On the differentiation of fundamentalist and evangelical: I consider myself a fundamentalist evangelical. Fundamentalist because I believe the Bible is the Word of God and therefore inerrant. It seems to me as a follower of Jesus that this agrees with his view of Scripture. I consider myself an evangelical Christian, because I believe that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ should be the main focus of the church (Christians) and that the most important way to express his love for the world (the greatest commandment) is to take the gospel (euangellion) to all nations (his last command). My greatest problem with fundamentalism (as a non-American) is that they (we) spend so much time defending the Word of God, that they spend too little time actually obeying and speaking the Word of God. This is why, from my perspective, evangelical Christianity put the emphasis on what was most important (the gospel) -- it was also a reaction to the so-called "social gospel" with its neglect of Jesus by neglecting a personal relationship with Him through repentance and faith in Him. And I can totally accept that there are Christians within the evangelical movement who are not fundamentalist in their view of the Bible (I do feel that it leaves them weak, since they often struggle to use the Sword of the Spirit), but the gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus is still their main emphasis. As a non-American, my greater concern with Evangelical Christianity in the USA is the politicization of Christians. Evangelical churches are often historically evangelical, but have lost their zeal for the gospel and Messiah Jesus, focusing on other things instead.
The politization of evangelicals is exaggerated. My lefty mainline and mainline adjacent Christian friends are way more political than my evangelical friends and they see their political activism as their purpose on earth as Christians. No one complains about this because it is evangelicals they love to criticize.
These thoughts seem to be pretty accurate Joel. Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I was a student at MBI from 2015-2019, and MTS for 2019-2020, and what you’ve outlined here in this video seems to accurately describe the shift occurring at that institution as well (where Christopher Yuan teaches). There is a strong move away from intellectualism, but really curiosity all together, and towards a rigid forms of dogmatism and purity based separation. Many alumni that I have talked to would attest to this particularly around matters of sexuality. I belong to a group of thinkers/scholars with social concerns that was raised in evangelical spaces, and then when confronted with the anti-intellectualism chose to go to a liberal seminary (for me it was Princeton), but along with gaining insight into particular topics was then ostracized by the community I grew up in for not accepting the lines it had chosen to draw.
Can you point out how views on sexuality were dogmatically and rigidly enforced with an anti-intellectual bias? Because of all the topics in Christianity, sexuality is arguably the most dogmatic and simplest to grasp
This is taken from princeton's Theological Seminary website: "GSAS (Gender and Sexuality Association for Seminarians) provides support, advocacy, education, and fellowship to members of the Seminary community, especially those who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, or intersex (LGBTQQI). GSAS believes that LGBTQQI persons should be fully included in the church as they affirm their sexuality and discern God’s call." If they were really trying to discern God's call, they would repent from their sexual sins You can call me a puritanical, dogmatic fundamentalist, but anyone who has ever read a cursory view of Christian thought knows that the above statement goes against almost 2000 years of christian teaching. If you try to intellectualize, not the integration of lgb into a christian life of repentance, but a full and open celebration of sin and disordered behavior. You're not pro intellectual, you're pro self-rationalization. If progressive christians don't like that,then they shouldn't claim to be Christian.
@@juniper-ug3hs I often think of how many Christians want to pretend they never heard of the St Thomas Aquinas argument that prostitution should be tolerated.
Randal Rauser has been trying to interact with Childers and McDowell for well over a year by now, wishing to defend progressivism. Alas, they’ve dodged his every effort though he’s written a book response (Progressive Christian’s Love Jesus Too) and numerous video responses. So sad.
Ever since after WWII, Evangelicalism was always softcore Fundamentalism. Every church has its potential purity concerns and potential dogmatism. It just looks very different in liberal Protestantism. Humans can be tribalistic or rigid when they feel their power or security is threatened.
WWII was privotal. We get the rise of the Civil Rights movement because black soldiers and their experiences in Europe and America. Black women who were targeted by white women during the war. The short explanation was that black women lived off their husband's paycheck and took care of their own homes. White women didn't want to take care of their children or their homes so they tried to pass laws to force black women to take care of white children and white homes. Look it up and ask why white americans lied to you by omitting that in your American history books? Basically, abortion was a made up issue. It was the federal government forcing white supremacist schools such as Bob Jones to desegregate that turned abortion into an issue. You can see this in polling data where Christians were more concerned about Catholics than abortion. When the white supremacists aligned with the Catholic white supremacists, we get the moral majority. I'm going to keep on using that term because every single white conservative, evangelical or fundamentalist, is part of the white supremacist movement. They advance the cause of white supremacy which makes them white supremacists even if they adopt one black baby. Voting republican means white supremacist. all you have to do is look at the rhetoric and the legislative and judicial policies and we see the white supremacist agenda. Doubt me? why do white rurals vote differently from black rurals? what was the southern strategy? Come on... forced bussing? (Lee atwater quote .. look it up). Can we just stop pretending and judge the actions and the consequences?
@@jorge-7121 Seekers of Truth engage others in dialogue and seek to challenge their own assumptions; they don't withdraw to their ideological bunker & call everyone else a heretic.
When I wrote a master’s degree thesis on Robert Ketchum and the origin of northeast fundamentalism and its identity markers, it became obvious that the watershed difference between conservative centrist Baptists from fundamentalist Baptists is purity based separatism - conservative moderates go to big universities in Britain and the US and mingle with diverse populations while separatists practice secondary and tertiary separatism, separating from those who will not separate ad infinitum. Sprinkle ironically is associated with Cedarville, a very fundamentalist separatist college in rural Ohio, the very trope of fundamentalist schools.
Cedarville wasn't as fundamentalist when Preston was there. I'm an Alum (Preston was my prof!) and it was moving in a more reasonable direction but the SBC got wind of the shift and Page Patterson cleaned house and fired 90% of the Bible faculty. Needless to say it's super fundamentalist now but it wasn't always.
Great video! Thank you for addressing this topic. I agree that there is a divide going on within the evangelical group and it makes me wonder if unity is even possible at this point. Any time I hear someone who fits the fundamentalist profile speak so harshly about someone or something they disagree with, it makes me wonder if they have any real relationships with people who struggle or identify with those things. Christ was well known for being compassionate and standing by His convictions. When I listened to the episode where Preston addressed the comments by Childers and Yuan, it seemed those two heavily lacked compassion for the topic at hand. Thank you again for your thoughts and providing the list of book recommendations.
I appreciate your framing here, and your outlining of the historical pattern. It resonates with me. I confess to having no particular attachment to the term “evangelical”, and wouldn’t miss it if it came to identify fundamentalists exclusively. I prefer the simplicity of “Christian”. That said, I dread the move toward fundamentalism and purity that you’re describing here, because I believe it obscures the gospel and obstructs the spread of Christ to the places He is arguably needed the most.
