Putting the Fun in Fundamentalism

In Which We Learn That Richard S. Taylor is a Progressive

Photo by Helena Lopes on Unsplash

Before we get started, I had an epiphany recently in which I discovered that some heroes of many who see holiness in terms of control and guardrails may actually be proto-progressives. I realize this may come as a shock, but I looked at some original fundamentalist writings and found some very interesting ideas. In addition, I re-read some of Richard S. Taylor’s Biblical Authority and Christian Faith which is a source often pointed to for those who vary from the doctrine of scripture in the Church of the Nazarene in particular as proof that an idea like full inerrancy is historically the position of the denomination. For contrast, I also re-listened to a podcast episode by Rev. Dr. Brian Powell in which he warns of the danger of what he labels as “Progressive Christianity.” The results of this research are intriguing at the very least.

Why fundamentalism? David French recently had a conversation on his “French Fridays” appearance on the Holy Post Podcast on December 29, 2023, in which he talked about fundamentalism as primarily psychological rather than theological. In addition, French discusses this idea in a recent opinion essay in the New York Times. I have provided links to both the podcast episode and the unlocked NYT article below. I agree with his assessment as I believe fundamentalism exists everywhere - including popular media like Star Trek and Tolkien. In addition, French and I grew up in the same tradition and were classmates at a university in that tradition and I have the same experience of that tradition. Here is a quote from the NYT article: “I grew up in a church that most would describe as fundamentalist, and I’ve encountered fundamentalism of every stripe my entire life. And while fundamentalist ideas can often be quite variable and complex, I’ve never encountered a fundamentalist culture that didn’t combine three key traits: certainty, ferocity and solidarity.” (NYT Article) The point here is that even within the beliefs and attitudes that can exist within fundamentalism, the factors that are usually present with fundamentalism attitude include a certitude of beliefs, ferocity of those beliefs and in the defense of those beliefs, and solidarity which gives belonging tied to the former two ideas.

I have written an earlier essay in which I discuss the wider idea of fundamentalism, which crosses areas of life other than religion. That essay is available here. But I wanted to take some time and unpack fundamentalist ideas of Christianity and how those ideas are within the Church of the Nazarene (COTN) which is not a fundamentalist denomination in official doctrines. I think it may have been fifteen to twenty years ago that as an attender of a COTN church that a Sunday School teacher explained that the COTN was a conservative denomination and how that differed from a fundamentalist denomination. Some of his examples included the approach to scripture and interpretive hermeneutics, the way the COTN allowed doctrines to change if the church believed the Holy Spirit was moving us to change something, and our big tent via media approach to non-essential doctrines. The non essentials included the covenants found within the Manual according to our teacher and friend. That was the beginning of a journey in which I continued to learn more about Wesleyan-Holiness and how that has been lived out in the COTN. This journey eventually led to me reentering ministry and becoming an Ordained Elder in the COTN.

It has not been a journey without bumps and concerns. But overall, the COTN has lived up to that claim by my former teacher. The first big test in my time in the denomination came during the 2013 General Assembly. There was a move by a group who called themselves “Concerned Nazarenes” to alter our Article of Faith on scripture to make the COTN a denomination which believes in full inerrancy of the text rather than our doctrine of soteriological inerrancy. The General Assembly rejected that resolution and many of the concerned folk left the denomination because of that rejection. For a very good treatment of why the COTN would reject that resolution and any resolution that would make us fundamentalist I recommend the excellent book Square Peg: Why Wesleyans Aren’t Fundamentalists The concerned folk had many concerns of course, but most of those were rejected by the Assembly. One little remembered resolution was one which would have warned of the dangers of Process Theology and most likely Open and Relational Theology with it. I did not remember that resolution, but looking back, I remember discussions about process and open and relational theology, both of which fit within the big tent of the COTN. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop explained this in her groundbreaking work A Theology of Love “‘Process Theology’ makes a much-needed correction to the dualisms of a former day. It is my considered opinion that, though the metaphysical foundation of process thought is not the only solution to theological problems, its insights are inescapable in a biblical theology. The dynamic emphasis in relation to God, [humanity], love, grace, nature, and salvation and interpersonal relations is crucial to the Christian faith.” (Wynkoop, Preface) 

Before we get to the fun, it may help to list some definitions of fundamentalism and other ideas.

• Fundamental: Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central beliefs
  

• Fundamentalism (general): religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views. This may include fan bases of fictional universes (Star Wars, Tolkien, etc), atheists, various religious adherents (Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)
  

• Christian fundamentalism: Has the base of general fundamentalism, but adds ideas such as the full inerrancy of scripture and sectarian rejections of general orthodoxy that conflict with the specific interpretive lens of the fundamentalist group or individual.
  

