The term fundamentalism can apply in a general religious sense and also in a specific Christian sense. In a general sense, Rik Peels characterizes fundamentalist movements as exemplifying the following: (1) a rejection of liberal ethics; (2) a literal and infallible view of authoritative texts; and (3) an interpretation of events in a grand narrative of paradise, fall, and redemption (or alternatively cosmic dualism).[i] In addition, fundamentalism adheres unwaveringly to a set of core beliefs. Fundamentalists strictly separate those holding to these core beliefs and those who do not. Those who do not are religiously impure and are not to be trusted.
In this general sense, there can be Islamic fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalist, Christian fundamentalists, Hindu fundamentalists, Buddhist fundamentalists, Zoroastrian fundamentalists, and perhaps others. But there is a specific history and theology associated with Christian fundamentalism which this section will now discuss. But first, it is necessary to present and discuss the development of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy
Since fundamentalism requires a literal and inerrant view of authoritative texts, Christian fundamentalism was not possible until this view was formally developed as a doctrine. Very few theologians up until the mid-18th century understood the Bible as literally true in all aspects and completely without error. Many fundamentalists today will disagree with this statement, which is why the following attempts a fair presentation.
Of course, the accuracy of Scripture has always been a topic of discussion from the earliest days of Christianity. Origen of Alexandria (c.185–c.253) recognized minor discrepancies in the Bible but was not concerned as they had no theological significance. This position is essentially what is now referred to as biblical infallibility. John Chrysostom (c.347–407) had a similar view: the Bible contains minor errors that are not of theological significance.
Augustine (354–430) had a stronger view of biblical inerrancy. He believed that the original manuscripts were completely without error, but that error could have been introduced in copying and translation. Furthermore, biblical language often uses “accommodation,” resulting in truths that could be understood by the target audience but might be scientifically inaccurate. Augustine also believed that much of Scripture is written in allegory and is therefore not to be taken literally. For example, he understood the creation stories of Genesis as allegorical and believed that creation happened instantaneously rather than over six literal days.
Thomas Aquinas held perhaps the closest view to today’s fundamentalist view of literal biblical inerrancy. He writes, “Hence, it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.”[ii] However, this quote is often cited out of context. Aquinas is specifically answering the question of whether a passage in Scripture can have several senses. Aquinas answers in the affirmative. The literal sense of Scripture can point to an allegorical sense, a tropological sense, and an anagogical sense (see discussion of Quadriga hermeneutic on p. 27). Aquinas’s understanding of Scripture is therefore shown to be very far away from the fundamentalist approach to biblical interpretation.
When scholarly translations of the Bible began with Erasmus (c.1466–1536), positions on biblical inerrancy tended to soften somewhat. Erasmus himself believed that the Bible contained some unimportant inconsistencies and that the Holy Spirit did not always bother to correct the faulty memories biblical authors. John Calvin specifically addresses biblical inconsistencies in many of his commentaries. For example, Calvin identifies a clear Septuagint translation error that is quoted in the book of Hebrews but is unconcerned. Calvin simply comments that the biblical authors were not always scrupulous with minor details.
Martin Luther had a more skeptical view of the NT, believing that some but not all books were authoritative in themselves. As such, Luther relegated the entire books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation to an appendix in his German Bible translation (see inset showing Luther’s table of contents with these four books listed at the end). In his preface to this appendix, Luther explains that the previous books are true and certain but that the four books in the appendix (i.e., Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation) have not held this status even from ancient times. Luther uses even stronger language in his introduction to the book of James, stating that he does not believe it to be of apostolic authorship.
The point is not that the major theologians did not understand the Bible as authoritative in theological matters. They certainly did. But none seem to have understood the Bible in the way that fundamentalist do today.
In any case, biblical inerrancy was not a major topic of theological debate until the emergence of historical-critical literary analysis in the early 1800s and its application to the Bible. Historical-critical analysis requires that the methods used to understand the Bible should be the same as for any other piece of literature. Application of the historical-critical method to the Bible then started to result in many unorthodox opinions such as the miracle accounts being myth and Jesus being merely human.