This popped up on my feed and I think you're spot on. I think the whole Megan Basham vs. Gavin Ortlund controversy is another example of this growing divide. It felt absolutely bizarre to me to call Gavin Ortlund some sort of 'liberal climate activist' because he made one video on climate change and asked his viewers to study up on the topic and form their own opinions. Sprinkle is also pretty dang conservative and he even did his education at probably the most fundamentalist seminary (The Master's Seminary). He's definitely a thinker though, and him doing a PhD at Aberdeen probably mellowed him out. There's an irony where conservatives like to point out that 'liberals' will drift so leftward and cancel each other for not being 'liberal' enough, but conservatives will do the same thing in the opposite direction. For me personally, I used to be in and still have friends in the fundamentalist circles, and I could only describe their views as......'myopic'. This isn't too denigrate fundamentalists, I think they are believers, but they just see no nuance in the world or the faith. And unfortunately......many of them don't actually read (and if they do, they have only read books from American authors from this past century, and books that happen to already agree with their views). As a pretty avid reader myself, I have been reading a lot on 2TJ history and the New Perspective on Paul, and I found myself strongly agreeing with many of the conclusions. Yet, all the criticisms from the famous pastors (Piper, MacArthur, Cara, Sproul, GotQuestions, etc.) just fell absolutely flat. It's the same rote regurgitation of 'It's a liberal heresy!' or 'Of course 2TJ was semi-Pelagian/Catholic!' or 'But muh Reformation'.
Nice video. Would have loved to see a little of the videos you mentioned but that's ok. I like both Allisa and Preston. Some context on Allisa is she was very non intellectual in faith and was tried to be swayed into progessive Christianity by her pastor at the time. So I think she is much more inclined to be weary of the "sophisticated" Christianity if you know what I mean, so she is pretty guarded. Don't know nearly as much about Sprinkle but always seemed solid to me. I myself start like most or a lot of Christians do as very fundamentalist in that we are very weary of intellectuals because the environment even in things written for or about the Bible are from a non confessional standpoint so you are leary of it. You also are coming out of worldly thinking and trying to understand the gospel so you aren't mature in faith so it is hard to unintangle yourself into how to think like Christ. The early Church fathers knew you could draw wisdom from Pagan myths but knew with the wisdom error could also be drawn from it so new or immature Christians were highly discouraged from reading those works. Overall the Church does a pretty terrible job in bringing good academic thoughtful Christianity into the pews. Me myself had a type of crisis of faith trying to figure out how the Bible worked especially making the connection between the old and new Testament. I had to shift my "fundamentalist" ideas to fit my new understanding of how the Bible actually works. That took a lot of work and humility. I can't talk to a lot of Christians about what I know because they wouldn't know how to process it. Now I still believe every essential doctrine but I just get there a different way but in a way that can incorporate all of scripture. All that to say I try to as Lewis does and stick to mere Christianity with most people. My favorite Bible teacher who sadly passed was a Dr. Michael S. Heiser who really was a godsend in my personal development as a thinking Christian.
While I fully appreciate what you are putting forward, which is a very well thought concern for new fundamentalist movement, could you consider the following? In his book *People to Be Loved*, Sprinkle uses an analogy that may not be clear within a Christian framework. He equates being a writer, professor, husband, father, pastor, scholar, or runner to "experiencing the world" as a gay person. After making this analogy, he seems to conclude that it is "not necessarily wrong to describe yourself as gay." What I argue is that if any of the predicates he uses were sinful, he would not join them to his primary identity. Within a Christian framework, the analogy should be different. For example, consider the term "thief." If someone has been a thief since childhood, we can say that person experiences the world as a thief. However, I don't think Sprinkle would argue that such a person should be called a "Christian thief." Why not? Because while he might have been a thief, in Christ, that is no longer part of his current identity-not even a "secondary" one.
well said, couldn’t have said it better myself, and that is always my question to these folks, can you replace it with any of the other sins mentioned in one Corinthians 6:9 and still say the same thing?
I'm kind of hopeful the fundamentalists don't win this time. I see the "deconstruction" movement as evidence more and more people are questioning and exploring and it's harder for the fundamentalists to control the narative with all that's coming to light via the internet. I didn't set out to deconstruct. But through the internet I found all sorts of new voices and perspectives lately that equiped me with new (actually often older early church understandings) revelation and insight. Maybe that's just the optimist in me. But just the rise of those starting to even entertain the idea of universal reconciliation and explore other atonment theories besides PSA Christianity will start to look a lot more love centered and much less fear centered. That's my hope, I know that's how my life has been shaped and it's beautiful. Funny thing is I want to be way more outspoken about my faith now than when I was growing up with PSA and ECT. Funny how that works when you don't feel lead to have to lead with this horrible bad news. Like a person going through trials and tribulations doesn't need more bad news dumped on their head, they need a God of love, mercy, compassion, liberation they can lean into.
I'd add too that each cycle the fundamentalists do become more progressive in ways they probably wouldn't admit. You can't look back at church history and not see the church is progressive, just at different rates.
Also, on separation, or purity, while I disagree with it, they do have a point. Just think about how much not separating has shifted things. A large minority of "moderates" are affirming. Just 30yrs ago, the moderate position was simply that they should be allowed to live and not be dragged behind a truck. And now a lot of people you would call moderate are affirming. That's a radical shift that has been brought about by not separating and being close with that community.
You are literally the first Christian UA-camr I have seen referring to Alisia Childers as a fundamentalist and I have to agree with your conclusions. She is looking for a doctrinal purity that has lots of anti-intellectualism at its core. I like the progressive Christians, but I tend to like the ones who recognize that Christology matters (think Karl Barth fan-boys) more so than ones that tend to adopt a modern liberal theology. And I am not just liking what you have to say because you have T. F, Torrance books behind you on your bookshelf.
This was a great review and I think your thesis is dead on: not only is it applicable to fundamentalism vs evangelicalism, but ANY tribe that exhibits an insular anti-intellectualism and purity ethic that becomes divisive. This applies to politics, cults, religion in general. Well done!
Even if she's not a fundamentalist, just because she's a former TGC member doesn't prove she isn't. In any case, as you said, she's a "former" member. And she had some choice words for TGC after leaving in an interview I watched a while ago.
Rosaria Butterfield has become shrill, dogmatic, and polarizing. For decades she has been clinging to the line "I used to be a tenured university professor". I think this elite attitude explains a lot about her now.
Rosaria is someone who reminds me of the verse that says “You’ll know them by their fruits.” I really struggle with understanding Christians like her who define their ministry by their opposition to certain varieties of people.
I think fundamentalism and the anti intellectual posturing along with discrimination towards LGBTQIA, and purity distancing is what caused me to want to distance myself from the label of “evangelical” all together. Unfortunately I think you are correct the fundamentalists are winning the terminology war in the sense that the broader public now associates evangelicalism with fundamentalism and anti intellectualism and hateful divisive politics 😢
I went and watched 40 minutes of Sprinkles' response before this comment. The separatist/purity approach (not of the world) and the assimilate to win souls approach (in the world) need to be in balance, but often aren't. The balance is to be in the world but not of it. The separatist group criticizes the assimilate group for being too much of the world, and finds them guilty for associating. The assimilate group criticizes the separatist group for not being in the world enough, and finds them guilty for not being willing to associate. Jesus and Paul give us the balanced version of the two, only possible in the Holy Spirit, not by any formula. John 17.15 ... I Cor. 5.9-13
Really interesting. First time seeing one of your videos and you got a new subscriber. As I thought about what you said I pictured this cycle through history of fundamentalism slowly gobbling up existing populations of Christians and expressions of Jesus bride which are more faithful to the heart of God emerging out of the dying branch. You could say that Jesus's kingdom originally emerged out of a fundamentalist trend as a remnant, plus new followers. My hope is that each death and reemergence of the real thing is moving the kingdom up and to the right on the time vs sanctification graph.
Joel, any books on fundamentalism from a cultural theology standpoint? Seems like in the 20th century most of the big theologians were in academia like barth, neibuhrs and many others who tended to be more liberal and mainline protastant. Yet, fundamentalist dominated the playingfield with things like Schofield reference bible and cultural products like left behind. Curious if there is someone out there writing about how a group that is mostly christ against culture does so much culture making in America. Thanks man.
