Was Jesus a Fundamentalist?

I grew up in stereotypical Christian fundamentalist churches. I attended fundamentalist schools for my undergraduate and two of my master’s degrees, but parted with them for my doctorate. I haven’t considered myself a fundamentalist for quite some time, and for a variety of reasons not to be addressed here. Let me say that I have many friends who ascribe to fundamentalism who love Christ and are good, godly people with only the best intentions. Yet, I recently had one such friend tell me that “Jesus was a Fundamentalist.” I opted to graciously disagree, but it did get me thinking. If Jesus were ministering on earth as he did in the gospels, all things being equal, would my friend’s assertion hold up? Would Jesus align himself with fundamentalism or evangelicalism?

Definitions

Evangelical Fundamentalism cannot be defined simply. There are too many factions, theological variations, and strong personalities to speak in black and white terms.  Generally speaking, Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19^th/early 20^th centuries in opposition to the theological liberalism of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, Adolph von Harnack, Harry Emerson Fosdick, and Paul Tillich, and the Neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. The outstanding difference between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists of the day, and today, is one of militancy and anger. George Marsden, a favorite historian among modern fundamentalists (and professor at Notre Dame University) and whose writings are used throughout fundamentalist institutions, writes,

A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something. That seems simple and is fairly accurate…. A more precise statement of the same point is that an American fundamentalist is an evangelical who is militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or to changes in cultural values or mores, such as those associated with “secular humanism.”…Fundamentalists are not just religious conservatives; they are conservatives who are willing to fight. 

Prior to 1930, fundamentalists fought religious liberalism from within; desperately trying to rid churches and seminaries of religious liberalism by purging them through strong preaching, writing, and denominational fighting. After 1930, Christian fundamentalism ceased fighting religious liberalism from within, per se, in favor of retreat and isolationism. They abandoned the denominations, colleges, seminaries, and churches infected with religious liberalism in favor of forming new denominations, colleges, seminaries, and churches. Hence, they became an entity unto themselves; separate and distinct from the larger Christianity.

Not long after this time, a new form of evangelicalism was birthed. Harold John Ockenga dubbed it Neo-Evangelicalism. New Evangelicalism, as it came to be known, was a movement within fundamentalist evangelicalism that disagreed with classic fundamentalists regarding how evangelical Christians ought to respond to an unbelieving world. Though otherwise accused by their fundamentalist counterparts, neo-evangelicals held to all of the same fundamental, core doctrines their fundamentalist brethren held. Harold John Ockenga defined the movement in a sermon he preached at Park Street Church, December 8, 1957.

What is the direction in which the evangelical should go? First of all, the evangelical embraces creedal Christianity—Christianity as expressed in the confessions of the church, which is New Testament Christianity, grounded upon the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God, as plenarily inspired, and authoritative and infallible. Now on the basis of that Bible all of the doctrines of orthodoxy, which I need not mention now, are embraced by the new evangelicalism. This is their view. And this has a carry-over into the social scene so that there is an application of this to the problems of the day, so that our view of God, and of man, and of the church, and of society, and of sin, and of salvation, must have its effects upon the social problems of the day.

What about the strategy? The new evangelicalism believes in the positive preaching of the Word and of the doctrines of Scripture … The evangelical believes that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, that it will convict, that it will convert, that it will change, and that this gospel is intellectually defensible and respectable in the face of all of the onslaughts of the day. The evangelical is willing to face the intellectual problems—whether they deal with creation, or with the age of man, or whatever it is— examining the claims of the Bible itself concerning inspiration and revelation and to state those in the light of the best knowledge of the day in which it lives. The evangelical is unafraid of this, and he believes in the positive, aggressive, constructive presentation of the Word.

