I am admittedly no prophet, nor the son of a prophet. In fact, I don’t even believe the gift of prophecy is still active today. So, I won’t blame you if you balk at my attempt to predict the future of conservative evangelicalism. Nonetheless, I’m going to give it a try. This is purely my opinion. But with that as a disclaimer, here goes:
The year was 1878. Modernism was on the rise, and its attack on the church was full scale.
In response, a group of conservative Bible scholars established a set of fourteen doctrinal principles to outline what they believed was the essence of biblical Christianity. Known as the “Niagara Creed” (because it was associated with the Niagara Bible Conference of 1883–1897), these principles laid the foundation for a movement that would later be called fundamentalism.
On the broader front, the dispensational organizers of the Niagara Bible Conference were joined by non-dispensationalists like B.B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen in their fight against modernism. In 1910, the fourteen-point Niagara Creed was distilled into “five fundamentals” by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. These five fundamentals were as follows:
1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
3. The substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
5. The authenticity of Christ’s miracles (or later, by some dispensationalists, the imminent return of Jesus Christ)
It was also in 1910 that a wealthy Presbyterian layman, named Lyman Stewart, funded the publication of twelve pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. These pamphlets, which together consisted of 90 essays written by 64 authors from several denominations, were published between 1910 and 1915. The articles themselves expanded on the five fundamentals, and strengthened the fundamentalist stance against modernism.
Those who embraced the five fundamentals (and were thus associated with The Fundamentals pamphlets) came to be known as “fundamentalists.” They were those who held tight to the fundamental doctrines of the faith in the midst of modernist compromise.
As conservative evangelicals today, our spiritual and doctrinal heritage goes back to those men.
Will History Repeat Itself?
Fast forward 128 years from 1878.
Now it’s 2006. Yet the basic theological issues of today are not all that different than in 1878. The church of their day was faced with the temptation to compromise. The church today is faced with the very same temptation. The only difference is that we put a “post” in front of the “modernism.”
So it’s not really that surprising to observe the numerous similarities between the early fundamentalist movement (of the late 19th/early 20th century), and what is already beginning to happen in conservative evangelical circles.
In the face of postmodernism, today’s conservative Christian leaders are again rallying around the same core doctrines as the original fundamentalists. Vowing to stand firm against the advances of postmodernism, today’s “fundamentalists” again cross denominational lines. Baptists like Mark Dever and Al Mohler, independents like John MacArthur, Presbyterians like R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan, reformed charismatics like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney—they are standing united because something more important than denominational lines is at stake. The purity of the gospel is at stake.
Thousands of pastors across the nation are standing with them, as the success of modern Bible conferences (such as Shepherds’ Conference, Together for the Gospel, Desiring God, Ligonier, New Attitude, Resolved, etc.) continues to demonstrate. The organizers of Together for the Gospel have also developed a creedal statement—affirming key truths and denying key errors related to the gospel. This is precisely the approach of the original fundamentalists.
Like the original fundamentalists, these conservative evangelical leaders don’t agree on every secondary doctrine. But they do agree on the essentials. And that’s what makes them fundamentalists: they hold fast to the fundamental doctrines of the faith.
Now I’m not suggesting that the new fundamentalists call themselves “fundamentalists.” That name (in my opinion) has too much associated with it, in part because of the evangelical/fundamentalist split of the 1940s, and in part because the media has equated any type of fundamentalism with Islamic extremism. For that matter, I’m not suggesting they need a new label at all. (Though I do like the “Confessing Christian” term that the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals has used, as well as Ian Murray’s “Old Evangelical.”)
But I do see history repeating itself, should the Lord tarry. And I think reflecting on the example of the original fundamentalists gives us motivation to mobilize and encouragement to stand strong.
Over the next fifty years, I believe that similar lines will be drawn, similar alliances made, and similar battles fought as were seen 125 years ago. May God give us the courage and resolve of the original fundamentalists, as we stand firm for the truth against the tempting tidal wave of compromise.
No comments:
Post a Comment