Good morning. Local church pastor here. I am well studied and educated. I’m guessing that you would likely, per your video, consider me fundamentalist. I’m not mad about it. I have seen those who are truly anti-intellectual, however, just because someone holds to fundamental Biblical understanding that has survived the last 2000 years, that should not get them labeled as anti-intellectual. Some of the most well educated people I know would by your definition be considered anti-intellectual and fundamentalist. I just think we need more nuance when talking about such a large group of people. For example: AL Mohler, D.A. Carson, and Carl Henry.
Wow. So good. You are, I think, really right. For those who may not know, Sprinkle has a fairly conventional view which opposes LGBTQ folk. So this really isn't a fundamentalist /modernist (or progressive) debate, but fundamentalist/evangelical. (I'm not exactly sure how Fuller fit into that historically. Do you know Marsden's book on Fuller? )
Dang, it’s pretty refreshing hearing that the Fundamentalists are going to win! Everyone else I am around is always talking about how the *insert your preferable title for opponents to Fundamentalists* are destined to win. I don’t know if I’d consider myself a Fundamentalist but if I had to choose which side would be most beneficial for Christianity in America going forward I’d take the Fundies any day of the week!
Joel, I appreciate your thoughts. I just stumble on your channel and this is the first time I've heard your thoughts. I agree with your take on anti-intellectualism. Clearly, these conservatives are NOT stupid, and most of them are much smarter than I. Still, it seems that Fundamentalism is over-taking the Evangelical brand. Now, even conservative Christian David French has been pushed out of his own home church, something he seems to find very painful. I don't identify much with the Evangelical brand anymore, so I am no longer a part of this conflict. For many years, I have followed Phil Vishner and the now Holy Post. In my opinion, if you want to be an evangelical, be more like them.
@@JoelWentz Hi Joel Since you have answered my comment on the Holy Post, I have done so thinking about it. I can’t say I’m a “fan” of HP, meaning that I am a follower, but I am a long-time listener and enjoy the show. In fact, I go back to their beginning when it was still the Phil Vishner Podcast. I remember those early episodes when Phil was composing his theme song, “Hey, it’s a podcast,” right on the air, changing tunes and phrases until he got it right. Now that’s early. Times have changed. They have a new theme song and name etc. The one thing I miss from the old days is when Christian was on every week. Back then, Phil was the leader/entertainer and social reformer, Sky was the smart guy, and Christian, with her many questions, represented the listener, asking the same questions we back home were asking. She was one of us. Now Katlyn is really, really smart and quite charming, But, in my experience, she always schooling us, with the Biblically-correct answers. She seems to have usurped Sky. I’m hoping that Christian, when done with her film project, will come back as a regular. Katlyn can move on to a professorship at some high-level university somewhere.
In this video I saw a lot of guilt by association and categorization, but little analysis on the veracity of the points being made. Moreover, I think some of the categories may be misplaced. Some Christians may fit within certain historical themes and trends, but do they really? I'm also not sure Childers would appreciate being a Fundamentalist or an anti-intellectual. I think, perhaps, she follows a different intellectual tradition within Protestant Evangelical apologetics. I can't answer why she doesn't debate, perhaps she just has a general sense of being uncomfortable in debates due to events in her personal history. I also didn't hear a detailed definition of terms, and there seemed to be a lack of charity to see the nuance in Childers' set of beliefs. Purity culture, for example, shouldn't pinhole a Christian into Fundamentalism especially since it can be found in other traditions as well, including Roman Catholicism. I think Christian Fundamentalism needs certain theological beliefs as well as sociological ones in its definition, and there should be a marked distinction between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Plus, is Preston Sprinkle a Neo-Evangelical, as represented by James Daane and Lewis B. Smedes (and some would say Carl Henry and Billy Graham)? Or should Progressive Christianity be included in Liberalism rather than Neo-Evangelicalism?
I have not been impressed by the treatment of Preston Spinkle by other apologetic youtubers. The hit and run tactic they have been using is just not gracious. Calling him a heretic for trying to reach out to marginalized groups and foster debate is just flat out wrong. The whole Rosaria Butterfield situation kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.
I have listened to Childers express herself on the subject of evolution in such a way as to reveal her ignorance of, and unwillingness to engage with, the scientific evidence. Instead, she reflexively retreats into simplistic (and biblically unsound) anti-evolution tropes. If that's not anti-intellectualism, I don't know what is.
Doesn't every Christian believe that? I sure should hope so. It still means you have to interpret it though. But if the Bible isn't the highest authority, there really isn't even a common ground for debate or conversation across denominations.
A lot of Fundamentalism is always tied back to the Scopes Monkey Trial, but how does that match up with the older Machen/Christianity versus Liberalism Fundamentalism? I think Scopes is something of a red herring here....
Highly recommend Donald Dayton’s “Discovering an Evangelical Heritage”, if you want to read about the best period of the early American evangelical movement which was very much a feminist, abolitionist, anti-racist movement. It’s kind of the flip side of “Jesus and John Wayne” by Kristen Kobes-Dumet
I wonder if you have read Berkouwer’s Holy Scripture book from his Dogmatics series. It might be meaningful to your Purity-based separation critique. Your language of “fear” is telling. Christianity is extremely comfortable amidst the “irreconcilable” because it self-authenticates beyond (and within) the many and varied view-points. I am grateful you came my way.
Quick comment. In the 80's Liberty University was proudly labeled a Fundamentalist institution. I found it odd that Liberty University produced the Evangelical Study Bible not Fuller OR Gordon Conwell. I'm way out of touch with this topic, but did Evangelicalism swing right or Liberty swing left?
I actually like both Preston Sprinkle and Alisa Childers. I have books by each of them that I've thoroughly enjoyed. That said, of course I don't agree with every single thing either one of them believes or has said.
"I'm trying not to use the term 'fundamentalist' pejoratively, or punitively, or condescendingly...." Then you title your next chapter "The anti-intellectualism of fundamentalists".... Doesn't get much more condescending than that. 🤣
All the divisions ignoring the basic truth: He who sins is of the devil. Is not our popular “Christianity” actually the ultimate, deceptive prosperity gospel. The ultimate irony of the need to be saved from sin only to continue in sin, now with no condemnation. It is the serpent who says, disobey, you won’t surely die. Yet we argue about a thousand irrelevant doctrines.
I thought it was interesting that you clearly defined the term Fundamentalism and the pillars. But the term Evangelical was not defined. It seems to me that there are Fundamentalists, with those exact two pillars, in almost every religion or quasi religion. You find them on the right and left, you find them in Islam, in Hindu, many Catholics. The term Evangelical is specifically Christian. But there is a subgroup that define themselves more by the thought pattern of fundamentalism than the ideals of Christianity. And people on the outside notice that. And they are not so clear about this being a subgroup.
Your labels.....do not serve the discussion well. Or...your discussion is not served well with the labels. Fundamentalist....evangelicalism , .anti- intellectual...etc You never referenced orthodoxy......the goal of arriving at the certainty what is biblically true, or biblically right? If thinkers, readers, writers align themselves with the final outcome of arriving upon Truth with a capital T.... Why would you shy away, Disparage against being orthodox, or fundamental ? It is actually, a very good word.
I live in the Bible Belt and I see the institutional churches in the mist of huge divisions that are irreconcilable for those on each side. I grew up in fundamentalism and I am currently in an evangelical church . I see the institutional churches in America dividing like they did in the 20 century.
