Fundamentalism and American Culture

by
George M. Marsden (1)

What an excellent book by George Marsden, professor of History of Christianity in America at Duke Divinity School. His work is scholarly, clearly written, and fair minded. It is a pleasure to read an author whose apparent goal is to render the truth as clearly as possible. I am not a sure enough student of American religious history to know how accurate he was in his assessments. I have, however, read a great many books, and over the years, developed a feel for when an author is leaning toward propaganda or is intent upon rendering his subject as honestly as possible. This book is of the latter type.

I learned about this book by reading The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark A. Noll.(2) According to Noll, this book by Marsden was the "indispensable study" for understanding the larger historical developments that gave rise to modern evangelicalism.(3) I can see why Noll gives this book such high praise.

The complete title of the book is, Fundamentalism and American Culture, The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalsim, 1870-1925. The writer's goal was to given an account of the formation of American fundamentalism during the critical period of its formation, 1870-1925, together with fundamentalism's role in shaping twentieth-century evangelicalism. As one reads the book, it becomes clear that the essential issues have changed little since 1925. Perhaps, given the rise of post-modernism, there are fewer people who care about these issues, but there are still a great many people who do, and to my mind, the issues are very important. This brief review will be limited to only two issues, issues which seem to me in light of present day circumstances, to be the most pertinent.

As described by Marsden, major portions of evangelicalism have adopted the epistemology of a particular philosophical school, namely Scottish Common Sense Realism.(4) According to this school, the mind has a clear perception of facts, and from these facts, can deduce general conclusions. Further, these facts are evident, anyone with an open mind can clearly see the facts just as anyone with eyesight can see a tree. Such an approach is scientific, similar to the empirical or scientific method. For a good many Christians of the nineteenth century, charmed by the advances in science, this method seem right and sensible as applied to their understanding of Scripture. Scripture, in their view, was a document that gave facts, facts that were apparent to everyone who read Scripture with an open mind. These facts were set forth in propositional statements, and the hermeneutical task was to simply to take stock of the facts, arrange them according to their various categories, and deduce the doctrinal and moral truths one needs to live the Christian life.

In my view, several consequences flowed from this view of Scripture. First, an understanding of Scripture as a set of facts significantly narrows the scope of genre within Scripture itself. For example, diverse texts such as Genesis 1 and 2, Job, Matthew, and Revelation, would all be read as one genre, namely, historical narrative facts. When certain scientific discoveries occurred, such as a very old age for the earth, the possibility of evolution, the lack of evidence for a recent world-wife flood, believers were left with either two alternatives. Either give up the Bible and its facts, or, accept the biblical facts and believe the scientific facts were a fraud perpetuated by atheistic science. The fundamentalists took the latter course, and as a result, are still today making strenuous efforts to prove the Bible by creation science, and further, to use the political process to implement this program in the schools. The possibility, for example, that the narrative of the flood might be a genre other than a straight narrative of facts was not an option given the assumptions governing the nature of the Bible.

These tensions were made worse by the onset of the historical critical method of investigating Scripture. This method, generally understood as a facet of liberalism, was simply considered false. First, this method denied the supernatural, and secondly, it dismembered the Bible and showed that the Bible was not written, more or less directly by the hand of God, but rather, was a fallible, human creation. The result was a division of the church into what we may call, liberal and conservative factions. These factions have never come together and the dividing issues are still the same.

As science and the critical study of the Bible undermined Scripture, the conservatives fought back. Most notable was a series of twelve paperback volumes called The Fundamentals, written by a number of conservative scholars between 1910 and 1915. The project was funded by a conservative, California millionaire, and copies were distributed free to "every pastor, missionary, theological professor, theological student, YMCA and YWCA secretary, college professor, Sunday school superintendent, and religious editor in the English-speaking world, and sent out some three million individual volumes in all."(5) This great effort met with little response, but it did define a movement designated by the word "fundamentalism."

Reflecting on the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy, I would want to say that this philosophy does not lead to the knowledge of God. It leads to a knowledge of facts, even facts of what God has said or done. Knowing facts about God is not the same as knowing God. We do not even know other persons by simply knowing facts about them. We know God and others by means of a personal encounter in which the other person becomes real to us. In regard to the Christian God, this personal encounter involves the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. The Scottish Common Sense Philosophy, however, does not lead to a knowledge of God, only a knowledge of facts about God. Theologically, as applied to understanding Scripture, this philosophy is Ebionite, the heresy that Jesus Christ really only possessed one nature, the human nature.

