Fundamentalism and American Culture

by Marsden, George M. ;

  In Zionism, pp. 32–41, Rausch provides an advance critique of the overall approach of the present volume, based on my earlier exchange with Sandeen (cf. above, Intro., note 6).

  16. Wenger, “Social Thought,” pp. 176–92, on Winrod’s and other’s anti-Semitism. Cf. Ralph Lord Roy, Apostles of Discord: A Study of Organized Bigotry and Disruption on the Fringes of Protestantism (Boston, 1953), pp. 26–58.

  17. So did John Roach Straton, Wenger, “Social Thought,” p. 184.

  18. Roy, Apostles, pp. 350–57. Cf. Russell, Voices, pp. 20–46. Norris dropped his anti-Catholicism during the later part of his career.

  19. Cf. Erling Jorstad, The Politics of Doomsday: Fundamentalists of the Far Right (Nashville, 1970); John H. Redekop, The American Far Right: A Case Study of Billy James Hargis and Christian Crusade (Grand Rapids, 1968); Roy, Apostles.

  20. Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York, 1962), p. 135; The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays New York, 1963), p. 29.

  XXIV. Fundamentalism as an Intellectual Phenomenon

  1. Leander S. Keyser in a review of Cole in Christian Faith and Life XXXVII (June, 1931), pp. 328–31, compiles a long list of such prejudicial statements.

  2. H. Richard Niebuhr, “Fundamentalism,” Encylopedia of Social Sciences, vol. VI (New York, 1937), pp. 526–27.

  3. Norman Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918–1931 (New Haven, 1954), pp. 39, 19–20, 56–57.

  4. Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York, 1962), p. 133.

  5. Reuben A. Torrey, The Importance and Value of Proper Bible Study (New York, 1921), p. 45, quoted in Robert E. Wenger, “Social Thought in American Fundamentalism, 1918–1933,” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Nebraska, 1973, p. 79. Cf. William G. McLoughlin, Jr., Modern Revivalism (New York, 1959), p. 288, for similar quotation from Southern revivalist Sam Jones.

  6. This theme is very well developed by Nathan O. Hatch, “Reaping the Whirlwind: The American Revolution, Social Change, and Theology,” unpublished paper, 1978.

  7. William Jennings Bryan, In His Image (New York, 1922), p. 93.

  8. Another line of defense sometimes was that science is fully competent to deal with natural subjects, but has no competence with respect to the supernatural, e.g. John Horsch, The Failure of Modernism (pamphlet) (Chicago, 1925), pp. 20–21. Horsch also claimed, however, that evolution or any science in conflict with Scripture was unscientific. Modern Religious Liberalism (Chicago, 1920). These works were published by Moody Bible Institute.

  Another common defense was that “the Bible is not a scientific treatise.” Dr. C. I. Scofield’s Question Box, compiled by Ella E. Pohle (Chicago, n. d.), p. 147. This meant only that the Bible did not speak on many scientific subjects, and was compatible with holding that the Bible was fully scientific (i.e. accurate as to facts) on subjects on which it spoke.

  9. “Text of Bryan’s Proposed Address in Scopes Case,” The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes: Complete Stenographic Report… (New York, 1971 [Cincinnati, 1925]), p. 323. Cf. In His Image, pp. 86–135, esp., p. 94.

  10. In His Image, p. 95.

  11. World’s Most Famous Trial, p. 182.

  12. Ibid., p. 317. Cf. Bryan’s common sense view of truth: “His [Jesus’] philosophy is easily comprehended and readily applied. His words need no interpretation; they are the words of the people and the language of the masses.” In His Image, p. 142.

  13. John Dewey, A Common Faith (New Haven, 1934), p. 63.

  14. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second edition, enlarged (Chicago, 1970 [1962]), p. 151 and passim.

  15. For discussion of Kuhn, see Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (London, 1970).

  16. Structure, p. 136. Actually the model seems to apply in a wide variety of areas. See, for instance, Robert W. Friedrichs, A Sociology of Sociology (New York, 1970).

  17. Bryan could name no living and respected scientist who supported his views, World’s Most Famous Trial, p. 297. His move toward separatism is indicated in his undelivered closing address, “Christians must, in every state of the Union, build their own colleges…,” p. 322.

