Post–Christian Culture As An Aid To Christian Ministry

By Mike Stallard

[Seminary Dean, Professor of Systematic Theology, Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania]

Introduction [1]

The ancient prophet Habakkuk opened his small oracle, a text inspired by God, with an angry questioning of both the sin of the people and the silence of God:

How long, O LORD, will I call for help,
And Thou wilt not hear?
I cry out to Thee, “Violence!”
Yet Thou dost not save.
Why dost Thou make me see iniquity,
And cause me to look on wickedness?
Yes, destruction and violence are before me;
Strife exists and contention arises.
Therefore, the law is ignored
And justice is never upheld.
For the wicked surround the righteous;
Therefore, justice comes out perverted. (Hab 1:2–4; NASB)

His questioning is aimed mostly at God. But the prophet’s spiritual analysis of the Judean culture in the late seventh century BC is analogous to many declensions of faith down through the centuries, including the present time in North American culture.

A century ago, Arno Gaebelein complained about the decline of true Christian faith with these words: “What an awful sin to criticize the Bible, to deny its verbal inspiration, to put the Word of God which He has exalted above all His Name down to the level of profane literature. Yet this is the common drift of our times.”[2] If at that time it was a “common drift,” then today it could be considered the fastest moving water since Noah! At least, that is how Christians who believe the fundamental doctrines of the Bible often feel as belligerency toward Christian faith rises to the point that a book of forewarning has been written on the criminalization of Christianity.[3] From the fundamentalist perspective, this may take on an ominous spirit. Mohler, commenting on Bauder’s statements on fundamentalism,[4] noted, “He and his colleagues are trying to rescue fundamentalism from cultural obscurity and institutional fratricide.”[5] Over the last several decades, the evangelical critique “industry” has thoroughly vetted the sins of evangelicals in order to warn and document what has allowed the precipitous and rapid downhill spiral to occur.[6] Some form of decline continues to develop, most recently sensed in the rather fast rise of the acceptance of gay marriage in the United States. Christians can righteously mourn such negative developments within culture.

On the other hand, fundamental Christians should also adopt a complementary attitude that allows them to notice the opportunity offered to the church which such hostility grants. Church leaders can think through a more positive posture in light of developments in the current post–Christian culture. The focal points given below are also intertwined as might be expected.

The Church Has Already Been Here Before

First, the post–Christian culture of the current time places the church in a position where it has already been and in which it has thrived in the past. History can be a good teacher. This fact can give some measure of hope going forward.

The Early Church

“Nor does your cruelty, however exquisite, avail you; it is rather a temptation to us. The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.”[7]

Tertullian’s famous statement about the blood of martyrs as the seed of the church is given in a context of belief that martyrdom guarantees eternal life. Modern Bible-believing Christians do not agree. Nonetheless, the spirit of the statement manifests a more general belief that the early Church moved forward even though oppressed. Cairns refers to Christianity as “a despised sect with small numbers” which “became the official religion of the mighty Roman Empire.”[8] The venerable Schaff gave an interpretive understanding when he noted,

For the first three centuries Christianity was placed in the most unfavorable circumstances, that it might display its moral power, and gain its victory over the world…But in spite of these extraordinary difficulties Christianity made a progress which furnished striking evidence of its divine origin and adaptation to the wants of man….”[9]

The paganism of the Roman Empire surrounded Christians, but by the end of the fourth century Christendom was lodged as a strong or perhaps the strongest force in Western culture. The testimony of the earliest centuries of the church leads to the conclusion that negative hostility in culture does not necessarily lead to long term, harmful results for the church.[10] Thus, in our present circumstances—part of what Paul referred to as “the present evil age”[11]—Christians do not have to accept decline as the inevitable next step relative to Christian work. Christians at least have the opportunity to consider a repeat of what Tertullian saw in his own day as he spoke to his pagan adversaries, “We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market—places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum,—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods.”[12]