Having said that, however, facts do matter for knowing the Christian God. This is a consequence of the Incarnation. The Incarnation means that God has revealed himself in terms of events given to the senses and reported by those who were with the Lord Jesus. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life -- ..." (1John 1:1). The things they say and heard were factual, and the teaching of Christ in the context of the entire biblical revelation does lead to doctrine. At the same time, however, the Incarnation was an incarnation. God was in the flesh, and the critical matter here is that the flesh revealed God, and this entails both Trinity and Incarnation. When the human soul meets God the heart, body, and mind, the whole self, not only knows the human nature of Christ, so to speak, but also the divine nature, catching a glimpse of the glory of God and humbling oneself before the absolute authority of his Word.

For years I have been perplexed by how so many religious conservatives seem to believe they have reached the end of the matter when they prove a biblical doctrine, or deduce some arcane teaching from the facts of Scripture, or discover in its pages the true timetable for the end. I kept thinking and feeling, "So what?" What do you have? You have an empty doctrine, the latest teaching, or the certain timetable, but where is God, the living God, the great and glorious one who humbled himself and took the form of a slave to wash our feet? That sense of glory, wonder, and praise is so often missing from their teaching and preaching. Instead, they give us doctrine, facts, the latest revelation discovered by someone piecing together a string of biblical texts. Most unfortunate is the endless speculation on the chronology of the end, discovered by piecing together bits of biblical texts to arrive at a putative timetable. This is a great waste of time and energy. It leads to indifference to serious issues that now afflict both the church and society, and detracts the church from the wonder of the gospel.

Having said this, however, as Marsden points out, the fundamentalists did affirm the supernatural character of God against liberalism. In my view, this is to their credit. Furthermore, I would want to say that among a number of religious conservatives there is a great passion for the gospel, and among others, an awareness of the power of the Spirit, especially among the Pentecostals. A straightforward reading of Scripture by the power of the Spirit can work wonders, whereas the liberal denial of the supernatural and the atomizing of the biblical text leads to death. Those evangelicals who break out into the open air of the gospel, or those Pentecostals and charismatics who meet the Lord Jesus who heals and delivers today, have left the arid Scottish Common Sense Philosophy behind and met the living God, regardless of how they might understand their approach to Scripture. This is a great blessing. Having said this, however, it is tragic that great sectors of conservative Christianity are still locked in the straightjacket of their heretical hermeneutic.

Secondly, Marsden describes how the thinking and action of biblical conservatives has evolved in regard to social issues. In the middle to late nineteenth century, a number of Bible-believing groups were quite progressive in their politics. They knew that God wanted all people to have the basics of life and they acted in favor of the poor and the oppressed. For example, even as late as 1910, the Christian Herald, despite "its theological conservatism and continued championing of a number of exclusively evangelistic efforts, ... endorsed labor unions, worked for legislation concerning women's and children's labor, advocated better treatment of immigrants and blacks, and waged an unceasing campaign for world peace."(6) By 1920, there was a sea change, what Marsden calls "The Great Reversal."(7) What was the cause of this great reversal?

According to Marsden, several factors were at work. First, throughout the 19th century there was a gradual theological shift from the a Calvinist understanding of Scripture, which understood the New Testament as completing the Old, and therefore that social and economic matters were important, to a pietistic approach which saw the New Testament as less connected to the Old, and further, understood the faith as essentially inward and individualistic. Further, under the impact of revivalism and other factors, there was a shift from postmillennialism, with its belief that life on earth can be improved prior to Christ's return, to premillennialism, with its belief that only the sudden world-wide appearance of Christ can improve conditions here on earth. These shifts in perspective diminished the urge to improve the human condition. Secondly, at the turn of the century, the social gospel emerged, championed by the liberals. In reaction to the liberals, religious conservatives withdrew from social involvement.

