti-intellectualism, the fundamentalists were stalwart in defending Scripture as God’s Word, in the face of attacks on all sides. Many of them will be closer to Jesus in heaven than many of us who seek to be more respectable.

I completely sympathize with Frame here. The quote reminds me of an important point Noll makes in his book, Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Noll takes fundamentalists to the woodshed, but for as much as he blames fundamentalists for the insular, backwater, anti-intellectual posture of North American evangelicals, he nonetheless rightly observes that it was fundamentalists, not liberals, who retained and passed on the core of the gospel. While the mainline churches were gradually denying the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, etc., fundamentalists still believed in a God who regenerated hearts, worked miracles, and who spoke through the Bible. And history has proven them right for doing so. The liberal churches are in decline, while fundamentalism was able to give birth to evangelicalism — the fastest growing Christian movement in North America.

In his book, Noll is not unsympathetic to the difficulty facing Christians at the turn of the twentieth-century. The world was shifting in remarkable ways–epistemology, authority, science, higher criticism — everything was up for grabs. We can’t be too hard on those Christians who, while not having the intellectual resources to deal with a brave new world of unbelief, at least knew enough to circle the wagons and hold on to what they did know to be true — the reality of the resurrection of God’s Son.

As Frame notes above, the term “fundamentalist” is now a term of derision. And fundamentalists have legitimated much of the baggage that weighs down that term. But all evangelicals are indebted to fundamentalism (in ways we are decidedly not indebted to liberalism) for preserving a belief in the supernatural and passing it on to us. Fundamentalism is a ditch that evangelicals can still fall into. Liberalism is another. But if you have to pick one or the other, history has shown over and over again that a firm belief in the supernatural always trumps intellectual sophistication. And this is why fundamentalism (for all its manifest shortcomings) is better than liberalism.

Which label scares you more — “anti-intellectual” or “anti-supernatural”? God help us always fear the latter more.

Categories: Evangelicalism | General | Gerald Hiestand | John Frame | Mark Noll
Recent Comments
- Abbye West-Pates said...
  
  A good thing for this 26-year old, small town Miss-sip girl, who approached the college years with great love for the progressiveness of the Believers I met (who shaped me in ways I am deeply grateful), but who needs this reminder that God draws men unto himself, shows up in dreams, and heals what seemed forever broken.
  
  All the fancy theological words in the world cannot stand next to this God.
  
  09/2/11 9:23 PM | Comment Link
- Tony Hunt said...
  
  Hello folks, this is my first time commenting here.
  
  I’m sympathetic to a good liberal trouncing, but I’m not sure I entirely agree. I think that there were pious people who both were able to hold onto and strongly affirm core Christian orthodoxy while stretching necessarily other parts, even parts that at the time seemed very important.
  
  I’m thinking of folks like Bishop Gore and the liberal-catholics, or the work of Wescott, Hort, and Lightfoot. (sorry these are only Anglican examples, I’m not entirely familiar with other church histories). In our own day I look at the historical work of N.T. Wright, or theological explorations of +Williams, Radical Orthodoxy, or Sarah Coakley.
  
  I think these kinds of figures do the necessary intellectual legwork that fundamentalists haven’t been able to do yet need to do.
  
  09/2/11 9:41 PM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Tony,
  
  I hear you. But I’m talking about full-blown liberalism. The sort that denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, etc. My point is that, historically speaking, full-blown fundamentalism held on to something essential that full-blown liberalism did not. Or to state it again, liberalism, pressed all the way to the floor, denied the reality of the Biblical God in ways that full scale Fundamentalism did not. They are both deficient, but they are not equal opposites, in my mind. Liberalism gave us Schleiermacher; fundamentalism gave us Billy Sunday. If the world could only have Schleiermacher or Billy Sunday, we’re better off with Billy Sunday.
  
  Gerald
  
  09/2/11 9:55 PM | Comment Link
- Why Fundamentalism is Better than Liberalism « The Unfolding Drama said...
  
  [...] [read the full article here] Share this:EmailFacebookTwitterDiggMorePrintRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
  
  09/3/11 9:28 AM | Comment Link
- Why Fundamentalism is Better than Liberalism» The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology | Pastoral Musings said...
  
  [...] via SAET » Why Fundamentalism is Better than Liberalism » The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial…. [...]
  
  09/3/11 10:12 AM | Comment Link
- Matthew Mason said...
  
  Tony, I’ll take fundamentalists over liberal catholics any day.
  
  Much as I respect archbishop Williams’s historical scholarship, I’ll take fundamentalists over him too.
  
  09/3/11 3:50 PM | Comment Link
- Tony Hunt said...
  
  Well, how the “liberal catholic” gets used these days signifies something rather very different than what it means when used of someone like Charles Gore or Michael Ramsey, both of whom would seem raging fundamentalists to what we think of as liberalism.
  
  As for the Archbishop, we can smile and disagree. I’d take Williams over Reformed theology too.
  
  09/3/11 3:54 PM | Comment Link
- Matthew Mason said...
  
  Yup – I’ve read Lux Mundi, and I’d still take the fundamentalists.
  
  09/3/11 4:47 PM | Comment Link
- Fundamentalism and Liberalism are Equally Abusive to the Scriptures | Unsettled Christianity said...
  
  [...] via here. [...]
  
  09/3/11 7:10 PM | Comment Link
- Liberals Cannot Fully Accept the Gospel | Unsettled Christianity said...
  
  [...] that John Frame is writing for but white conservative Reformed and evangelical Protestants? In Why Fundamentalism Is Better than Liberalism, the talking points read like a Republican Party playbook. Should Christianity look like our [...]
  
  09/3/11 8:16 PM | Comment Link
- Jason Hood said...
  
  Put another way: generally speaking, it’s easier to become an evangelical from fundamentalism than from liberalism.
  
  09/4/11 5:09 PM | Comment Link
Leave A Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published)

Website

About the SAET Blog

Welcome to the SAET blog. Herein you will find the theological/pastoral ramblings of the Rev. Matthew Mason, the good Doctor Jason Hood, and Pastor Gerald Hiestand. All three write under the premise that theology and the pastorate belong together, and that (at least some) pastors must once again function as writing theologians for the wider church, for the ecclesial renewal of theology and the theological renewal of the church.

Contributors

Gerald Hiestand
Gerald has served as the SAET board president since 2006. He has been in pastoral ministry since 1999, and serves currently as the Senior Associate Pastor of Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park, IL. He is pursuing a PhD in Classical Studies from the University of Kent, Canterbury.

Jason Hood
Jason is a graduate of Rhodes College, Reformed Theological Seminary, Highland Theological College and the Univ. of Aberdeen. Jason works as Scholar-in-Residence and director of Christ College Residency Program at Christ UMC. He's trying to figure out the twitter thing, @jasonbhood, and sometimes writes for ChristianityToday.com.

Matthew Mason
Matthew earned an MTh at Oak Hill College, London. He is an Assistant Pastor at Church of the Resurrection, Washington D. C. (Anglican Province of Rwanda).

The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

Why Fundamentalism is Better than Liberalism

Recent Comments

Leave A Comment

About the SAET Blog

Contributors

SAET Blogs

Blog Categories