The Fundamentalist—Modernist Controversy

Closer to home, the conflict between fundamentalism and modernism a century ago still guides much fundamentalist thinking. What is important for the discussion here is that there was a real loss by fundamentalism. Denominations were lost as fundamentalists were forced to withdraw and start their own fellowships. The buildings and libraries once possessed and in service to the Lord were lost. Fundamentalists were required to create their own schools and mission agencies. Much financial support once aimed at cherished and godly purposes now belonged to moderates and even to despised liberalism. Concerning the outcome of the Scopes Trial (1925), Marsden accurately described the state of affairs in this fashion:

Although the outcome of the trial was indecisive and the law stood, the rural setting and the press’s caricatures of fundamentalists as rubes and hicks discredited fundamentalism and made it difficult to pursue further the serious aspects of the movement. After 1925 fundamentalists had difficulty gaining national attention except when some of their movement were involved in extreme or bizarre efforts.[13]

Marsden goes on to note that by the end of the 1920s “it looked to be the last hurrah for fundamentalism altogether. Fundamentalism seemed to be in disarray, and most observers assumed that it had burned itself out and would soon disappear forever.”[14] In other words, the rejection of fundamentalism by the “Roaring Twenties” culture of America produced a climate facilitating the end of the movement according to contemporary analysts.[15]

The summary above is common knowledge. Its inclusion here is to help current fundamentalists draw a comparison to the present time. There is hermeneutical and theological disorder now in Christendom that may even surpass the problems of the early twentieth century: Open theism, the New Perspective on Paul, the abandonment of inductive Bible study, ongoing sophisticated fights over inspiration and inerrancy, the continuation of the Bible–Science controversy with the added problem of the interpretation of DNA discoveries, and defections from the faith all around. It seems that every Bible verse is up for grabs.

To be sure, the culprit of the current time has its differences from one hundred years ago. Today it is the Evangelical and Postmodernist Controversy rather than the Fundamentalist and Modernist Controversy. The mysticism has increased, although the seeds of postmodernism lie deeply in the soil of modernism. Classical liberals with their experiential framework were dedicated to an outworking of some form of mysticism. Today, that mysticism governs most of the religious landscape in North America.

In addition, one factor that makes fundamentalists worried today is the extent and speed to which Christian morality has dived into an empty pool. A century ago, a Judeo–Christian worldview still held sway to some measure in morality and ethics.[16] Now this perspective is ridiculed. Living together unmarried is a cultural given. To doubt that homosexuality should be promoted is homophobic. No one is talking about Christophobia as Christian views are mocked and scorned. That gay marriage has been approved in so many states so quickly and that pastors have spent time in jail throughout the world over preaching against homosexuality has increased the tension perhaps more than was possible in the time of Machen.[17]

Schaeffer remarked over thirty years ago that one of three things was about to happen: (1) a revival of Christian thinking akin to the Reformation; (2) severe persecution of Christians; (3) the second coming of Christ.[18] Logically, all three could happen in short order. It appears, however, that Schaeffer’s hopes relative to #1 have been dashed by the developments of the last thirty years. Most fundamentalists would vote for #3 if God gave us a voice in the matter. The second option, however, is what has come to light with increasing clarity.

In light of such dim days for the fundamentalist faith in America, one is filled with consternation looking ahead. Can anything be learned from the Fundamentalist and Modernist Controversy from the past that can help now as fundamentalists move forward into the darkness? The answer is yes. First, in the period from 1930 to 1950, fundamentalists focused much on organizational issues. This was a necessity due to the loss of the mainline denominations. Mouw notes,

While the secularizing elites took it for granted that ‘the old–time religion’ was a thing of the past, the fundamentalists were building a complex system of independent organizations: youth ministries, evangelistic teams, Bible institutes, seminaries, missionary agencies, summer Bible conferences, Bible distribution societies, and so on.[19]