63-year-old Democrat born gay though still gay. 😊 Glad I stumbled onto your channel Yes I know all the players. By the way us Democrats read our Bibles we know the Bible probably better than some of the conservatives and the gays really know it as if their life depended on it😂😂😂,🙏🏳️🌈😇🍿👍🍿🍿🍿
You didn't end up helping me. In your view, what are the characteristics that differentiate an Ev. from a Fund.? You say the lines are blurred, so get out your Sharpie and show me those lines.
I think there is an overlap. Some fundamentalists are evangelicals and some evangelicals are fundamentalists (I consider myself both). For me the difference is that fundamentalists emphasize the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and evangelicals emphasize being born again through the Spirit of God, demonstrated by repentance and faith in Jesus, into a personal relationship with Jesus of Nazareth, King Messiah and obeying his command to share this Good News with everyone on earth. Some fundamentalists do not have this emphasis or zeal. Some evangelicals do not consider the Bible inerrant or even authoritative.
@@chavouxit's funny how I always considered myself more of a mainstream protestant until I noticed that my high view of scripture puts me straight in the fundamentalist camp 😊.
Hey Joel, any chance you’d be interested in reading a 12 page letter I wrote to the elders and pastors of my Evangelical church? It’s a sincere good faith case for the full inclusion/affirmation of LGBTQ Christians in the church at large. I’d be honored to hear any feedback from you on it. It’s been posted for free to read on Medium. It’s called “Repenting the Sin of Exclusion”. It took 5 1/2 months of writing, researching, and revising to finish.
Bro you ramble too much. Your video says one thing but you are talking about something different. Change the title bro. I have no idea where you are going.
I found this video wildly off base. Lacking intellectual rigor and (ironically) nuance. Where he sees two groups of “Evangelicals,” there are probably six or eight, depending whom you wish to count as an Evangelical. I think Sprinkle (whom I have followed for a couple of decades, now) is clearly post-conservative, which I myself would not categorize as Evangelical, but then, that’s me. There are no established standards here. The term “evangelical” has moved to the left to incorporate the woke (Russell Moore, David French, Phil Vischer) AND to the right to incorporate fundamentalists who don’t want the stigma of the fundy label (like Robertson and Falwell). So, we’re left with some rather strange bedfellows. All true Evangelicals separate to some extent. We are called to be in but not of the world. We are called to disassociate from bad company, as it corrupts good morals. It is a non-negotiable part of Evangelicalism. The EXTENT to which we should be called out is the only thing that is debated. (John Stott and J. I. Packer famously differed from Martyn Lloyd-Jones on whether Evangelicals should leave the established church.) We still have groups who accept the fundy moniker, some politically active (Trump supporters/Christian Nationalist extremists) and some just “mom and pop” patriotic Americans. Their separation is extreme. We also have several flavors of mainstream Evangelicals. Some, like Childers, who are more to the right, culturally and politically, Young Earthers, anti-environmentalists, who vote for Trump but are not true believers in his movement. Others, in the center, not as extreme on cultural issues, natural DeSantis voters, who hold their nose but vote for the Republican candidate du jour. And then, the Old Earthers, more neo-Con, more set on economic issues, anti-Christian Nationalism, but rhetorically still pro-life and anti-lgbt. Post-conservatives (Fuller Seminary…and increasingly places like Gordon-Conwell and Wheaton and the new regime at Christianity Today) espouse “limited” inerrancy and have an almost eager willingness to compromise on social issues. And then there is a wide array of neo-Orthodox, open Evangelical (a British term), NPP, and post-liberal thinkers out there in the no-man’s-land between Evangelicalism and Mainstream Protestantism. As far as I can tell, critical thinking is a completely dead art…on the right AND on the left. “Anti-intellectual” describes a good 98% of the population. Opening up your mind to the thoroughly politicized version of science we now possess is anything but noble. And the social sciences are so riddled with propaganda that it is a misnomer to assign them a valid segment of academia. The original “fundamentalists” were defining the ESSENTIALS of Christianity. The “least common denominator,” so to speak. Thus, one was either a fundamentalist, or one was not a Christian at all. Gresham Machen-professor at Princeton, for goodness’ sake-was anything but an anti-intellectual. And a number of his colleagues at Princeton were not even anti-evolution! William Jennings Bryan was an Old Earther, and nothing close to what we would call a Fundamentalist today. Being engaged with a culture differs tremendously, depending on what type of culture you’re engaging with. Carl F. H. Henry called himself a fundamentalist in his own day (and this video would call him one today). He engaged with what Aaron Renn would call Positive World. Preston Sprinkle’s engaging with Negative World is an entirely different matter.
There's actually a lot in this comment I agree with. (Note also that I explicitly talk about Carl Henry's embrace of the label fundamentalist near the end). But whenever someone refers to David French and Russell Moore as "woke" I just feel like I'm living in a different universe.....
@@JoelWentz. You admitted to living in northern New England, so obviously we live in different universes. There are counties I know of in northern Iowa and western Wisconsin where there are no blacks. And not just after sunset, but…ever. Similarly, we all know that there are no actual Evangelicals in northern New England. Some great people-especially in northern New Hampshire and the contiguous sections of Maine-but no Evangelicals. You label yourself as an Evangelical…why is that? You don’t read Evangelicals, for the most part. And those you do read are either on the fringe, or the only reason you read them is to disparage them. In questioning my evaluation of French and Moore you make my case that various and sundry individuals throughout the theological spectrum are demonstrably anti-intellectual. Thank you for that! (I’m sorry I sound so critical because I genuinely enjoy your work. You’re just nowhere close to being an Evangelical!)
Hello, algorithm. Please make this dude more visible.
On the differentiation of fundamentalist and evangelical: I consider myself a fundamentalist evangelical. Fundamentalist because I believe the Bible is the Word of God and therefore inerrant. It seems to me as a follower of Jesus that this agrees with his view of Scripture. I consider myself an evangelical Christian, because I believe that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ should be the main focus of the church (Christians) and that the most important way to express his love for the world (the greatest commandment) is to take the gospel (euangellion) to all nations (his last command).
My greatest problem with fundamentalism (as a non-American) is that they (we) spend so much time defending the Word of God, that they spend too little time actually obeying and speaking the Word of God. This is why, from my perspective, evangelical Christianity put the emphasis on what was most important (the gospel) -- it was also a reaction to the so-called "social gospel" with its neglect of Jesus by neglecting a personal relationship with Him through repentance and faith in Him. And I can totally accept that there are Christians within the evangelical movement who are not fundamentalist in their view of the Bible (I do feel that it leaves them weak, since they often struggle to use the Sword of the Spirit), but the gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus is still their main emphasis.
As a non-American, my greater concern with Evangelical Christianity in the USA is the politicization of Christians. Evangelical churches are often historically evangelical, but have lost their zeal for the gospel and Messiah Jesus, focusing on other things instead.
The politization of evangelicals is exaggerated. My lefty mainline and mainline adjacent Christian friends are way more political than my evangelical friends and they see their political activism as their purpose on earth as Christians. No one complains about this because it is evangelicals they love to criticize.
