The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: The Ricochet of Silver Bullet

Jerry Falwell sounds a dramatic call for an evangelical fundamentalist alliance in The Fundamentalist Phenomenon (Doubleday, 1981), which he edited with Ed Dobson and Ed Hindson.

No fundamentalist spokesman is as pointedly critical of contemporary fundamentalism as is Falwell, and none more sharply censorious of evangelicalism. Nonetheless, he calls for a coalition of fundamentalists and evangelicals that would “reshape the forces of conservative Christianity.” Falwell declares the 1980s the decade of destiny for spiritual revival and political renewal in America: “The time has come for the Fundamentalists and Evangelicals to return our nation to its spiritual and moral roots.”

Establishment evangelicalism’s response to this remarkable appeal, and also that of Falwell’s fundamentalist cohorts, could influence the structural fortunes and public opportunities of theological conservatism in America for the remainder of this century. The appeal merits careful study and comprehensive dialogue by leaders qualified to speak for the many divergent strands of American Bible believers.

Falwell’s summons does not explicitly extend to ecumenically identified evangelicals, most of whom lack interevangelical affiliation. But despite sharp criticism of theologically plural contexts, he admits that more believers survive an ecumenical climate than he once thought.

Pastor of an outsize church, chancellor of Liberty Baptist College, mass-media merchant of the gospel, and energetic sociopolitical crusader, Falwell at times wears enough hats to confound his critics over which role he speaks in on issues. Menachem Begin, who talked with Falwell by phone after Israel’s destructive strike against Iraq’s nuclear plant, told critics that Israel had the endorsement of “a spokesman for 20 million American evangelicals” (Falwell’s estimated radio and television audiences). Not long after that Falwell scorched President Reagan’s Supreme Court appointment of Sandra O’Connor because of her abortion stance. Which hat was Falwell wearing? On what ground did he take his positions?

Falwell considers it virtuous to speak with a simplicity that assures wide news media exposure. But must leaders not clarify when they merely speak their personal preferences, when they speak for specifics that they hold to be biblically authorized, and when they speak ethically on a nontheological base?

Falwell has lifted American fundamentalism out of its underground into the foreground that the broader evangelical movement was already occupying. The fundamentalist wing now differs from evangelicals generally in its preference for “strong confrontation” over “penetration” as the means of social change; in its hostility to Billy Graham (it considers inclusive crusade sponsorship a concession to apostasy); and to the charismatic movement (whose theological validity it rejects). By contrast, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) currently has a charismatic president, and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary has recently named an Assemblies of God scholar to succeed Harold John Ockenga as president.

Falwell spurs many fundamentalist pastors both to program local day schools and Bible schools and to venture mass-media preaching and public involvement on moral and political issues.

In The Fundamentalist Phenomenon (written in cooperation with Liberty Baptist College associates Ed Dobson and Ed Hindson), Falwell declares that fundamentalists are modern heirs of biblical Christianity in opposition to liberalism, communism and “left-wing Evangelicalism.” There can be no doubt, he says, “that Fundamentalist roots go back to the Evangelicals of the late nineteenth century.” The volume contains readable chapters on the evangelical-modernist conflict from 1900–30 that saw fundamentalist influence wane in “mainline” denominations, and independent fundamentalist efforts grow.

As many local congregations aspired to become independent superchurches—and some in turn became virtual denominations—fundamentalists fell into intramural dispute over secondary separation (cooperation with outsiders). Pursuing “absolute purify,” they divided until “by 1967 the Fundamentalist Movement was so fragmented and diversified that it was impossible to describe it, categorize it, or even understand it.” Even the great doctrinal foundations became almost secondary. Fundamentalists meanwhile lacked a social ethic, and emphasized personal taboos. The infighting Falwell describes is tawdry. Leaders (Falwell among them) criticized the clergy for political involvement and had little thought of making the religious right a national moral cause. Yet some who now oppose Falwell’s political activism, he notes, had in the past supported the political activities of Carl McIntire and Billy James Hargis.

Falwell’s appraisal of evangelicals largely reflects the tendential views of Richard Quebedeaux and Robert Webber: evangelicals are deeply split into competing groups on right, left, and center. Tolerance of doctrinal compromise is the hallmark of “young evangelicals.” Quebedeaux’s report of their openness to Protestant liberalism and to sexual lassitude is taken as an overall gilt-edge characterization.

The New Evangelicalism, Falwell says, tolerates “inclusion of Christ-denying, Bible-deprecating unbelief”; and, “The atmosphere of New Evangelicalism is generally that of conformity to society.” Mainline evangelicalism, Falwell summarizes, reacted to fundamentalism “and produced New Evangelicalism,” which emphasizes not only denominational infiltration and social engagement, but “theological tolerance,” and “overtolerance has left the Evangelical Movement in neutral” and “the entire movement is in danger of drifting into moderate Liberalism.” If this is a verdict on the NAE, Falwell needs to spend more time away from Lynchburg.

Falwell gives 10 internal criticisms of fundamentalism and makes the costly confession that “it is possible to attend a Fundamentalist church and … almost never hear the Gospel.” We laud his rejection of what he disavows in fundamentalism and in left-wing evangelicalism insofar as his characterizations are sound. If left-wing evangelicals are liberal in theology, they are not evangelicals, though political liberalism need not on all issues put them outside the camp of evangelical orthodoxy. Nor need dialogue with Catholics, Jews, and Marxists be evangelical wickedness. If Falwell lived in Russia he might be glad for it, and sometimes dialogue can even be the first step in conversion.