Fundamentalists organized such ministries in a kind of grass–roots mode without the fanfare of well–developed denominational structures. The success of the fundamentalists in developing such a successful infrastructure for their movement coincided with an unexpected decline in the mainline denominations. This led to some serious self–evaluation culminating in the well–known 1972 study by Dean M. Kelly entitled Why Conservative Churches Are Growing. One summary of Kelly’s work was given in this way:

The growth of sectarian and theologically conservative religious groups is moving at an amazing clip while there is an equally dramatic decline in membership in mainline churches. Here a National Council of Churches executive charts these surprising trends which indicate that the decline in the more liberal and established churches is not merely a drop–off, but a sign that these respected religious institutions are dying.[20]

Carpenter summarized the same conclusion intimating that the seeds of reversal were already in the works by 1930: “Not only was mainline Protestantism being confronted with its final ‘disestablishment’ in an irreversibly pluralistic nation, but by the 1930s it had reached it apogee as the dominant expression of Protestantism.”[21] What is being suggested is that this remarkable reversal of fortunes was partly aided by attention to organizational issues. The fundamentalists created and organized ministries across the board to meet the needs of carrying out Great Commission ministry. For application to the current situation, fundamentalists must reevaluate current ministries and ask hard questions about what needs to be abandoned and what needs to be started. Such visions are largely personal. Within the movement there needs to be a spirit that fosters new organizations or ministries and allows individuals to do so without castigating them for abandoning current structures. Reliance upon the older institutions, however positive their contributions continue to be, may not be enough.

Beyond the organizational prowess of the twentieth–century fundamentalists, a second thing Bible–believing Christians can learn from them is the need for aggressive ministry. Carpenter has characterized the fundamentalists of the 1930s and 1940s with words such as activism, enterprise, and aggressive evangelization.[22] In short, these fundamentalists brought energy, hard work, and intentionality to the ministry. Vision was written large. The radio became a communication tool to exploit for the cause of the gospel of eternal life. Not only were they trying intentionally to grow existing churches, they were aggressively planting new churches and expanding foreign missionary efforts. Evangelization was at the heart of the movement. Creativity blossomed in ministries such as the bus ministry phenomenon. Later on, the successes were documented in such works as Elmer Towns’s The Ten Largest Sunday Schools.[23]

The current fundamentalist configuration could use a little of that earlier zeal when it comes to evangelism. Too few churches and ministries of the movement today appear to focus on intentionality when it comes to reaching people for Christ. Evangelism has become sporadic, accidental, and incidental. Malphurs notes,

An unstated mission in some churches is to win people to faith in Christ. This used to be the predominant mission of many churches in the first half of the twentieth century, especially Baptist churches. In the late twentieth and early twenty–first century, I have detected a move away from this mission. Few churches seem to value evangelism, and not much of it is taking place as it was earlier. In fact, evangelism seems to be a dying value in far too many churches in the twenty–first century. While evangelism isn’t the church’s sole mission, it is a part of its mission.[24]

It would no doubt be true that not all churches and ministries ignore this vital mission of the church. Why it is the case so often would make an interesting study. Perhaps fundamentalism is in some kind of scholastic period as it hones its deeper theological commitments. The Academy must continue to teach students that evangelism is not optional. It is essential. Regardless of the reasons for some lack of evangelism in many fundamental churches, the future of the movement is at stake. A diminished evangelistic spirit will erode fundamentalism.

A corollary of this sad state of affairs is the reticence on the part of many groups of churches to pursue actively the project of planting other new local churches. At this current time in history, church planting may be the number one avenue by which people come to faith in Christ.[25] Davis notes, “Every new church increases the cutting edge of evangelism. Younger and smaller churches tend to be more efficient evangelistically than older, larger churches. New churches generally win more people and baptize more converts per hundred members than older churches do.”[26] If this is so, then why is it so? Like Abraham Lincoln’s evaluation of General McClellan, we have a case of the “slows.” Do we really believe the Acts 29 network has taken care of church planting? Is it really desirable for the Emerging Church proponents to plant more churches than us? Is it sufficient to know that the Southern Baptists have an aggressive strategy to reach the urban areas of the United States? Fundamentalists must not waiver at this moment. We must all learn from our fundamentalist forefathers and become committed to intentional and aggressive church planting and evangelism. Without these, there is no going forward.