These thoughts seem to be pretty accurate Joel. Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I was a student at MBI from 2015-2019, and MTS for 2019-2020, and what you’ve outlined here in this video seems to accurately describe the shift occurring at that institution as well (where Christopher Yuan teaches). There is a strong move away from intellectualism, but really curiosity all together, and towards a rigid forms of dogmatism and purity based separation. Many alumni that I have talked to would attest to this particularly around matters of sexuality. I belong to a group of thinkers/scholars with social concerns that was raised in evangelical spaces, and then when confronted with the anti-intellectualism chose to go to a liberal seminary (for me it was Princeton), but along with gaining insight into particular topics was then ostracized by the community I grew up in for not accepting the lines it had chosen to draw.
Wow that sounds like quite a story. Thanks for sharing
Can you point out how views on sexuality were dogmatically and rigidly enforced with an anti-intellectual bias? Because of all the topics in Christianity, sexuality is arguably the most dogmatic and simplest to grasp
This is taken from princeton's Theological Seminary website:
"GSAS (Gender and Sexuality Association for Seminarians) provides support, advocacy, education, and fellowship to members of the Seminary community, especially those who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, or intersex (LGBTQQI). GSAS believes that LGBTQQI persons should be fully included in the church as they affirm their sexuality and discern God’s call."
If they were really trying to discern God's call, they would repent from their sexual sins
You can call me a puritanical, dogmatic fundamentalist, but anyone who has ever read a cursory view of Christian thought knows that the above statement goes against almost 2000 years of christian teaching. If you try to intellectualize, not the integration of lgb into a christian life of repentance, but a full and open celebration of sin and disordered behavior. You're not pro intellectual, you're pro self-rationalization. If progressive christians don't like that,then they shouldn't claim to be Christian.
@@juniper-ug3hs I often think of how many Christians want to pretend they never heard of the St Thomas Aquinas argument that prostitution should be tolerated.
Randal Rauser has been trying to interact with Childers and McDowell for well over a year by now, wishing to defend progressivism. Alas, they’ve dodged his every effort though he’s written a book response (Progressive Christian’s Love Jesus Too) and numerous video responses. So sad.
Love Randall
Ever since after WWII, Evangelicalism was always softcore Fundamentalism.
Every church has its potential purity concerns and potential dogmatism. It just looks very different in liberal Protestantism. Humans can be tribalistic or rigid when they feel their power or security is threatened.
That’s some insight for after WW2
Or maybe some people are not tribalistic and just love seeking the Truth
WWII was privotal. We get the rise of the Civil Rights movement because black soldiers and their experiences in Europe and America. Black women who were targeted by white women during the war. The short explanation was that black women lived off their husband's paycheck and took care of their own homes. White women didn't want to take care of their children or their homes so they tried to pass laws to force black women to take care of white children and white homes. Look it up and ask why white americans lied to you by omitting that in your American history books?
Basically, abortion was a made up issue. It was the federal government forcing white supremacist schools such as Bob Jones to desegregate that turned abortion into an issue. You can see this in polling data where Christians were more concerned about Catholics than abortion. When the white supremacists aligned with the Catholic white supremacists, we get the moral majority.
I'm going to keep on using that term because every single white conservative, evangelical or fundamentalist, is part of the white supremacist movement. They advance the cause of white supremacy which makes them white supremacists even if they adopt one black baby. Voting republican means white supremacist. all you have to do is look at the rhetoric and the legislative and judicial policies and we see the white supremacist agenda. Doubt me? why do white rurals vote differently from black rurals? what was the southern strategy? Come on... forced bussing? (Lee atwater quote .. look it up). Can we just stop pretending and judge the actions and the consequences?
@@jorge-7121 Seekers of Truth engage others in dialogue and seek to challenge their own assumptions; they don't withdraw to their ideological bunker & call everyone else a heretic.
When I wrote a master’s degree thesis on Robert Ketchum and the origin of northeast fundamentalism and its identity markers, it became obvious that the watershed difference between conservative centrist Baptists from fundamentalist Baptists is purity based separatism - conservative moderates go to big universities in Britain and the US and mingle with diverse populations while separatists practice secondary and tertiary separatism, separating from those who will not separate ad infinitum. Sprinkle ironically is associated with Cedarville, a very fundamentalist separatist college in rural Ohio, the very trope of fundamentalist schools.
Nice observation and information. (I think you meant epitome or paradigm as opposed to "trope.")
Cedarville wasn't as fundamentalist when Preston was there. I'm an Alum (Preston was my prof!) and it was moving in a more reasonable direction but the SBC got wind of the shift and Page Patterson cleaned house and fired 90% of the Bible faculty.
Needless to say it's super fundamentalist now but it wasn't always.
Great video! Thank you for addressing this topic. I agree that there is a divide going on within the evangelical group and it makes me wonder if unity is even possible at this point.
Any time I hear someone who fits the fundamentalist profile speak so harshly about someone or something they disagree with, it makes me wonder if they have any real relationships with people who struggle or identify with those things.
Christ was well known for being compassionate and standing by His convictions. When I listened to the episode where Preston addressed the comments by Childers and Yuan, it seemed those two heavily lacked compassion for the topic at hand.
Thank you again for your thoughts and providing the list of book recommendations.
It seems odd to say that Yuan would "lack compassion for the topic" considering he himself was saved out of a homosexual lifestyle.
I appreciate your framing here, and your outlining of the historical pattern. It resonates with me. I confess to having no particular attachment to the term “evangelical”, and wouldn’t miss it if it came to identify fundamentalists exclusively. I prefer the simplicity of “Christian”. That said, I dread the move toward fundamentalism and purity that you’re describing here, because I believe it obscures the gospel and obstructs the spread of Christ to the places He is arguably needed the most.
This popped up on my feed and I think you're spot on. I think the whole Megan Basham vs. Gavin Ortlund controversy is another example of this growing divide. It felt absolutely bizarre to me to call Gavin Ortlund some sort of 'liberal climate activist' because he made one video on climate change and asked his viewers to study up on the topic and form their own opinions. Sprinkle is also pretty dang conservative and he even did his education at probably the most fundamentalist seminary (The Master's Seminary). He's definitely a thinker though, and him doing a PhD at Aberdeen probably mellowed him out. There's an irony where conservatives like to point out that 'liberals' will drift so leftward and cancel each other for not being 'liberal' enough, but conservatives will do the same thing in the opposite direction.
For me personally, I used to be in and still have friends in the fundamentalist circles, and I could only describe their views as......'myopic'. This isn't too denigrate fundamentalists, I think they are believers, but they just see no nuance in the world or the faith. And unfortunately......many of them don't actually read (and if they do, they have only read books from American authors from this past century, and books that happen to already agree with their views). As a pretty avid reader myself, I have been reading a lot on 2TJ history and the New Perspective on Paul, and I found myself strongly agreeing with many of the conclusions. Yet, all the criticisms from the famous pastors (Piper, MacArthur, Cara, Sproul, GotQuestions, etc.) just fell absolutely flat. It's the same rote regurgitation of 'It's a liberal heresy!' or 'Of course 2TJ was semi-Pelagian/Catholic!' or 'But muh Reformation'.
Nice video. Would have loved to see a little of the videos you mentioned but that's ok.
I like both Allisa and Preston. Some context on Allisa is she was very non intellectual in faith and was tried to be swayed into progessive Christianity by her pastor at the time. So I think she is much more inclined to be weary of the "sophisticated" Christianity if you know what I mean, so she is pretty guarded.
Don't know nearly as much about Sprinkle but always seemed solid to me.
I myself start like most or a lot of Christians do as very fundamentalist in that we are very weary of intellectuals because the environment even in things written for or about the Bible are from a non confessional standpoint so you are leary of it. You also are coming out of worldly thinking and trying to understand the gospel so you aren't mature in faith so it is hard to unintangle yourself into how to think like Christ.