Today, the term New Evangelical is passé and has simply been replaced with the term Evangelical. Over the decades, fundamentalism, by and large, has grown ever more legalistic, isolationist, and angry; willing to fight amongst themselves over theological, philosophical, and practical tedium when there is no one else to fight. The old New Evangelicals have not remained static either. In certain circles, the desire to engage the culture with the gospel has led to an infiltration and infection by the culture of the world and an abandonment of the biblical Christianity they once embraced – e.g. the Bible as the Word of God, as plenarily inspired, and authoritative and infallible. The core, however, of evangelicalism remains true to its theological moorings and stalwart in its original strategy of seeing those theological truths truly impact the culture in which the church finds herself.

My intent in laying out some very basic historical and philosophical differences between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is vital to answering my friend’s original assertion that Jesus was a fundamentalist.

Examining Jesus’ Ministry

Perhaps the best way to answer the assertion that Jesus was a fundamentalist is to look at Jesus’ ministry and teaching within the gospels themselves.

Jesus’ Ministry Was Culturally Inclusive but Theologically Exclusive

Jesus, all he was, all he said, and all he did, was diametrically opposed to the mainstream religious sect of his day, the Pharisees. Jesus did not separate himself from the culture in which he ministered as the Pharisees did. Jesus had the reputation of spending time with tax collectors and sinners in social situations; in fact, he sought them out. Jesus engaged the culture of his day where it was and how it was; he did not isolate himself from it nor did he condemn it for what it was. Truly, he called sin out and commanded those engaging in it to cease and believe, but isn’t this the gospel? Jesus never expected people to change to fit his morals; he called them to repentance and faith from where they were, and he went to them rather than expecting them to come to him. Jesus never changed the truth to appease the masses, but neither did he deport himself as above them because his theology was right. The Pharisees, on the other hand, isolated themselves from the culture in an errant belief that they were better, more moral, and purer than their culture. As a result, the Pharisees were wholly ineffective in reaching their culture with the truth. No better example of Jesus’ attitude toward the Pharisees’ cultural exclusivity and isolationism can be found than in Matthew 9:11-13, When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" ¹² On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ¹³ But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'¹ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Modern evangelicals seek to do the same thing Jesus did; engage the culture where it is and how it is without compromising biblical truth and gospel power in its doing. Fundamentalism, by and large, has isolated itself from the culture in favor of a come get what we have mentality – as long as you look like us, talk like us, worship like us, etc. This seems harsh, but it’s true. Fundamentalism is out of touch with the culture in which it finds itself and expects its converts to adapt to them rather than seeking to reach the culture where it is. Jesus did not align himself with the Pharisees, but rather called them out and condemned them for not reaching those who most desperately needed their ministry.

Jesus was Radically Opposed to Legalism.

Examine the gospels and you’ll find an undeniable tension between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees originated as laymen who desired to bring Israel back to religious conservatism against the religious liberalism of their day. Their name even means “burning ones,” a tribute to their zeal and purity to the Law. The Pharisees exacted a high price from the people they claimed to serve and lead; adding to the more than 600 mandates of the Law so that by the time of Christ their interpretations numbered in the thousands. They kept the people under the thumb of legalism without mercy. Jesus was radically opposed to legalism; he confronted and countered it at every turn. He condemned the leaven of the Pharisees (Matt. 16:11-12), the legalistic teachings of the Pharisees, expressly and often (cf. Lk. 12:1; Matt. 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27, 29).

There is a strong correlation between the Pharisees and fundamentalists on many counts. Both originated to bring God’s people back to a place of orthodoxy against liberalism; both isolated themselves from the culture of their day; and both devolved into a religious legalism that enslaved the people who followed them. Fundamentalist legalism cannot be denied. Sure, it varies in degree and intensity from church to church and region to region, but its pervasiveness cannot be escaped.  

Jesus was Diametrically Opposed to Theological Liberalism.