  18. E. Y. Mullins, Christianity at the Cross Roads (New York, 1924), pp. 32, 56.

  19. Machen very explicitly endorsed Common Sense philosophy in What is Faith (New York, 1933), pp. 27–28, cited also in John C. Vander Stelt, Philosophy and Scripture: A Study in Old Princeton and Westminster Theology (Marlton, N.J., 1978), p. 209, cf. p. 215.

  20. J. Gresham Machen, “The Relation of Religion to Science and Philosophy,” Princeton Theological Review XXIV (January, 1926), pp. 38–66. Baconianism pervades Machen’s thought. See George Marsden, “J. Gresham Machen, History, and Truth,” Westminster Theological Journal XLII (Fall, 1979), pp. 157–75.

  21. A. C. Dixon, “Why I Am a Christian,” The King’s Business XI (November, 1920), pp. 261–62.

  22. Riley defined “science” as “knowledge gained and verified by exact observation and correct thinking; especially as methodologically formulated and arranged in a rational system.” This, he said, excludes, “theory,” “hypothesis,” and “assumption.” “Are the Scriptures Scientific?” (pamphlet) (Minneapolis, n. d. [after 1925]), p. 5. For equally definite statements of the Baconian ideal, see Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids, 1935), p. 15; and John Roach Straton, The Famous New York Fundamentalist Modernist Debates: The Orthodox Side (New York, 1924), p. 56.

  23. Riley, “Are the Scriptures Scientific?” p. 23.

  24. E. J. Pace, “The Law of the Octave,” Moody Monthly XXII (May, 1922), pp. 1022–25. Pace worked with the Extension Department of MBI.

  25. Ivan Panin, “Scripture Numerics,” The King’s Business X (May, 1919), pp. 407–10. Cf. editorial “CAN Inspiration be Proven Scientifically?” ibid., pp. 800–801. L. T. Townsend, “Verbal Inspiration,” The Bible Champion XXVIII (January, 1922), p. 3, refers to Panin approvingly.

  26. See Cy Hulse, “The Shaping of a Fundamentalist: A Case Study of Charles Blanchard,” M.A. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1977, on the various sides of Blanchard’s career.

  27. William Delahoyde, “Common Sense Philosophy at Wheaton College (1860–1940),” unpublished paper, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1976, clearly documents the explicit influences of Common Sense philosophy at Wheaton throughout this period. Cf. Hulse, “Shaping,” pp. 66–85. I am indebted to the excellent work of these two students on this subject. Cf. the nearly unbounded confidence in science and rationality in the works of Wheaton professor, Hervin U. Roop, e.g., The Fundamentals of Christianity (n. p., 1926), pp. 13, 49, 93.

  28. Hulse, “Shaping,” p. 85.

  29. Charles Blanchard, “Psychological Foundations,” unpublished book manuscript, Wheaton College archives, p. 28 and passim.

  30. “The Bible and the Word of God,” sermon manuscript, June 10, 1883, Wheaton archives, cited Hulse, “Shaping,” p. 76.

  31. Hulse, “Shaping,” p. 78.

  32. Sermon notes, n. d. (1891?), Wheaton archives, cited Hulse, “Shaping,” p. 77.

  33. Christian Science and the Word of God” (pamphlet), (n. p., n. d.), pp. 9–13, cited Hulse, “Shaping,” p. 80.

  34. “Psychological Foundations,” p. 39.

  35. Charles Blanchard, President Blanchard’s Autobiography (Boone, Iowa, 1915), p. 160.

  36. “The Coming of the Lord Draws Near,” in Prophetic Conference Addresses Given at the Winona Lake Bible Conference (Winona Lake, Ind., 1918), p. 207.

  37. Ibid.

  38. Method in Biblical Criticism (Chicago, 1922), p. 21, cited in Hulse, “Shaping,” pp. 91–92.

  39. Quoted in H. L. Mencken, ed., Americana 1925 (New York, 1925), p. 232, from an address by Billy Sunday in Nashville, “as reported by the celebrated Banner.”

