FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE CHURCH OF THE
by Edwin E. Crawford, Jr.Northwest Nazarene College
The Theology of Church of the Nazarene was clearly made distinct from Fundamentalism by actions of the General Assemblies of 1928 and 1932. This was done not by specific repudiation of Fundamentalism but by affirming the Church's commitment to its Wesleyan-Arminian heritage. Language in the Articles of Faith was made more precise so that there was little room for a Calvinistic interpretation of the meaning. With this careful and faithful commitment to Wesley, the Church of the Nazarene had put itself outside of the Fundamentalist position. What is important to understand is that commitment to Wesleyan-Armenian theology necessarily divides the Church of the Nazarene from Fundamentalism. Also inferred is that Fundamentalism is a product of Calvinist doctrine. This historical situation is described in Timothy Smith's history of the Church of the Nazarene, Called Unto Holiness, in chapter XIII.
I
It is significant to remember that the issue of fundamentalism was not a part of either the 1907 union Assembly in Chicago nor the 1908 union Assembly in Pilot Point. What happened in the twenty years that lead to the concerns of the 1928 Assembly? A rather simplistic answer to that question will probably do for this presentation: Three things seem to be obvious contributors to the change. The first is the spread of the fundamentalist controversy that had generated around the turn of the century. The second is the rapid growth of the Church of the Nazarene in the Midwest. The third is the uniting of the Laymen's Holiness Association with the Church of the Nazarene in the Summer of 1922.
First, at the end of the 19th century, a theological controversy began to develop around the Biblical Scholars at Andover Seminary. Andover Seminary was established in 1808 and was the first theological school in New England. It was established by Calvinists to propagate and defend their theological concerns. In 1881, a major change took place in the faculty. This new faculty began to apply modern critical methods of literary study to the Biblical text. This activity brought a reaction from constituents who were concerned to preserve the authority of Scripture. The ensuing debate hardened into two distinct positions. The professors and their supporters were identified as Liberals and the critics were called Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists gained that designation because of the five fundamentals that they claimed were a test for Christian orthodoxy. We shall consider these fundamentals later in this discussion.
The rapid spread of this controversy is most noticeable in the rural communities of New England, upstate New York, and the upper Mississippi Valley. Perhaps due to the catastrophic collapse of humanistic expectations in the death and destruction of the World War I and to rural economic frustrations, there developed a general pessimism about humanity and a specific distrust of the social order in these rural regions. Consequently, not only were the Fundamentalist principles embraced, they were held tightly with a passion to protect the faith from the evil world.
Second, along with this general progression of the Liberal/Fundamental Controversy was a specific impact on the young Church of the Nazarene. Against the backdrop of an unsure shift to second generation leadership, the church began to grow rapidly in the upper Mississippi Valley. At the time of the 1908 union in Pilot Point, Texas, the Church of the Nazarene was clustered in the three geographic locations that represented the three uniting groups: New England and New York, The Far West, the Old South West. The Far Western group had a relatively small outpost in Chicago. A rapid, significant, and dramatic change took place. By 1920 about 50% of the estimated property value of the Church of the Nazarene, more than 40% of church members, and four of the Church's colleges were in the Midwest. This growth was not primarily the result of evangelism but of the Fundamentalist Controversy. The Methodist churches of this region had become a battle field in a theological war. The Church of the Nazarene became a home for those who had been influenced by their fundamentalist leanings to leave the Methodist Church. Timothy Smith claims that this created a radical change in the focus of the Church.
Third, the Laymen's Holiness Association was assimilated into the Church of the Nazarene. The Association was a movement within the Methodist conferences in the upper Midwest. A specific understanding of this group was a commitment to a fundamentalist interpretation of Wesleyan doctrine. This was a relatively small group, but its vocal leadership and the resonance with the thinking of the new Nazarenes in the upper Mississippi Valley created the need for the Church of the Nazarene to assert its basic commitment to Wesleyan/Arminian doctrine.