The early Church fathers knew you could draw wisdom from Pagan myths but knew with the wisdom error could also be drawn from it so new or immature Christians were highly discouraged from reading those works.
Overall the Church does a pretty terrible job in bringing good academic thoughtful Christianity into the pews.
Me myself had a type of crisis of faith trying to figure out how the Bible worked especially making the connection between the old and new Testament. I had to shift my "fundamentalist" ideas to fit my new understanding of how the Bible actually works. That took a lot of work and humility. I can't talk to a lot of Christians about what I know because they wouldn't know how to process it. Now I still believe every essential doctrine but I just get there a different way but in a way that can incorporate all of scripture.
All that to say I try to as Lewis does and stick to mere Christianity with most people.
My favorite Bible teacher who sadly passed was a Dr. Michael S. Heiser who really was a godsend in my personal development as a thinking Christian.
I love and enjoy your videos and your commentaries on books. Thank you for your work here.
Too many labels, a personal relationship with God via Christ is our bridge to each other. Of course we'll disagree on theology, so what.
While I fully appreciate what you are putting forward, which is a very well thought concern for new fundamentalist movement, could you consider the following?
In his book *People to Be Loved*, Sprinkle uses an analogy that may not be clear within a Christian framework. He equates being a writer, professor, husband, father, pastor, scholar, or runner to "experiencing the world" as a gay person. After making this analogy, he seems to conclude that it is "not necessarily wrong to describe yourself as gay."
What I argue is that if any of the predicates he uses were sinful, he would not join them to his primary identity.
Within a Christian framework, the analogy should be different. For example, consider the term "thief." If someone has been a thief since childhood, we can say that person experiences the world as a thief. However, I don't think Sprinkle would argue that such a person should be called a "Christian thief." Why not? Because while he might have been a thief, in Christ, that is no longer part of his current identity-not even a "secondary" one.
well said, couldn’t have said it better myself, and that is always my question to these folks, can you replace it with any of the other sins mentioned in one Corinthians 6:9 and still say the same thing?
I'm kind of hopeful the fundamentalists don't win this time. I see the "deconstruction" movement as evidence more and more people are questioning and exploring and it's harder for the fundamentalists to control the narative with all that's coming to light via the internet. I didn't set out to deconstruct. But through the internet I found all sorts of new voices and perspectives lately that equiped me with new (actually often older early church understandings) revelation and insight. Maybe that's just the optimist in me. But just the rise of those starting to even entertain the idea of universal reconciliation and explore other atonment theories besides PSA Christianity will start to look a lot more love centered and much less fear centered. That's my hope, I know that's how my life has been shaped and it's beautiful. Funny thing is I want to be way more outspoken about my faith now than when I was growing up with PSA and ECT. Funny how that works when you don't feel lead to have to lead with this horrible bad news. Like a person going through trials and tribulations doesn't need more bad news dumped on their head, they need a God of love, mercy, compassion, liberation they can lean into.
I'd add too that each cycle the fundamentalists do become more progressive in ways they probably wouldn't admit. You can't look back at church history and not see the church is progressive, just at different rates.
Also, on separation, or purity, while I disagree with it, they do have a point. Just think about how much not separating has shifted things. A large minority of "moderates" are affirming. Just 30yrs ago, the moderate position was simply that they should be allowed to live and not be dragged behind a truck. And now a lot of people you would call moderate are affirming. That's a radical shift that has been brought about by not separating and being close with that community.
You are literally the first Christian UA-camr I have seen referring to Alisia Childers as a fundamentalist and I have to agree with your conclusions. She is looking for a doctrinal purity that has lots of anti-intellectualism at its core. I like the progressive Christians, but I tend to like the ones who recognize that Christology matters (think Karl Barth fan-boys) more so than ones that tend to adopt a modern liberal theology. And I am not just liking what you have to say because you have T. F, Torrance books behind you on your bookshelf.
This was a great review and I think your thesis is dead on: not only is it applicable to fundamentalism vs evangelicalism, but ANY tribe that exhibits an insular anti-intellectualism and purity ethic that becomes divisive. This applies to politics, cults, religion in general. Well done!
Rosaria Butterfield called Sprinkle heretical. She is former TGC so she is no Fundamentalist.
Even if she's not a fundamentalist, just because she's a former TGC member doesn't prove she isn't.
In any case, as you said, she's a "former" member. And she had some choice words for TGC after leaving in an interview I watched a while ago.
Rosaria Butterfield has become shrill, dogmatic, and polarizing. For decades she has been clinging to the line "I used to be a tenured university professor". I think this elite attitude explains a lot about her now.
Rosaria is someone who reminds me of the verse that says “You’ll know them by their fruits.” I really struggle with understanding Christians like her who define their ministry by their opposition to certain varieties of people.
Thank you for setting the current debate in historical context.
I think fundamentalism and the anti intellectual posturing along with discrimination towards LGBTQIA, and purity distancing is what caused me to want to distance myself from the label of “evangelical” all together. Unfortunately I think you are correct the fundamentalists are winning the terminology war in the sense that the broader public now associates evangelicalism with fundamentalism and anti intellectualism and hateful divisive politics 😢
Wow, I thought I needed a 12 step program for my love of books. Nicely done. :)
Hah!! I would TOTALLY go to that 12-step program.....
Also I've been a fan of your UA-cam presence for a while. Thanks for chiming in.
You did a great job bringing the Bible into your conversation. I love all the specific verses you mentioned.
I went and watched 40 minutes of Sprinkles' response before this comment. The separatist/purity approach (not of the world) and the assimilate to win souls approach (in the world) need to be in balance, but often aren't. The balance is to be in the world but not of it. The separatist group criticizes the assimilate group for being too much of the world, and finds them guilty for associating. The assimilate group criticizes the separatist group for not being in the world enough, and finds them guilty for not being willing to associate. Jesus and Paul give us the balanced version of the two, only possible in the Holy Spirit, not by any formula. John 17.15 ... I Cor. 5.9-13
Really interesting. First time seeing one of your videos and you got a new subscriber. As I thought about what you said I pictured this cycle through history of fundamentalism slowly gobbling up existing populations of Christians and expressions of Jesus bride which are more faithful to the heart of God emerging out of the dying branch. You could say that Jesus's kingdom originally emerged out of a fundamentalist trend as a remnant, plus new followers. My hope is that each death and reemergence of the real thing is moving the kingdom up and to the right on the time vs sanctification graph.
Joel, any books on fundamentalism from a cultural theology standpoint? Seems like in the 20th century most of the big theologians were in academia like barth, neibuhrs and many others who tended to be more liberal and mainline protastant. Yet, fundamentalist dominated the playingfield with things like Schofield reference bible and cultural products like left behind. Curious if there is someone out there writing about how a group that is mostly christ against culture does so much culture making in America. Thanks man.
Good morning. Local church pastor here. I am well studied and educated. I’m guessing that you would likely, per your video, consider me fundamentalist. I’m not mad about it. I have seen those who are truly anti-intellectual, however, just because someone holds to fundamental Biblical understanding that has survived the last 2000 years, that should not get them labeled as anti-intellectual. Some of the most well educated people I know would by your definition be considered anti-intellectual and fundamentalist. I just think we need more nuance when talking about such a large group of people. For example: AL Mohler, D.A. Carson, and Carl Henry.
Glad I found this channel.
Just discovered your channel, and subscribed. Interesting, perceptive, knowledgeable, and balanced observations.