In defense against the historical-critical method, a formal doctrine of biblical inerrancy was developed by the Princeton Theological Seminary.[iii] This doctrine was first published in 1857 in the book Inspiration, which was authored by Archibald Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, both professors at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Inspiration makes a clear distinction between special revelation and inspiration. Special revelation occurs when God communicates directly to an individual. Inspiration occurs when a person is communicating, such as when writing Scripture. Inspiration ensures that what is communicated is correct. Inspiration states that this includes all aspects of the Bible, not just spiritual and ethical teachings. This is referred to as plenary inspiration as opposed to partial inspiration. Inspiration explains its position as follows:
“This is the doctrine of plenary, as opposed to the theory of partial, inspiration. The church doctrine is opposed to the doctrine that some parts of Scripture are inspired, and others not; or that a higher degree of inspiration belongs to some portions than to others; or that inspiration is confined to the moral and religious truths contained in the Bible, to the exclusion of its historical or geographical details.”[iv]
The above citation essentially describes the fundamentalist view of biblical inerrancy today. However, the position of Inspiration is somewhat more nuanced than what the above-quote may reflect when taken alone. Whereas fundamentalist today understand inerrancy to apply to all details, such is not the case in Inspiration. When details are inconsequential, they do not necessarily have to be precisely true and perfectly consistent. Inspiration gives the following example:
“Matthew says the inscription on the cross was, “The king of the Jews;” Luke, “This is the king of the Jews;” John, “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.” All different, yet all true; the difference being precisely such as would naturally occur where no special importance was placed on the mere form of expression.”[v]
Inspiration also admits that errors and inconsistencies do exist in the Bible. It simply recognizes that these are few and inconsequential, making the difficulties “miraculously small” and objections based on these minor issues “pitiful.” But still, there is an honest admission that errors and inconsistencies do exist. The authors write, “[T]he cases of contradiction of inconsistencies, are, considering the age and character of the different books constituting the Bible, wonderfully few and trivial. Secondly, these inconsistencies do not concern matters of doctrine of duty, but numbers, dates, and historical details.”[vi]
Charles Hodge, father of Archibald Hodge and also a professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, published the first volume of his seminal Systematic Theology in 1871. In it, he points out that general revelation is from God just as special revelation is from God. Therefore, facts about creation cannot be in conflict with Scripture. Hodge writes, “[I]t is unwise for theologians to insist on an interpretation of Scripture which brings it into collision with the facts of science … The theologian, therefore, acknowledges that the Scriptures must be interpreted in accordance with established facts … [but] are at liberty to receive or reject the theories deduced from those facts.”[vii]
Hodge later presents his theory of biblical inerrancy, which is essentially the same as Inspiration. He writes, “[Inspiration] is not confined to moral and religious truths, but extends to the statements of facts, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. It is not confined to those facts the importance of which is obvious, or which are involved in matters of doctrine.”[viii] Hodge therefore makes a distinction between scientific facts and scientific theories. Biblical interpretation must be done in light of scientific facts but not necessarily in light of any scientific theory.
As with Inspiration, Hodge admits that there are minor discrepancies in the Bible but is untroubled. He writes, “Admitting that the Scriptures do contain, in a few instances, discrepancies which with our present means of knowledge, we are unable satisfactorily to explain, they furnish no rational ground for denying their infallibility … The marvel and the miracle is that there are so few of any real importance.”[ix]
And so, the Princeton Theological Seminary formally developed a doctrine of biblical inerrancy largely in response to the application of the historical-critical method to the Bible. The Bible was not just any book, but a divine work by inspired authors. A few trivial errors are admitted, but the Bible for the most part is without error in either doctrine of fact. But biblical inerrancy at this time was a debate largely limited to the academic community.
Things changes with the appointment of Charles Briggs in 1891 to a new endowed chair in biblical theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Briggs began to aggressively teach extreme liberal positions with regards to the Bible. He specifically identified six barriers to correct biblical interpretation: superstition, verbal inspiration, authenticity, inerrancy, miracles, and predictive prophesy. In other words, Briggs taught that the Bible was a human work by uninspired and often misattributed authors. Furthermore, the Bible is replete with errors and contains miracle accounts that could not have possibly occurred. Briggs, an ordained Presbyterian pastor (PC-USA), was tried for heresy in 1992 by the presbytery of New York. In addition, the PC-USA General Assembly issued a proclamation called the Portland Deliverance that required all ministers to affirm their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible’s original manuscripts before being ordained. Briggs was eventually defrocked and excommunicated in 1893.
In 1910, the PC-USA General Assembly needed to address the issue of whether to ordain several people who denied the virgin birth of Christ. In response, it wrote the Doctrinal Deliverance, which declared five doctrines as being “necessary and essential” to the Christian faith. These “five fundamentals,” which would govern all future ordinations, are:
- The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this;
- The virgin birth of Christ;
- The belief that Christ’s death was an atonement for sin;
- The bodily resurrection of Christ; and
- The historical reality of Christ’s miracles.