II
Understanding that an affirmation of Wesleyan/Arminian theology is necessarily a denial of Fundamentalism, brings one to the need to demonstrate some basic contrasts between the Wesleyan/Arminian tradition and the Reformed tradition (Calvinism). The focal point of these contrasts is James Arminius (1560-1609), a Reformed pastor and professor in Holland. He came from a poor family, but through his scholastic performance became known to the civic leaders in Amsterdam. They funded his theological studies at the Reformed school in Geneva. Arminius' professor, a devoted disciple of Calvin, was careful to preserve and communicate the doctrines of his master. Arminius more than met the expectations of his professor and the leaders back home in Amsterdam.
After serving some years of pastoral duties in Amsterdam, the popular preacher took up the responsibilities of teaching as he joined the faculty at the University of Leiden. As pastor and teacher, Arminius tried to mitigate what he took to be the excessive theological claims that were being made by reformed apologists in Holland. He believed that their responses to theological attacks by Catholic thinkers were an overstatement of the reformed positions. His own response to this situation was an attempt to counter the excesses of the apologists. However, in this task he did more than just returned to Calvin; he began to articulate positions which would eventually produce doctrines that were contrary to Calvin. Simply, Arminius wanted to gain a space for human responsibility, while Calvin's theological system was essentially deterministic. Arminius and those who sided with him were known as Remonstrants.
What follows is an adaptation of ideas that Carl Bangs expressed in the H. Orton Wiley Lectures in Theology, Point Loma College, in 1977. Those lectures are contained in a small book titled Our Roots of Belief. All of the sixteen claims below are accepted by both the Reformed tradition and Arminius, However, the Reformed position in each pair will lean toward the first of the pair (odd number), while Arminius' position in the same pair will lean toward the second (even number). The first pair is Grace and Freedom. The reformed (Calvinist) tradition would lean toward Grace, God's grace alone is efficacious; while the Arminian tradition tend toward Freedom, human freedom can facilitate or frustrate grace. Each of the eight pairs will follow this pattern.
CALVINISTS AND ARMINIANS CONTRASTED
1. Grace
God will save those he chooses to save (monergism).
2. Freedom
Humans are responsible and can facilitate or frustrate the will of God (synergism).
3. Faith
The human side of the saving act is faith.
4. Love
The human response to grace is love. Christianity is a heart religion.
5. Security
Those who are saved will not fall from grace.
6. Personality
Christians make choices and choices imply risk. This is what it is to be human.
7. Authority
The Bible is given by direct inspiration. It is either wholly accepted or it is rejected.
8. Nourishment
The Bible provides strength for Christian living.
9. Doctrine
Theology is for acceptance and preservation. Innovation is discouraged.
10. Inquiry
Theology is a search for truth by persons who have experienced the love of God. Truth is passion rather than a tradition.
11. Conformity
The Church is made up of those who are in agreement. Conformity is expected.
12. Toleration
The Church is open to differences. Personal growth and individual understanding imply differences of ideas and actions.
13. Separation
Believers separate from Christians who are theologically different and from culture.
14. Accommodation
Believers accommodate other Christians and the culture.
15. Clergy
Authority is in the hands of those who are ordained.
16. Laity
Lay persons can exercise good judgment under the Spirit as well as clergy.
III
Most of us remember "TULIP", the memory device for recalling the basic theology of John Calvin. It is expressed as follows:
TOTAL DEPRAVITY - The image of God has been lost.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - God chooses who will necessarily be saved.
LIMITED ATONEMENT - Salvation is only for those who are elected.
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - Humans cannot frustrate the will of God.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - The elect cannot fall from grace.
Given the claims above, one can see the force of Calvin's determinism. With that determinism there is no room for individual freedom in terms of one's eternal salvation. God will save those he chooses to save. This claim is a result of deductive reasoning from the premise that God is sovereign. At the time of Calvin, philosophic truth was based on deductive logic. This defines much of what was going on with religious claims during most of the history of Western philosophical thought. It is, therefore, the basic tool of theological thought through the time of Calvin. The force of a deductive argument is that in the case that the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. It is easy to see this in the following argument;
All bachelors are unmarried males.
John is a bachelor.
Therefore, John is an unmarried male.