 The Sadducees of Jesus’ day represent the theologically liberal sect of Judaism, while the Pharisees were the fundamentalists of their day. One of the most striking encounters between Jesus and the Sadducees can be found in Matthew 22:23-33. They came to Jesus and asked him a leading question. The scenario goes like this. A man has a wife, but he dies. In the Law the practice of the kinsman redeemer allows for the dead man’s closest living male relative to marry the widow in order to raise up a male heir for the dead relative. Their scenario involved seven brothers who each married the same woman in turn - odd, but plausible and allowable under the Law. Their question was in the resurrection whose wife would she be seeing each was married to her. Their intent was to trip Jesus up with theological wrangling and minutia. However, Matthew reminds us in verse 23 that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead. Jesus calls them on their unbelief and corrects their theology. This is but one example. Time and again, Jesus refuses to condescend to theological liberalism of the Sadducees; thereby falling into their traps.

In this, both fundamentalism and evangelicalism share commonality with our Lord. Jesus was, most of the time, much friendlier in his approach than modern fundamentalists seem to be toward those who disagree with them. But Jesus never acquiesced to theological liberalism.

Jesus was “Seeker Sensitive”

Yes, you read that right, I said Jesus was seeker sensitive. Simply put, the seeker-sensitive church tries to reach out to the unsaved person by making the church experience as comfortable, inviting, and non-threatening to him as possible. The hope is that the person will believe in the gospel. To a large degree, isn’t this what Jesus did with people? Jesus never made it difficult for people to come to him in faith. Just the opposite, he made himself as welcoming as possible. Our Lord never turned people away because they were unclean, rather, he reached out and touched the lepers (Lk. 17:12ff; Matt. 11:4-5). Jesus never looked down his nose at people or implied they couldn’t come to him because of their social status. No, he went to the Samaritan woman (John 4) and deliberately went to the region of Tyre and Sidon and specifically to the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:21-28). At the same time, Jesus never shied away from difficult truths. In John 6, immediately following the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus hit the crowd with the very hard truth of verses 35-51. John records that Jesus’ truth was too hard to grasp (v. 60) and that many turned away from following him (v. 66). But that doesn’t mean that Jesus made it intentionally difficult for those who truly sought him, not just the bread he provides, to follow him. He never made true seekers uncomfortable. The truth of his message made some uncomfortable, but he never put practical roadblocks in the way of the gospel – whether intentionally or unintentionally. So, yes, in this sense Jesus was “seeker sensitive.”

Jesus Met Felt Needs for the Sake of the Gospel

One of the stalwart truths of fundamentalism is that the gospel is not social. I agree…and I don’t. I agree that the gospel is not social in that it is only designed to remedy the ills of society – poverty, hunger, illness, ignorance, etc. I would never argue about that. The gospel is for the spiritually dead to bring them to life in Jesus. Yet, it does have a social component. One cannot preach the good news of Jesus Christ, say they love people, and ask them to follow the Jesus we see in the gospels while simultaneously ignoring the plight of people. It’s not our (the Church’s) mission to remedy society’s ills and a gospel that is social in nature is not the true gospel. However, Jesus did not ignore people’s felt needs. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, raised the dead, fed the hungry, etc. ad infinitum. Jesus ministered to people’s needs while at the same time calling them to repentance and faith.

 It would be unfair of me to paint with too broad a brush here and say that all evangelical churches minister to people’s needs (they don’t) and that all fundamentalist churches ignore them (they don’t). I will assert that this is an area where evangelicals do much better than their fundamentalist counterparts. Given all Jesus did and said about his mission, it would behoove fundamentalism to embrace a bit more of a missional gospel philosophy than they do.

  

CONCLUSION

The intent of this post is not to bash fundamentalism merely because I no longer embrace the secondary seperationism, isolationism, and angry militancy which is so rampant in their ranks; not that I ever really did. The purpose is to answer my friend’s assertion that Jesus is a fundamentalist. I must say, based on what I see in the gospels, that if Jesus was ministering physically and personally here today, as he did in the gospels, that he would align himself more readily with theologically conservative, missionally minded evangelicals rather than fundamentalists. So, I must conclude that Jesus was not a fundamentalist. In truth, I believe we all have a lot to learn about how Jesus would have us do ministry as modern Christians, and know he’d have strong words for us all – difficult things for us to hear. God help us to consider how we’re doing ministry and teach us to minister as our Master showed us.