Except for “a difference of attitude,” Falwell concedes, evangelicalism and mainstream fundamentalism are not intrinsically different. Both share the fundamentalist basics of inerrant scriptural authority, the deity of Christ including the Virgin Birth, substitutionary atonement, the literal resurrection, and the second advent of Christ. These basic beliefs, the volume holds, are those of “the majority of religious Americans.” (Elsewhere the number of the general public believing in biblical inerrancy is placed at 42 percent.)

One exasperating feature is Falwell’s sliding use of descriptive terms. From the strong American commitment to “orthodox, fundamental, evangelical Christianity” (adult evangelicals are placed at 30 million but no distinction between evangelicals and fundamentalists is made within this figure) he leaps to the verdict that “Fundamental Christianity is resurging as America begins the decade of the 1980s” and “Fundamentalism is the force of the 1980s.”

Over 200,000 students are preparing for Christian vocations in conservative schools, we are told, and the Christian school movement has 15,000 schools with over two million students, with three new schools emerging daily. No doubt many fundamentalist churches, like evangelical churches generally, show notable gains in membership, and in church and Sunday school attendance. Of the top 20 Sunday schools, half are fundamentalist; among them is the nation’s leading Sunday school with 36,000 members. Falwell places membership of the Baptist Bible Fellowship, largest of the fundamentalist groups, at between “2 to 3 million”—which allows a 50 percent margin of error.

As in the title’s use of the terms fundamentalist and conservative, there is a confusing shell game in the volume’s flexible alternation of left-wing evangelicals, new evangelicals, and evangelicals. Some contrasts are not only simplistic but unworthy.

The volume also contains some factual errors—as that the NAE helped to organize CHRISTIANITY TODAY—and it approves theologically imprecise and uncritical overstatements of neo-orthodox position. It is also confused about the 1977 Chicago Call. Some quotations are twisted to serve other than intended purposes.

What characterizes “the resurgence of Fundamentalism into the mainstream of American religious life”? The volume states candidly that fundamentalists (Jerry Falwell especially) hijacked the evangelical jumbo jet while establishment leaders hesitated to forge an aggressive public program. Leaders of establishment evangelicalism held conferences on the future of evangelicalism, but neither the NAE, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, evangelical colleges, nor prestigious evangelists took the urgency of social involvement seriously enough to initiate a mass movement. Fundamentalist mainstream engagement came through the electronic church, which mainline evangelicals neglected, and it gave national visibility to Falwell’s political morality thrust in the 1980 campaign.

Falwell depicts evangelicals as overintellectual at the expense of church building, a caricature dating back to Bob Jones, Sr. The “ethereal theorizing of the Evangelicals,” has, he says, impaired their production of “the organizational structures” necessary to a dynamic political impact. It may be questioned, however, whether most evangelicals theorize enough about the matter. Precisely the lack of theoretical definition rendered much of the recent fundamentalist political involvement vulnerable to needless countercriticisms.

Moral Majority’s list of concerns will, on the whole, commend itself to most evangelicals, although the commitment on Israel should be guarded against any implication of support for “Israel—Right or Wrong.” To insist that Israel be answerable to international justice as fully as any other state is not anti-Semitic. Falwell now insistently puts human rights concerns and world hunger on the agenda. But his statement of the grounds on which Christians are to address the political order still leaves some important issues unresolved.

Falwell’s volume gives no precise statement of the real theological-philosophical enemy of biblical theism today except for rather vague references to humanism. It reflects Tim LaHaye’s unbalanced view that humanism espouses amorality. Yet its most important message is: “The time has come for true Fundamentalists and sincere Evangelicals to rise above the excessive labeling and listing of people, groups and schools.… Divergent groups of Bible-believing Christians who hold to the basic tenets of the faith can cooperate together in order to develop a broadly united front against the real enemies of true Christianity. Let us once again focus the theological guns at liberalism, humanism and secularism.”

How many fundamentalists can Falwell spur to broader involvement? How many of “the 20 million for whom Falwell speaks” are not already involved in larger evangelical alliances? Key ’73 proposed that fellow evangelicals, irrespective of ecumenical involvement or noninvolvement, join shoulder to shoulder in communities across America to witness to the joys of knowing the Savior and the rewards of Bible reading. Is that finally in prospect? Can evangelicals forge a cooperative evangelistic thrust for righteousness in national life? Differ as they may on some specific issues, and on the secondaries of some specifics, can they exercise on nonecclesiastical grounds a coordinated legislative influence in the promotion of justice?

Falwell’s volume deserves full reading not simply as a window on fundamentalism’s bid for larger evangelical perspectives and cooperation that can lift fundamentalism beyond its largely negative role of the recent past to a profounder world/life vision, and to points of amenable coalition for important evangelistic and sociocultural objectives. Falwell should be asked for specifics of fundamentalist strength and an identification of spokesmen ready to cooperate in a high-level prayer-and-probe-projection meeting involving key leaders.

Falwell’s proposal is the most open bid from the independent fundamentalists since Carl McIntire’s formation of the now ailing American Council of Christian Churches. It dare not be neglected.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.