A final observation points to one similarity between the two cultural contexts of the 1930s and today. The fundamentalist turnaround that began in the 1930s was in fact initiated during the difficult days of the Great Depression. Current fundamentalists are living through a Great Recession which is causing problems in the funding of our institutions. The post–Christian culture today offers little solace economically or religiously. The current moment provides a monumental challenge, but there should be no wringing of hands or surrender. The early church surpassed expectations as it overcame a thoroughly pagan culture. The early fundamentalists likewise overcame the apostasy of their own day even after losing their denominations. The fundamentalists of today have the wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the power of God like the great cloud of witnesses who came before. To flinch now would be to show the world something it does not need to see—a fearful Christianity.[27]

Christians Can Easily Be Counter–Cultural

Second, Christians can easily be counter–cultural in the present situation. The relativistic pluralism of postmodern society leaves little or no room, at least theoretically, for those who believe in absolute truth. Such people appear to be marginalized in the media and other forums. At this point, the fundamentalist and Christian option must borrow to some extent Niebuhr’s category “Christ against culture.”[28] One must quickly add, however, that in some cases more than one of Niebuhr’s categories may apply at the same time and that various people and movements travel in and out of the territories and meanings of the categories in real life.[29] That is why it is imperative to ask if being counter–cultural is a good thing.

For the analysis at hand, this writer accepts that it is a good thing for fundamental Christians to demonstrate to a point how different we are from others in our culture at the present time.[30] The teaching of Jesus is that Christians are not of this world (John 17:16). The current declension of faith under the postmodern impulse, the absolute dissolution of moral standards, and the political and economic uncertainty actually help fundamentalists to present themselves in a way that attractively contrasts with the often clueless culture. To be sure, we will always share salient contact points with culture since we all, lost and saved, experience the fallen world around us. We all cry when we lose a loved one. We all have high hopes when a child or grandchild comes into our families. But on the solution side, where people are longing for certain hope to overcome the dilemmas of life, fundamental Christianity’s differences can point the way by highlighting the truth that is needed. There are two particular illustrations that underscore this point: (1) lifestyle differences especially relative to sexual and marriage choices; (2) doctrinal differences especially relative to perceived harshness in the character of God.

Relative to lifestyle differences, Schaff spoke to the impact of the morality of the early Christians: “The moral earnestness of the Christians contrasted powerfully with the prevailing corruption of the age, and while it repelled the frivolous and voluptuous, it could not fail to impress most strongly the deepest and noblest minds.”[31] The opinion expressed here is that the counter–cultural stance of Christians in the early centuries ultimately became attractive to the population. The corruption existing in the Empire at that time, through its hedonistic paganism, helped to set off the Christian lifestyle as a superior option among many thinking people.

The Christian lifestyle in the full biblical sense, not in a hyper–legalistic sense, has the same power today. Although there are never any short–term guarantees, the fundamentalist can be hopeful in the midst of present negative circumstances. The gay marriage agenda seems to be on a fast track with even some professing Christians sadly coming out in support of the recognition of gay rights. However, such a fast moving agenda carries with it a great deal of instability. For example, there are many states that affirm gay marriage while, at this time, a majority of states have not yet made formal laws in that direction. Legally there is a measure of disarray. In addition, there is a cultural uneasiness that exists as lifestyle choices of Christianity conflict with the prevailing pagan society. The legalism of the gay rights movement is growing as it tries to stifle dissent. The ugly picture that may eventually emerge can actually prove to be in the favor of fundamentalists. Ironically, the legalistic spirit that fundamentalists are often accused of having may be demonstrated to a greater degree in the pagan culture around us. This has the potential to highlight the gracious lifestyle of Bible–believing Christians.