  XXV. Fundamentalism as an American Phenom
enon

  1. Ulster appears to be an exception—one that would offer another illustration of the relationship of fundamentalism to relatively unique cultural experiences. Canada developed some fundamentalist movements paralleling those in the United States. In many nations, confessionalists and churchly conservatives survived and in some, such as the Netherlands, they had considerable influence; but these lacked the revivalist ties and some of the intellectual emphases characteristic of fundamentalists. Evangelical or pietistic revivalism, sometimes with genuinely fundamentalist traits and connections, could be found throughout the world in the twentieth century, but seldom with a substantial role in their culture comparable to that of fundamentalism and its evangelical heirs in America.

  2. I have discussed this comparison in more detail in “Fundamentalism as an American Phenomenon, A Comparison with English Evangelicalism,” Church History XLVI (June, 1977), pp. 215–32. J. I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God (London, 1958), and James Barr, Fundamentalism (Philadelphia, 1977), present respectively pro and con views of recent militant British “fundamentalism.” Barr’s attacks indicate the considerable influence of such views since World War II, although this British fundamentalism has generally been of a more scholarly sort than most of its American counterparts. I am indebted also to Ian S. Rennie of Regent College, Vancouver, for his discussions with me on this subject.

  3. Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., ed., Controversy in the Twenties (Nashville, 1969), pp. 409–14.

  4. Times, August 20, 1929, obituary of Dr. Arthur Samuel Peake, quoted in David G. Fountain, E. J. Poole-Connor (1872–1962): “Contender for the Faith,” (London, 1966), p. 91.

  5. See “Fundamentalism as an American Phenomenon,” Church History XLVI (June, 1977), for speculative explanations.

  6. Stanley Elkins, Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life (Chicago, 1959), refers to “the dynamics of unopposed capitalism.”

  7. Cf. Donald G. Mathews, “The Great Awakening as an Organizing Process 1780–1830: An Hypothesis,” American Quarterly XXI (1969); Rise of Adventism: Religion and Society in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America, Edwin S. Gaustad, ed. (New York, 1974), pp. 119–54, who goes so far as to suggest that revivalism is the key to understanding American life generally.

  8. Cf. Sacvan Bercovitch, The Puritan Origins of the American Self (New Haven, 1975).

  9. Nathan O. Hatch, “Reaping the Whirlwind: The American Revolution, Social Change, and Theology,” paper delivered at the Trinity College (Ill.) history conference, April, 1978, suggests and develops this theme of Sola Scriptura and Novus Ordo Seclorum.

  10. These are the dominant themes as summarized by Sandra Sizer, Gospel Hymns and Social Religion (Philadelphia, 1978), p. 25.

  11. Ernest Lee Tuveson, Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America’s Millennial Role (Chicago, 1968), gives many examples of this point.

  12. In England dispensationalism had relatively few adherents except among the Plymouth Brethren.

  13. George Marsden, “J. Gresham Machen—History and Truth,” Westminster Theological Journal XLII (Fall, 1979), pp. 157–75, deals with this question. Grant A. Wacker, “Augustus H. Strong: A Conservative Confrontation with History,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1978, presents a very sophisticated discussion of this issue in the thought of one of the many conservatives caught between liberal and fundamentalist extremes.

  14. Cf., for instance, Franklin L. Baumer, Modern European Thought: Continuity and Change in Ideas, 1600–1950 (New York, 1977), pp. 262, 268–301.

  15. See, for example, R. Stephen Humphreys, “Islam and Political Values in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria,” The Middle East Journal XXXIII (Winter, 1979), pp. 1–19.

  16. A recent Gallup survey estimates the number of “evangelicals” at 44 million, or about one fifth of the population. Christianity Today XXIII (Dec. 21, 1979), p. 1671. George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America (Greenville, S.C., 1973), p. 248, estimates the number of “fundamentalists” at “near four million.”

  Afterword: History and Fundamentalism

  1. Richard F. Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal (Downers Grove, 111., 1979), p. 256.

  2. I am indebted to Joy L. Johnson, “The Theology of Middle-earth,” M.A. dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1978.

  3. I have discussed these points in greater detail in “A Christian Perspective for the Teaching of History,” A Christian View of History? George Marsden and Frank Roberts, eds. (Grand Rapids, 1975).

  Fundamentalism Yesterday and Today (2005)

  1. Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800–1930 (Chicago, 1970), p. ix.