This produces another necessary inference, if the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises is also false. If John is not an unmarried male; then, either all bachelors are not unmarried males, or John is not a bachelor, or both. When one understands this, there is no doubt that the religious claims that are produced by this deductive method must be defended. If a necessary inference is found to be false; then, necessarily, at least one of the earlier claims must be false. The danger to the edge is a danger to all.
It is important to note that the logic that developed through the thinking of John Locke was rooted in inductive rather than deductive reasoning. In this system, the premises only give some support for the conclusion. This is the foundation of modern thinking and of science. This means that knowledge claims are based in verifiable data, rather than universal principles. Wesley claims that Locke has it right about this and follows this kind of thinking in the development of his claims. This marks a significant difference between Calvin and Wesley. It also indicates an important distinction between the way that Fundamentalists and modern Wesleyans relate ideas.
IV
In the controversy that developed at Andover, the Fundamentalist side developed a set of criteria that they believed were tests for orthodoxy. They are as follows
1. The Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures: The Bible is the exact word of God and is, therefore, without error.
2. The Virgin Birth of Christ: Jesus did not have a biological father.
3. The Substitutionary Atonement: Jesus received the wrath of God for human sin.
4. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus: The resurrected Jesus had a physical body.
5. The Premillenial Second Coming of Christ: The second coming of Christ will usher in the millennial age.
There is something to be said in support of each of these: 1) The Bible is authoritative for the Christian Community. 2) The Church's creeds have historically affirmed the virgin birth of Jesus. 3) The substitutionary atonement theory does account for some of the Scriptural claims. 4) The Scriptures do indicate that the risen Jesus had a body. 5) There are Scriptures that seem to teach that Jesus will come before the millennial age. But there are also some problems: 1) The Bible is not a history or science book; it concerns itself with the reconciliation of humanity to God. 2) The virgin birth does not seem to be a concern of Paul, who could talk about the Gospel without mentioning it. 3) There are several theories of the atonement that can be found in the New Testament. 4) Bodily resurrection is not a focus of the early Church's message; the resurrecting power of God is. 5) There is a variety of eschatological claims in the Scriptures; none seem to dominate.
Of greater concern than these possible alternative understandings to the principle of the Fundamentalists, is a question about their significance. In the larger expression of the Gospel, do these form a high level of concern? Well, they do if they are deductively derived. If these are necessary inferences then they are either true or at least one of the premises is false. In that sense, it matters that these claims are true. However, from our Wesleyan tradition, there is not an extensive emphasis on these issues. What is important are the things that have to do with the restoration of humans to relationship with God. It is not hard to see this emphasis when one looks at the Agreed Statement of Belief in the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene. The following represents the essence of the statement:
AGREED STATEMENT OF BELIEF
1. One God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. Scriptures given by plenary inspiration.
3. Humans are born with a fallen nature.
4. The finally impenitent are lost.
5. The atonement is for all humanity and whoever repents and believes is justified, regenerated, and saved.
6. Believers are to be sanctified wholly through faith.
7. The Holy Spirit bears witness to God's grace.
8. The Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place.
If one remembers that plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is the claim that all that is necessary to salvation is contained in the Old and New Testaments, then even the doctrine of the Bible has to do with salvation rather than deductive accuracy.
When a side by side reading of the Five Fundamentals and the Agreed Statement of Belief is done, there is an obvious difference in both the content and the concern. In the Fundamentals, there are propositions that are offered as true. In the Agreed Statement of Belief, there is an outline that represents the path to salvation.
The goal in this discussion is not to decide who is right or wrong. Rather, the objective is to show that there is a difference and that difference is of such a nature that the acceptance of one of the positions is necessarily the denial of the other. Our brothers and sisters in Christ who follow other understandings of the Christian message are affirmed by us even though we do not agree. However, those who have identified themselves with the Church of the Nazarene and its message of holiness and wholeness are committed to expressing the Gospel message within the Wesleyan tradition. This is not a burden that we bear; it is a heritage that we celebrate.
This was no long available on the posting site, so we post it here. 12-30-2002