Conservative Christians widely embraced these five fundamentals and many regard the issuance of Doctrinal Deliverance, which included the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, as the beginning of Christian fundamentalism as a movement.
Roman Catholics and Biblical Inerrancy
The Roman Catholic church first established its position on biblical inerrancy in 1893 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (On the Study of Sacred Scripture). Leo states that the entire Bible is inspired, and that inspiration is incompatible with any possible error.
In 1943, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the inerrancy of the Bible in his 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (On the Most Opportune Way to Promote Biblical Studies). He writes that just as Christ was like a man but without sin, the Bible is like the words of man, but without error.
However, the Catechism describes Holy Scripture more in terms of infallibility rather than inerrancy. Article 3 (Sacred Scripture) states the following (emphasis added):
“Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures (¶107) …
God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth. ¶136”
And so, the Roman Catholic church certainly holds to the Bible being infallible, but it is obscure as to whether it holds to something like the doctrine of biblical inaccuracy. In any case, Roman Catholic tradition typically interprets the Bible loosely when it relates to scientific issues, allowing for colloquial language that might not be scientifically precise.
Fundamentalism in the 20th Century
Although today many consider the PC-USA to be a somewhat liberal organization, in the early 20th century it was quite conservative, committed to Reformed theology, and questioned the validity of any form of Christianity that did not affirm the five fundamentals. This aggressive affirmation to fundamentalist positions was in large part a reaction against the growing influence of liberal theologies, socialism, and Darwinism.
Fundamentalism soon spread from Presbyterianism to Baptists. The Baptists formed the World Christian Fundamentalist Association (1919), the National Federation of the Fundamentalists of the Northern Baptists (1921), the Fundamentalist Fellowship (1921), and the Baptist Bible Union (1923). These groups aggressively opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools, leading to the Scopes trial in 1925. The Scopes trial resulted in fundamentalism being closely associated with creationism.
By the 1940s, many negative connotations became associated with the term fundamentalism including intolerant, prudish, anti-science, and divisive. Some Christians held fast to the fundamentalist label. But others, though generally holding to the five fundamentals, wished to repair relationships with other Christians that did not. These people began to call themselves evangelicals and neoevangelicals. C.T. McIntire writes:
“Fundamentalists and evangelicals in the 1950s and 1960s shared much: both adhered to traditional doctrines of Scripture and Christ; both promoted evangelism, revivals, missions, and personal morality against smoking, drinking, theater, movies, and card-playing … Fundamentalists, however, believed that they differed from evangelicals and neoevangelicals by being more faithful to Bible-believing Christianity; more militant against church apostasy, communism, and personal evils; and less ready to cater to social and intellectual respectability.”[x]
In the late 1970s, fundamentalism underwent a somewhat new phase with the political conservatism of Ronald Reagan and the emergence of television-based fundamentalist preachers such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. The major intellectual centers of fundamentalism became conservative universities founded by fundamentalists. Early on, Bob Jones University was founded by Bob Jones Sr. in 1927. Later, Liberty University was founded by Falwell in 1971. Regent University was founded by Robertson in 1978.
Today, Bob Jones University, Liberty University, and Regent can best be described as evangelical rather than fundamentalist. All believe in the doctrines of historic fundamentalism, but all embrace evangelicalism and do not separate themselves from Christian with opposing viewpoints. Fundamentalist higher education today is largely limited to dispensational institutions such as the Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute.
Today in the U.S., Christian fundamentalism is largely associated with the conservative Baptist South. It represents a powerful political voting block concerned with the preservation or restoration of social conservatism through legislation, executive action, and Supreme Court decisions.
[i] Rik Peels, “On Defining Fundamentalism,” Religious Studies, vol. 59, no. 4: 1.
[ii] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q. 1, Art. 10, R. 3.
[iii] In addition to being a response to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, the Princeton Theological Seminary work on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was also a response to the liberal theology of Frederic Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher taught that spiritual truths can only be known from personal religious experience. The authority of the Bible is therefore subordinate to personal religious experience. In arguing that God is the primary author of Scripture, the Princeton Theological Seminary therefore argued for the authority of Scripture over personal religious experience.
[iv] Archibald Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, “Inspiration,” The Princeton Review, Oct. 1857: 664.
[v] Ibid., 678.
[vi] Ibid., 686.
[vii] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. 1, Theology, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishing, 1871/2013: 56-57.
[viii] Ibid., 163.
[ix] Ibid., 169-170.
[x] C.T. McIntire, “Fundamentalism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd ed.,Daniel Treier and Walter Elwell, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: 335.
Leave a Reply