On Fundamentalists and Evangelicals

Before I begin, it feels weird that I want to respond every week to David French...I don't want my blog to be a response to David French...however, I enjoy his Sunday newsletter and it sparks many ideas. I also want to point out that this is not a rebuttal or refutation,  but rather a different perspective...my take on the issue between fundamentalist and evangelicals.

I find labels useful in defining or describing phenomena.  They allows us to articulate and communicate more effectively and efficiently.  I also realize they can become lazy generalizations that don't account for the complexities of  humans.  This is especially true when the labels are being used by contentious or adversarial groups.  Often these labels become mere caricatures and epithets as opposed to qualitative descriptions.  Such is the case with fundamentalists and evangelicals. 

Much of the problem is that, generally speaking, both are suspicious and fearful of the other and unwilling to see their better parts.  Essentially,  they see the other as the cause for a variety of problems in the church.  Evangelicals are likely to see the harsh rigidity, legalism, and combative nature of fundamentalists as  antithetical to the grace and mercy of the Gospel of Christ.  Furthermore, evangelicals note that this attitude of the fundamentalists is often the culprit for people leaving the church, especially the younger generations, and the difficulties of spreading the gospel to the unchurched. In many ways, evangelicals are embarrassed of and ashamed of fundamentalist's the same way one is of a crazy aunt or uncle.  Fundamentalists, however,  see evangelicals as people willing to abandon scriptural truths and doctrine in favor of making the Gospel more palatable to the world.  Instead of "contending for the faith" against the culture and society that is often adversarial to the gospel, fundamentlaists believe evangelicals are more interested in fitting in with the culture.  The fundamentalists see a evangelicals creating slippery slopes that eventually erode scriptural authority.

Obviously, much of conflict between these two groups is rooted in differences in interpretations and adherence to scripture. This parallels with difference between judicial philosophies of strict constructionism and activism. The broad umbrella of strict constructionists basically believe in the supreme authority of the text of the constitution and that words and phrases mean what they say. One cannot just reinterpret the Constitution to accomplish political goals. Conversely, activist philosophy sees broader principals that can be reimagined in new contexts or filtered through other texts and ideas.  The actual meanings of the words are not as important as the spirit of those words.  So it is with fundamentalists and evangelicals.  One demands strict adherence to scripture (and in many cases traditions) and the other to the spirit of the Gospel.  

The interesting thing is that this is precisely the problem churches have face from the beginning. Paul labored tirelessly to merge two distinct groups of people, Jews and Gentiles, under one roof. Jews wanted conformity to their traditions and Gentiles were eager for the grace of Christ. This often led to conflicts and issues.  Buy the two groups could have benefited from each other by seeing the better parts.  But, the fundamentalist have always been the larger threat as evidence by the amount of scripture Paul dedicated to rebuking them.  Still, this sort of conflict is one that we will continue to remain in the church.

In the Gospel of John, it says Jesus came with truth and grace.  The fundamentalists emphasize truth, while evangelicals grace. But it is not one or the other, it is an inseparable aspect of Christ. Without the other, they are incomplete.  Fundamentalist can be an insufferable lot, but I do appreciate wanting to conform to the scriptural accuracy and truth.  Without it, we are left to the whims and inclinations of men.  Many evangelicals have opted to market grace without truth in hopes of attracting people to the cross, which in actuality no longer is a cross.  While I side with evangelicals more often than not, I am fearful that many are willing to adapt to new cultural norms as an easier route than to stand on Biblical principals that are culturally verboten.

I wish these two groups could strengthen each other..."as iron sharpen irons"...unfortunately both are too busy pointing out the plank in each other's eyes.  The real threat is one begins to look at the other with such righteous indignation, that their pride in being better than the other prevents them from being who Jesus and the cross demand us to be.