How can fundamentalism be fun? When those who wish to claim fundamentalism as a historic understanding of the COTN and other groups which have not been fundamentalist claim that they are following the Fundamentals as expressed by R.A. Torrey and James Orr from Princeton in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. The funny thing is that they do not appear to understand what Orr said about Genesis. Modern fundamentalism adds in certain understandings of Genesis that are not present in the original founder’s discussion of Genesis. This shows that the inerrancy claim is about interpretation rather than the text itself. While Dr. James Orr did not have access to scientific discoveries that have come since the writing of “The Fundamentals,” he understood that science itself is not opposed to religion and he separated the ideas of evolution from the systems of interpreting the evidence for evolution. This means that he did not reject evolution as an idea. Nor did Orr reject the understanding of the earth as older than modern young earth creationists think. Orr saw evolution as another name for creation, per his own words. The fascinating thing is how Orr dealt with Genesis, which is more akin to Augustine than modern fundamentalist claims. “When science is said to contradict the Bible, I should like to ask first, What is meant by contradiction here? The Bible was never given us in order to anticipate or forestall the discoveries of modern twentieth century science. The Bible, as every sensible interpreter of Scripture has always held, takes the world as it is, not as it is seen through the eyes of twentieth century specialists, but as it lies spread out before the eyes of original men, and uses the popular every-day language appropriate to this standpoint.” (“The Early Narratives of Genesis,”).

Orr says the following answering criticism that Moses’ chronology was mistaken: “If the intention of the first chapter of Genesis was really to give us the ‘date’ of the creation of the earth and heavens, the objection would be unanswerable. But things… are now better understood, and few are disquieted in reading their Bibles because it is made certain that the world is immensely older than the 6,000 years which the older chronology gave it” (“Science and Christian Faith,” 343) Orr explains this with the then available evidence (evidence which is much stronger now that we have genomes mapped): “Here also, however, while it must be conceded that evolution is not yet proved, there seems a growing appreciation of the strength of the evidence for the fact of some form of evolutionary origin of species-that is, of some genetic connection of higher with lower forms.” (“Science and Christian Faith,”).

Modern fundamentalists vary from the ideas of Orr such that they claim evolution to be unorthodox. This is a disconnect with the origins of fundamentalism which was primarily concerned with higher criticism. The link to inerrancy became one which insisted upon specific interpretations rather than the actual inerrancy of the text. It seems to still be the rallying point. The early fundamentalists did not hold all things in certitude, which modern fundamentalists tend to do. 

The nebulous idea of Progressive Christianity is the second greatest threat to the church according to those who are at the least fundamentalism adjacent. The funny thing is though, that the definitions and marks of “progressive Christianity” often sound like orthodox Christianity and Wesleyan-Holiness historic theology. I remembered a few notes I made while listening to an episode of the podcast A Time to Speak in which Rev. Dr. Brian Powell made some claims about progressive Christianity. Comparing a claim in that podcast to Richard S. Taylor’s Biblical Authority gave me a good laugh out loud moment. It seems that Dr. Powell considers Taylor (considered a fundamentalist leaning theologian in the COTN) a progressive. Dr. Powell states about progressive Christianity: “In other words, they believe in progressive revelation. Their low view of Scripture makes it easy for them to reject biblical authority.” (Brian Powell A Time to Speak Episode 5 (Timestamp 8:41) Why do I think Dr. Powell calls Taylor a progressive? Here are Taylor’s own words on how the COTN and other orthodox Christians understand the revelation of scripture"

Now the deduction which must be drawn from this is quite obvious: The various parts of the Bible are uneven in authority. No one exhibited a higher regard for the Old Testament than did Jesus, yet in His discussion with the Pharisees about divorce He clearly implied that not all parts of Scripture were equally authoritative. Jesus appealed to the Genesis account of God’s original intention in creation: “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matt. 19:4–5, NASB). When they appealed to the authority of Moses, Jesus plainly implied that Moses’ regulations concerning divorce were deviations from the norm, as accommodations to human sinfulness, and must not be elevated to a level of authority which in effect would supersede the Genesis passage. The primitive Word of God was authoritative in determining the norm; any accommodation was subordinate and therefore temporary and local in authority. Here are two grades of authority, ultimate and secondary; and the ultimate controls the secondary, not the other way around.

But the principle of progressive revelation also means that the authority of certain portions of the Bible may not be, in detail or application, the same for us as it was for those to whom those portions were originally addressed. This is to say that authority also is progressive, and that the authority of one stage is modified or even superseded by the authority of a subsequent fuller revelation. It is on this basis (though the full working out of this cannot be traced here) that such matters in the Pentateuch as the dietary laws are not binding on us; nor is the right of the lex talionis our right; nor is it our duty to take our childless brother’s wife and raise up children for his name and inheritance. This principle of progressive revelation, and thus changing authority, was clearly illustrated by Jesus in His conversation with the Samaritan woman. (Biblical Authority, Ch 5)

I can only guess that maybe we need to be very careful reading Taylor because he sounds progressive according to Dr. Powell and other clergy who want us to be more fundamentalist. As for me? I think I will stand with Richard S. Taylor and recognize that Wesleyan-Holiness folk are neither fundamentalist, nor strict inerrantists. Taylor stands in the same line as Wynkoop. Dunning, and Maddox, in insisting that the authority of scripture is not inherent in the text, but is in the one who inspired the text and continues to inspire our reading of those words. Maybe that should be how we live into truth rather than tilting at fear.

NYT article link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/opinion/donald-trump-fundamentalists-evangelical.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Mk0.M6Fv.wQz7vU8rJjvf&smid=url-share

Holy Post Podcast link: https://overcast.fm/+Zs32J9WD0

Square Peg: https://www.thefoundrypublishing.com/square-peg-9780834127937.html