  2. I am grateful especially to Joel Carpenter for his emphasis on this point, both in his Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (New York, 1997) and in personal comment on this essay. In the latter he quotes Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History (New York, 1996), p. 79, who writes, “Historic evangelicalism is a religion of protest against a Christian society that is not Christian enough….” Walls’s statement is a reminder that even though, as argued below, conversionist evangelicalism has been shaped most by positive concerns for evangelism, missions, and spirituality, it has since its origins included a sense of crisis in Christendom.

  3. See Chapter XXIII.

  4. A revealing example is that Marty E. Marty, perhaps the most astute observer of the religious scene of the era, in his Righteous Empire: The Protestant Experience in America (New York, 1970), esp. pp. 177–187, wrote of a “two-party system” that emerged in the early twentieth century between a “public” Protestantism associated with the social gospel and a “private” Protestantism associated with revivalism.

  5. Christian Smith, American Evangelicals: Embattled and Thriving (Chicago, 1998), p. 37, shows that self-identified evangelicals and fundamentalists are somewhat more likely than mainline or liberal religious people to call for changing society according to God’s will. But Christian Smith, Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want (Berkeley, CA, 2000), p. 200. also documents that their views are far from monolithic. For instance, only about half (though twice the percentage of all other Americans) of self-identified evangelicals and fundamentalists will agree that “Christian morality should be the law of the land even though not all Americans are Christian.” About one-third affirm the view that religion should be essentially a “private matter.” See Smith’s entire discussion for the many nuances and qualifications of what people mean by their survey answers.

  6. In the mid-nineteenth century “evangelical” had been a term that well-described trans-Atlantic conversionist Protestantism that was flourishing in America, but by the 1920s it had become a generic term without clear content, since it was claimed by liberals and conservatives alike.

  7. I am here using “pietist” and “Reformed” cultural outlooks in the senses described in the Introduction to this book. These are ideal types and it is easy to find exceptions to these general tendencies.

  For fundamentalism in the 1930s to the birth of neo-evangelicalism in the 1950s the indispensable work is Carpenter, Revive Us Again. Also see Leo P. Ribuffo, The Old Christian Right: The Protestant Far Right from the Depression to the Cold War (Philadelphia, 1983). On the 1940s to 1960s see also George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, 1987).

  8. Ways of interpreting Scripture were often the most substantial issue in distinguishing fundamentalistic evangelicals from more moderate evangelicals in doctrinal matters. Both affirmed that the Bible was the highest authority and that God would not err in any teaching. More fundamentalistic evangelicals, however, were more prone to interpret Scripture according to the principle of “literal when possible” so that any seeming historical or prophetic narrative (as opposed to unmistakable metaphor) should be interpreted as literally and exactly true. Moderate evangelicals, in t
he meantime, allowed more leeway in interpreting what the Bible meant to say or teach. In general they distanced themselves from elements in their fundamentalist past that they considered too rigid but affirmed what they saw as the essential doctrinal teachings of the heritage.

  My essay, “Fundamentalism and American Evangelicalism,” in The Variety of American Evangelicalism (Knoxville, TN, 1991), Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston, eds., pp. 22–35, delineates these relationships more fully. The Dayton and Johnston volume is especially helpful for appreciating the complexity of evangelicalism.

  9. Quoted in Richard N. Ostling, “Jerry Falwell’s Crusade: Fundamentalist Legions Seek to Remake Church and Society,” Time 126 (September 2,1985), p. 48. Falwell subsequently adopted and popularized this quip.

  10. This roughly follows the four-fold definition of D. W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London, 1989), pp. 2–17, which has become more-or-less canonical.

  When I use “fundamentalist or evangelical” or the like below I am referring to the ecclesiastical distinction between separatists and non-separatists, even though separatist fundamentalists are a sub-type of evangelical. For a fuller discussion of the definitional issues see George M. Marsden, Understanding Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids, 1991), pp. 1–6.

  11. Just for one example, political scientist Corwin Smidt estimated that in 2000 twenty-five percent of the electorate were whites who were active in evangelical churches, a predominately Republican group. Richard Ostling, “Religion Today, Surveying the religio-political landscape for hints of November,” (AP), 2000 (no exact date) on Beliefnet. The various works by Smidt, Lyman Kellstedt, James Guth, and John C. Green are the most reliable for identifying evangelical influences in electoral politics.