Relative to doctrinal differences, the case may be more difficult. Of specific interest is the difference between Christian teachings that are perceived to be harsh and pluralistic teachings that are supposed to be generous and gracious. One example is the doctrine of the Second Coming of Jesus. When Jesus comes back, the Bible is fairly clear on this point—He will kill people (Rev. 19:11ff). Beyond that, the end–time scenario raises the specter of the Bible’s teaching on the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10–15). The Bible truth here is referred to as hatemongering by some pluralists.[32]

A second example is related. The harsh facts that come with the end times in the Bible reflect on the nature of God. One pop culture example can be seen in the Star Trek television series and movies that tend to support a pluralistic framework for looking at the universe. The pinnacle of this brand’s view of God comes in the fifth movie, Star Trek: The Final Frontier (1989). Confronting a being the movie’s main characters initially think is the Creator God in a classical theistic sense, they discover that the alien is not God primarily because he is too harsh. The alien sends fire bolts out of his eyes to knock down the characters Kirk and Spock. If there is a God, he would not be a harsh God, according to the script writers. Consequently, the God of classical theism is rejected out of hand. A version of a gentler god within the human heart is accepted.

A third doctrinal example continues the theme of harshness. While the rejection of the concept of propitiation has been present for a long time, there is a growing agitation from some quarters of Christendom to deny the biblical teaching that Christ on the cross satisfies the wrath of God against sin. According to this line of thinking, a nonviolent atonement is to be preferred.[33] Propitiation is to be relegated to the heap of unwanted, cruel doctrines. Weaver represents a vocal proponent of this view while refining the Christus Victor model of the atonement.[34] He essentially produces a fine–tuning of a refinement—the makeover of the old ransom–to–Satan view which goes back far into the early church and of which even Luther was accused.[35] The focus of this doctrinal view is the victory of Christ over Satan in his work, especially his cross–work. Unique additions to this modern expression of Christus Victor come from interaction with pacifistic teaching as well as feminist and womanist theologies to ensure a more feminine or softer understanding that undercuts some of the harshness of male qualities.[36] Even proponents, however, note that it is hard to reconcile such an approach to the actual teaching of the New Testament.[37]

Three strong teachings within fundamentalism have been declared above to be harsh: the second coming of Christ, the nature of God, and propitiation. The first two were declared to be harsh in the court of pop culture. The last one was rejected as harsh within a theologically liberal framework.[38] Bauder is correct that fundamentalism possesses a doctrinal matrix and that this matrix cannot be simply pushed aside.[39] Even the gospel has doctrinal components and is not just the historical events. This means that fundamentalists are stuck with the negative, harsh doctrines that have been asserted. They must believe that Jesus kills people when he returns, God can get angry and inflict pain, and that God’s wrath was a centerpiece of the atonement.

A response can certainly be made to each one of the complaints of harshness. God has prerogatives to control life and death that humans do not possess. Humans cannot simply view God as a superhuman and analyze him as if he were one of us. In the end, Jesus gave of himself graciously and freely and is not the subject of some random torture that the Father chose to inflict. On and on the rejoinders could be made. Bible–believing Christians take some comfort in knowing that they are in harmony with Jesus’ teaching about the narrow way being preferred to the broad way. No doubt current culture would view that as a bit harsh as well.

In the case of these beliefs and perhaps many more, however, the fundamentalist clearly stands in a counter–cultural place. The benefit of such a counter–cultural position at this point is not intuitively obvious. Is the softness of the present time so locked in that fundamentalism with its negative teachings can never make a kind of comeback? To infer such a conclusion is premature. To shun everything harsh in a worldview is unrealistic. The real world we live in cannot live forever with the conclusion. It may take North American culture a long time to figure this out, but the reality of the need for harsh force in punishment occurs every day. Perhaps one day America will look more like the Middle East—Israel and Gaza. God forbid. At some point cultures are forced open to the thought that there is no love without justice. The balance that fundamentalism brings with its doctrines, even its harsh ones, gives reasonable answers on these points that a mystical culture may soon want to examine. The current culture’s certainty about uncertainty will eventually break down. Fundamentalists must be ready if God gives the moment. Right now fundamentalists are among the few representing the rational and certain side of the Christian faith.