Wow. So good. You are, I think, really right. For those who may not know, Sprinkle has a fairly conventional view which opposes LGBTQ folk. So this really isn't a fundamentalist /modernist (or progressive) debate, but fundamentalist/evangelical. (I'm not exactly sure how Fuller fit into that historically. Do you know Marsden's book on Fuller? )
Interesting the Bible is never mentioned or specific verses. I need to listen to some Martin Loyd-Jones to reclaim my time.
Dang, it’s pretty refreshing hearing that the Fundamentalists are going to win! Everyone else I am around is always talking about how the *insert your preferable title for opponents to Fundamentalists* are destined to win. I don’t know if I’d consider myself a Fundamentalist but if I had to choose which side would be most beneficial for Christianity in America going forward I’d take the Fundies any day of the week!
Joel, I appreciate your thoughts. I just stumble on your channel and this is the first time I've heard your thoughts. I agree with your take on anti-intellectualism. Clearly, these conservatives are NOT stupid, and most of them are much smarter than I. Still, it seems that Fundamentalism is over-taking the Evangelical brand. Now, even conservative Christian David French has been pushed out of his own home church, something he seems to find very painful. I don't identify much with the Evangelical brand anymore, so I am no longer a part of this conflict. For many years, I have followed Phil Vishner and the now Holy Post. In my opinion, if you want to be an evangelical, be more like them.
I'm a BIG fan of the Holy Post!
@@JoelWentz Hi Joel
Since you have answered my comment on the Holy Post, I have done so thinking about it. I can’t say I’m a “fan” of HP, meaning that I am a follower, but I am a long-time listener and enjoy the show. In fact, I go back to their beginning when it was still the Phil Vishner Podcast. I remember those early episodes when Phil was composing his theme song, “Hey, it’s a podcast,” right on the air, changing tunes and phrases until he got it right. Now that’s early.
Times have changed. They have a new theme song and name etc. The one thing I miss from the old days is when Christian was on every week. Back then, Phil was the leader/entertainer and social reformer, Sky was the smart guy, and Christian, with her many questions, represented the listener, asking the same questions we back home were asking. She was one of us. Now Katlyn is really, really smart and quite charming, But, in my experience, she always schooling us, with the Biblically-correct answers. She seems to have usurped Sky. I’m hoping that Christian, when done with her film project, will come back as a regular. Katlyn can move on to a professorship at some high-level university somewhere.
So then read the breakthrough novel “Where Do We Go Now, LORD? - Burke.” Explains much. Very much. Enjoy.
In this video I saw a lot of guilt by association and categorization, but little analysis on the veracity of the points being made. Moreover, I think some of the categories may be misplaced. Some Christians may fit within certain historical themes and trends, but do they really? I'm also not sure Childers would appreciate being a Fundamentalist or an anti-intellectual. I think, perhaps, she follows a different intellectual tradition within Protestant Evangelical apologetics. I can't answer why she doesn't debate, perhaps she just has a general sense of being uncomfortable in debates due to events in her personal history. I also didn't hear a detailed definition of terms, and there seemed to be a lack of charity to see the nuance in Childers' set of beliefs. Purity culture, for example, shouldn't pinhole a Christian into Fundamentalism especially since it can be found in other traditions as well, including Roman Catholicism. I think Christian Fundamentalism needs certain theological beliefs as well as sociological ones in its definition, and there should be a marked distinction between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Plus, is Preston Sprinkle a Neo-Evangelical, as represented by James Daane and Lewis B. Smedes (and some would say Carl Henry and Billy Graham)? Or should Progressive Christianity be included in Liberalism rather than Neo-Evangelicalism?
I have not been impressed by the treatment of Preston Spinkle by other apologetic youtubers. The hit and run tactic they have been using is just not gracious. Calling him a heretic for trying to reach out to marginalized groups and foster debate is just flat out wrong. The whole Rosaria Butterfield situation kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.
I have listened to Childers express herself on the subject of evolution in such a way as to reveal her ignorance of, and unwillingness to engage with, the scientific evidence. Instead, she reflexively retreats into simplistic (and biblically unsound) anti-evolution tropes. If that's not anti-intellectualism, I don't know what is.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
Doesn't every Christian believe that? I sure should hope so. It still means you have to interpret it though. But if the Bible isn't the highest authority, there really isn't even a common ground for debate or conversation across denominations.
@@MrSeedi76 if you “still have to interpret it” then how is it the highest authority?
A lot of Fundamentalism is always tied back to the Scopes Monkey Trial, but how does that match up with the older Machen/Christianity versus Liberalism Fundamentalism? I think Scopes is something of a red herring here....
Highly recommend Donald Dayton’s “Discovering an Evangelical Heritage”, if you want to read about the best period of the early American evangelical movement which was very much a feminist, abolitionist, anti-racist movement. It’s kind of the flip side of “Jesus and John Wayne” by Kristen Kobes-Dumet
Yes, Evangelicalism is in many ways a marketplace more than an ecclesiastical structure.
Absolutely! Have you read "Evangelicals, Incorporated" by Daniel Vaca? It's on my short list. Sounds like it essentially lays out this argument.
I wonder if you have read Berkouwer’s Holy Scripture book from his Dogmatics series. It might be meaningful to your Purity-based separation critique. Your language of “fear” is telling. Christianity is extremely comfortable amidst the “irreconcilable” because it self-authenticates beyond (and within) the many and varied view-points.
I am grateful you came my way.
Joel! I missed seeing your videos. Good job algorithm!
Quick comment. In the 80's Liberty University was proudly labeled a Fundamentalist institution. I found it odd that Liberty University produced the Evangelical Study Bible not Fuller OR Gordon Conwell.
I'm way out of touch with this topic, but did Evangelicalism swing right or Liberty swing left?
Evangelicalism swang right.
I actually like both Preston Sprinkle and Alisa Childers. I have books by each of them that I've thoroughly enjoyed. That said, of course I don't agree with every single thing either one of them believes or has said.
21:00 Yes, a failure to appreciate "nuance," and specifically, a failure to grasp implications, analogies, and symbolism.
"I'm trying not to use the term 'fundamentalist' pejoratively, or punitively, or condescendingly...." Then you title your next chapter "The anti-intellectualism of fundamentalists".... Doesn't get much more condescending than that. 🤣
That would depend on one’s interpretation of “anti-intellectual”, and he was careful to make it clear how he was using the term.
Was about to say ^^^^
@@JoelWentz I know..... just messin' with ya. (the smiley face was your hint)
@@Wren_Farthing I know, hence the smiley face...
@@BillyBoy66 gotcha
Dude I'm 20 minutes in and you've not talked about the topic at hand.
All the divisions ignoring the basic truth: He who sins is of the devil. Is not our popular “Christianity” actually the ultimate, deceptive prosperity gospel. The ultimate irony of the need to be saved from sin only to continue in sin, now with no condemnation. It is the serpent who says, disobey, you won’t surely die. Yet we argue about a thousand irrelevant doctrines.
I thought it was interesting that you clearly defined the term Fundamentalism and the pillars. But the term Evangelical was not defined. It seems to me that there are Fundamentalists, with those exact two pillars, in almost every religion or quasi religion. You find them on the right and left, you find them in Islam, in Hindu, many Catholics. The term Evangelical is specifically Christian. But there is a subgroup that define themselves more by the thought pattern of fundamentalism than the ideals of Christianity. And people on the outside notice that. And they are not so clear about this being a subgroup.