This period of withdrawal, however, was short-lived. The experience of World War I convinced many in the fundamentalist movement that Germany had descended into barbarism due to her embrace of evolution and the historical critical method. Even more, the Russian Revolution and the advent of world-wide communism, with its atheistic presuppositions, convinced many Bible-believing people that the only hope for Western civilization was a return to the Bible as the foundation of life in America. At this point, the seeds were sown for political activism on the part of conservatives, an activism that has waxed and waned, but its animating power is the desire to save America in particular, and the West in general, from the social disintegration that follows from godlessness. Here is Marsden,

These ideas and the cultural crisis that bred them, revolutionized fundamentalism. More precisely, the created it (although certainly not ex nihilo) in its classic form. Until World War I various components of the movement were present, yet collectively they were not sufficient to constitute a full-fledged "fundamentalist" movement. The cultural issue suddenly gave the movement a new dimension, as well as a great sense of urgency. During the 1920s the point was constantly reiterated that the argument between fundamentalists and modernists was not merely a theological debate (theological debate would not have created much fervor among Americans.) The contention was that the whole moral course of civilization was involved. Evolution became a symbol. Without the new cultural dimension it is unlikely that the debate over Darwinism could have been revived in the spectacular way it was or that fundamentalism itself would have gained wide support. Americans had just fought a war that could be justified only as a war between civilization and barbarism. German barbarism could be explained as the result of an evolutionary "might is right" superman philosophy. The argument was clear -- the same thing could happen in America.(8)

There are many things that could be said about this development, but I would like to restrict myself to only a few comments. First, without going into details, the pietistic marginalization of the Old Testament has affinities with the ancient heresy of Marcion and is not the way to interpret Scripture. Life in this world matters and all of it matters. It is outrageous how Christians retreat into a private fantasy world in the face of the terrible social conditions that now afflict our society. Or, more accurately, many conservative Christians will be concerned about certain issues, abortion and homosexuality, or example, and ignore others such as militarism and poverty. In regard to social issues and the gospel, it is not a matter of either/or, it is both/and. The church must proclaim the gospel and bring lost souls to Christ, and at the same time, meet the needs of the broken-hearted and oppressed. The fact that the liberals have gutted the gospel is no reason for Christians to back down from social issues.

Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." Then the righteous will answer him, saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:34-40)

Secondly, it is significant that a major portion of the energy that fueled the conservative attack on modernism was not a concern for theology "(theological debate would not have created much fervor among Americans)," or a concern for the church, or even a concern for the lost, but rather, as Marsden states it, "the whole moral course of civilization was involved," and further, that "the same thing could happen in America." In other words, what really animated the fundamentalists was America. What happens in America is certainly very important, but what the fundamentalists do not realize is that the way the church can be helpful to the state is by first being the church. Once the church begins to preach "God and country," the church has lost its way, conflating the Kingdom of God with America, an idolatry which will have profound and terrible effects on the state as well as the church. In order for this syncretistic conflation to occur, believers become political, that is, they see America through a political lens rather than a theological or biblical lens. The result is to exaggerate certain of America's sins and ignore others, and some of the ones ignored by fundamentalists, such as war and Mammon, have terrible effects on the American populace and on the world in general. This blindness to America's sin makes constructive action virtually impossible. For example, in regard to Mammon, Marsden quotes from the Christian Century of 1921, "When the capitalist discovers a brand of religion which has not the slightest interest in 'the social gospel,' but on the contrary intends to pass up all reforms to the Messiah who will return on the clouds of heaven, he is found just the thing he has been looking for.?(9) It appears that almost nothing has changed in the last 100 years.

In short, American fundamentalism, by and large, was and is idolatrous, placing God and country in the same phrase, as if the two could ever be in parity. It is hard to imagine this idolatry ever being cured in history apart from the collapse of the United States of America, a disaster that will bring us great suffering. We are, in my view, in the early stages of that collapse.

In sum, this was a most illuminating book, shedding light on our present circumstance, and I would recommend it to anyone who wishes to understand something of America's religious life.

Endnotes

1. Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.
2. Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmanns, 1994. The first sentence of this book is as follows: "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind" (p. 3).
3. Noll, p. 109n.2.
4. Marsden, p. 14.
5. Marsden, p. 119.
6. Marsden, pp. 84-5.
7. Marsden, p. 85ff.
8. Marsden, p. 149.
9. Marsden, p. 206.