Postmodern Culture Ironically Hands Christians Ammunition

Third, postmodernism in the current post–Christian context provides ammunition for its own demise which allows footholds for Bible Christians. There are a couple of directions this thought can travel. The first one is the openness to the metaphysical or supernatural. Has anyone noticed that miracles are on the table as a possibility in the current pagan culture? True modernists fought fundamentalism on this. To be sure, modernists and fundamentalists both believed in absolute truth for the most part, although they could never agree where it was to be found. The miraculous, even among religious liberals, was downplayed at best. The mysticism of postmodernism, on the other hand, allows for a subjective acceptance of the supernatural. Modernists, who are still numerous in our culture, often play on a different chessboard than do fundamentalists. Many, not all, postmodernists may at least be on the same playing field in this regard. While it is not the same advantage as talking to an unbelieving Jewish person who may accept the Old Testament, it may allow more conversations to develop since the culture today is still extremely religious in nature.

Of more consequence, however, is the greatest weakness of the current culture, namely, its philosophical pluralism. Using Carson’s categories, no fundamentalist would deny that empirical pluralism is the state of affairs of North American culture today.[40] Beyond that, this pluralistic condition at that level could be a cherished pluralism for fundamentalists if opportunities to evangelize are the focal point. Philosophical pluralism is something else altogether. In this kind of thinking and living, there is a great desire and push for all institutions in our society to be internally pluralistic in practice. This would stem from a belief that pluralism and relativism constitute the nature of reality.

Why is philosophical pluralism the current culture’s greatest weakness? It is self–defeating. This writer believes because of this the postmodern era will be shorter lived than the modernistic one, although predicting the future is a tricky business. Philosophical pluralism gives a platform to fundamental Christians to engage in dialog in the deepest, most meaningful ways with pluralists of our day. This gives an advantage to the Bible–believing worldview as it leaves pluralists with an unsettled mindset and wondering about their view.

An illustration of how this works is in order. Tom Krattenmaker, an editorialist for USA Today, regularly criticizes evangelical Christians in his columns.[41] Recently he authored a book entitled Onward Christians Athletes.[42] That work is a detailed analysis of evangelical ministries in the public sports world. Although Krattenmaker has an irenic spirit, his critique is largely negative, actually mourning the evangelical dominance in sports outreach in America. One example is that he asserts that the Fellowship of Christian Athletes should be the Fellowship of Religious Athletes instead to allow Jews, Hindus, and others to be a part.[43] Krattenmaker asserts, “The challenge … is to create a pluralistic environment in professional sports, where no one form of belief or nonbelief takes over, but where all are welcome, and all are free to act and speak in accordance with their creeds and beliefs, so long as they do not blatantly infringe on the rights of others.”[44] Immediately, the thoughtful Christian wonders if all are not already free to voice their opinions and beliefs in the sports world. Where is the gag order? Suspicion is raised that the real issue is to silence evangelicals and not to promote the liberties of others.

Unfortunately, the conclusion to Krattenmaker’s book reinforces the worries of evangelicals, although he declares that he does not want to silence them in sports ministries and wants them to have a place at the table. Nevertheless, what he gives with the right hand he takes with the left:

A word to you Christians in sports: The vision sketched above is not intended to silence you. If anything, your message will come through louder, and resonate more clearly and with far more listeners, when it is expressed through your ethical witness in addition to your get–Jesus evangelism. The non–evangelical rest of us will be more likely to relax our defenses and engage with you in an open, hospitable manner if you consistently lead with your hearts rather than a rigid theological proposition about Jesus, heaven, and hell that will inevitably exclude and alienate large numbers of us.[45]

Notice the aversion to harshness in his words, harshness he perceives in evangelicals. However, the real shocker to his statement is that, although he wants to give evangelicals a place at the table of sports ministries, he wants evangelicals to leave three things behind when they come to the table: Jesus, heaven, and hell. That is, he wants evangelicals not to bring Jesus and salvation issues to sports ministries. In short, he wants them to quit being evangelicals as they do their ministry!