Your labels.....do not serve the discussion well.
Or...your discussion is not served well with the labels. Fundamentalist....evangelicalism , .anti- intellectual...etc
You never referenced orthodoxy......the goal of arriving at the certainty what is biblically true, or biblically right?
If thinkers, readers, writers align themselves with the final outcome of arriving upon Truth with a capital T....
Why would you shy away, Disparage against being orthodox, or fundamental ? It is actually, a very good word.
I live in the Bible Belt and I see the institutional churches in the mist of huge divisions that are irreconcilable for those on each side. I grew up in fundamentalism and I am currently in an evangelical church . I see the institutional churches in America dividing like they did in the 20 century.
63-year-old Democrat born gay though still gay. 😊 Glad I stumbled onto your channel Yes I know all the players. By the way us Democrats read our Bibles we know the Bible probably better than some of the conservatives and the gays really know it as if their life depended on it😂😂😂,🙏🏳️🌈😇🍿👍🍿🍿🍿
I often joke about how many WWJD merch wearers will show Christ like behavior to money changers.
This reminds me a lot of what Isaac Sharp pulls out in the other evangelicals that evangelical is defined by exclusion of the other
Yes I loved Sharp's book. I wish I would have referenced it on the video. Definitely worth reading.
Yep, sounds right:
Who and who? Nobody who truly loves God knows who these people are.
You didn't end up helping me. In your view, what are the characteristics that differentiate an Ev. from a Fund.? You say the lines are blurred, so get out your Sharpie and show me those lines.
I think there is an overlap. Some fundamentalists are evangelicals and some evangelicals are fundamentalists (I consider myself both). For me the difference is that fundamentalists emphasize the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and evangelicals emphasize being born again through the Spirit of God, demonstrated by repentance and faith in Jesus, into a personal relationship with Jesus of Nazareth, King Messiah and obeying his command to share this Good News with everyone on earth. Some fundamentalists do not have this emphasis or zeal. Some evangelicals do not consider the Bible inerrant or even authoritative.
@@chavouxit's funny how I always considered myself more of a mainstream protestant until I noticed that my high view of scripture puts me straight in the fundamentalist camp 😊.
Creeds and confessions.
You pastor in the Northeast? Which state? Im from Connecticut.
He's in Portland, Maine I think.
@@BillyBoy66 oh cool!
Yes, in Maine!
@@JoelWentz I am planning on planting a church in New Hampshire. I am curious to hear from you about your experience in Maine.
Fundamentalism was invented in the good old USA.
Hey Joel, any chance you’d be interested in reading a 12 page letter I wrote to the elders and pastors of my Evangelical church? It’s a sincere good faith case for the full inclusion/affirmation of LGBTQ Christians in the church at large. I’d be honored to hear any feedback from you on it. It’s been posted for free to read on Medium. It’s called “Repenting the Sin of Exclusion”. It took 5 1/2 months of writing, researching, and revising to finish.
Bro you ramble too much. Your video says one thing but you are talking about something different. Change the title bro. I have no idea where you are going.
How would someone like Dug Wilson fit into this pyramid.
Wilson is a racist against Blacks. The same way that zionists are racists against the Palestinians. Eternal Creator God will deal justly with both.
I found this video wildly off base. Lacking intellectual rigor and (ironically) nuance.
Where he sees two groups of “Evangelicals,” there are probably six or eight, depending whom you wish to count as an Evangelical. I think Sprinkle (whom I have followed for a couple of decades, now) is clearly post-conservative, which I myself would not categorize as Evangelical, but then, that’s me. There are no established standards here.
The term “evangelical” has moved to the left to incorporate the woke (Russell Moore, David French, Phil Vischer) AND to the right to incorporate fundamentalists who don’t want the stigma of the fundy label (like Robertson and Falwell). So, we’re left with some rather strange bedfellows.
All true Evangelicals separate to some extent. We are called to be in but not of the world. We are called to disassociate from bad company, as it corrupts good morals. It is a non-negotiable part of Evangelicalism. The EXTENT to which we should be called out is the only thing that is debated. (John Stott and J. I. Packer famously differed from Martyn Lloyd-Jones on whether Evangelicals should leave the established church.)
We still have groups who accept the fundy moniker, some politically active (Trump supporters/Christian Nationalist extremists) and some just “mom and pop” patriotic Americans. Their separation is extreme.
We also have several flavors of mainstream Evangelicals. Some, like Childers, who are more to the right, culturally and politically, Young Earthers, anti-environmentalists, who vote for Trump but are not true believers in his movement. Others, in the center, not as extreme on cultural issues, natural DeSantis voters, who hold their nose but vote for the Republican candidate du jour. And then, the Old Earthers, more neo-Con, more set on economic issues, anti-Christian Nationalism, but rhetorically still pro-life and anti-lgbt.
Post-conservatives (Fuller Seminary…and increasingly places like Gordon-Conwell and Wheaton and the new regime at Christianity Today) espouse “limited” inerrancy and have an almost eager willingness to compromise on social issues.
And then there is a wide array of neo-Orthodox, open Evangelical (a British term), NPP, and post-liberal thinkers out there in the no-man’s-land between Evangelicalism and Mainstream Protestantism.
As far as I can tell, critical thinking is a completely dead art…on the right AND on the left. “Anti-intellectual” describes a good 98% of the population. Opening up your mind to the thoroughly politicized version of science we now possess is anything but noble. And the social sciences are so riddled with propaganda that it is a misnomer to assign them a valid segment of academia.
The original “fundamentalists” were defining the ESSENTIALS of Christianity. The “least common denominator,” so to speak. Thus, one was either a fundamentalist, or one was not a Christian at all. Gresham Machen-professor at Princeton, for goodness’ sake-was anything but an anti-intellectual. And a number of his colleagues at Princeton were not even anti-evolution! William Jennings Bryan was an Old Earther, and nothing close to what we would call a Fundamentalist today.
Being engaged with a culture differs tremendously, depending on what type of culture you’re engaging with. Carl F. H. Henry called himself a fundamentalist in his own day (and this video would call him one today). He engaged with what Aaron Renn would call Positive World. Preston Sprinkle’s engaging with Negative World is an entirely different matter.
There's actually a lot in this comment I agree with. (Note also that I explicitly talk about Carl Henry's embrace of the label fundamentalist near the end).
But whenever someone refers to David French and Russell Moore as "woke" I just feel like I'm living in a different universe.....
@@JoelWentz. You admitted to living in northern New England, so obviously we live in different universes. There are counties I know of in northern Iowa and western Wisconsin where there are no blacks. And not just after sunset, but…ever. Similarly, we all know that there are no actual Evangelicals in northern New England. Some great people-especially in northern New Hampshire and the contiguous sections of Maine-but no Evangelicals.
You label yourself as an Evangelical…why is that? You don’t read Evangelicals, for the most part. And those you do read are either on the fringe, or the only reason you read them is to disparage them.
In questioning my evaluation of French and Moore you make my case that various and sundry individuals throughout the theological spectrum are demonstrably anti-intellectual. Thank you for that!
(I’m sorry I sound so critical because I genuinely enjoy your work. You’re just nowhere close to being an Evangelical!)
Trump supporters? Trump has plenty of athiest types. They bought in because one does not need to be led by Jesus to not be led by Karl Marx.
You lost me at calling them fundamentalists!
The fundamentalists win because the herd is intellectually lazy and fearful.
Hello, pastor. MA in theology here. Christianity is false. Extricate and expose.