This writer wrote a review article of Krattenmaker’s book and dialogued with him by email several times on the various issues he raised, an email exchange that Krattenmaker himself initiated to his credit.[46] The critique challenged him relative to what was discussed above using Carson’s categories of pluralism. He noted that he embraced cherished pluralism, not philosophical pluralism. In this, he is mistaken. His comments about what evangelicals should leave behind in sports ministries betray his true sentiments. For his pluralism to include those who believe in absolute truth, he must change the expressions given by those who hold the absolutes. But this stance is exclusivism. It is not the stated inclusivism of a pluralist worldview. Such is the greatest weakness of our postmodern, post–Christian, pluralistic culture. It cannot and never will be able to make peace and place for those who are not pluralistic. This means that in the real world it is impossible to live as a philosophical pluralist.[47]

Can the fundamentalist take advantage of this situation? The answer is yes, once again. The greatest weakness of current culture as described above provides a platform for Christians in general and fundamentalists in particular to push back in a meaningful and reasoned way without being harsh in tone. Many pluralists are actually thoughtful people. Krattenmaker is one of those. He stated that he has some thinking to do. Some pluralists may eventually change their minds.[48]

Conclusion

If the analysis above has any value, potential opportunity and encouragement for fundamentalists in the current post–Christian culture can be found in the historical lessons learned from the past, the counter–cultural attractiveness of the Christian lifestyle and teaching at certain points, and the self–defeating nature of postmodern pluralism. These ideas are not given as authoritative and sacrosanct. They must be critically evaluated and applied in reasonable ways as we engage unbelievers from within North American culture.

One more point is worth telling. In spite of the abuse of the meaning of the word gospel that surrounds Christendom, the opportunity exists that the gospel of eternal life is once again looking like good news instead of old news. This writer has been saying this for thirty years but is unsure whether he really believed it. What is different at this moment is the massive cultural change that is underway. There is little in it that reflects the Judeo–Christian worldview. One implication is that the depravity of man is somewhat or largely ignored, either at the individual or societal level. But any honest person must reflect on the fact that the optimism from the fall of the Soviet Union is gone along with any so–called peace dividends. The Middle East is stuck on a page that no one has ever been able to turn. The war on terror never goes away in spite of the efforts of politicians to minimize it. Americans wonder if one day we will encounter suicide bombers at malls and other public places. The world continues to be in disarray. Cultural changes in a direction against Christianity show no sign of living up to the challenge. The ugliness of the human race runs deeper than most know, since it is masked by the technological advances of the day. Some analysts are even predicting another Holocaust.[49] When evil expresses itself, as it must, in major ways in culture, people in America have responded by going to church. This does not help when the church has a message without Christ and his gospel. However, it is an opportunity for fundamentalists. The only answer to the evil of the world, to the depravity of humans, is the pure gospel: the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the sins of the world which must be received by personal faith. In a day of growing evil and a biblical illiteracy that is startling, it may finally take shape that the gospel is once again good news to those who need it. May we take as many with us into God’s coming kingdom as possible.

Notes

1. This article was originally written for and delivered as a paper at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit at Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, PA, on August 6, 2014.
2. Arno G. Gaebelein, “The Harmony of the Prophetic Word,” Our Hope 9 (September 1902): 130-31. For a similar sentiment, see also Gaebelein’s The Harmony of the Prophetic Word (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1907), 207. To place this sentiment of Gaebelein within his overall biblical perspective, see Michael D. Stallard, The EarlyTwentieth-Century Dispensationalism of Arno C. Gaebelein (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon, 2002), 211.
3. Janet L. Folger, The Criminalization of Christianity: Read This Book Before It Becomes Illegal! (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2005).
4. The word fundamentalism in this article is being used in a historical sense, identifying with the movement in the early twentieth century among Bible-believing Christians to respond to the rise of modernism in American culture. It does not deal with other uses of the term including modern criticism of Islamic fundamentalism which has made the word a more negative cultural expression. Fundamentalism as a concept is helpful here for the sake of historical comparison presented in this article.
5. R. Albert Mohler, “A Confessional Evangelical Response [to Bauder]” in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism ed. Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 50.
6. Much of the evangelical critique material is useful and accurate, but at times uneven or exaggerated in its presentation. Some of the more important and well–known works of this genre are Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981); The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1984); David F. Wells, No Place for Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); and D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
7. Tertullian, “The Apology,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante–Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 55.
8. Earl E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 135.
9. Philip Schaff, History of the Church (n.p.: AP & A, n.d.), 1:7-8. The volume cited here is from the reprint edition combining the original eight volumes into three volumes. The quotation is from the original second volume.
10. It is possible (and generally believed by fundamentalists) that the rise of Christendom in the early Church in the form it took actually hurt the overall cause of Christ. That historical and spiritual problem is not being dealt with in this presentation.
11. Galatians 1:4.
12. Tertullian, The Apology, XXXVII.
13. George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangel-icalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 60. If one examines the periodical documents of The Fundamentals, one is hard–pressed to find rural and totally uneducated men representing the movement. Even Arno C. Gaebelein, who only took a semester or two of college education at Johns Hopkins, was self–taught to the degree that his scholarship exceeded that of other men who had completed formal education. Marsden is correct in his assessment of media caricature. On Gaebelein’s scholarship, see Stallard, Early Twentieth–Century Dispensationalism of Arno C. Gaebelein, 13-15. Detractors among the historians as well as supporters of Gaebelein agree about his erudition.
14. Ibid., 61.
15. One interesting analysis looking back can be found in Barry Hankins, “The (Worst) Year of the Evangelical: 1926 and the Demise of American Fundamentalism,” Fides et Historia 43 (Winter/Spring 2011): 1-14.
16. For example, a century ago, no divorced man had ever been elected to be President of the United States. Ronald Reagan was the first and only man to this point to be elected while divorced and remarried. This, of course, does not mean that immorality was absent from the White House through the years as we all know. But there is a public perception here in the past that more closely approximates biblical understanding.
17. See < http://www.akegreen.org/> for the autobiographical story of Ake Green, a Pentecostal pastor in Sweden who had to fight jail time due to his preaching against homosexual behavior. Hate crime ordinances are, wherever they occur, a problem for a Christian pastor who wants to assert his religious freedom to preach the whole counsel of God given in the Bible. For a balanced comparison of the current climate in America to the Nazi Germany of the 1930s, see Erwin W. Lutzer, Hitler’s Cross (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 157-207. Such comparisons are increasingly being voiced.
18. This writer was in the audience during a chapel service at Liberty University on January 23, 1981, when Francis Schaeffer made these remarks. A video of this sermon is available online at <http://joshuabreland.com/video–francis–schaeffer–changing–course–history–address–students–liberty–university–1981/>.
19. Richard J. Mouw, “What Evangelicals Can Learn from Fundamentalists” in Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail: Evangelical Ecumenism and the Quest for Christian Identity, ed. by Timothy George (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 51. Mouw’s intended audience is different than the one for this article. Here we are attempting to describe “What Contemporary Fundamentalists Can Learn from Past Fundamentalists.”
20. This quotation is taken from the front inside jacket of this writer’s copy of Dean M. Kelly, Why Conservative Churches are Growing: A Study in Sociology of Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1972).
21. Joel A. Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (New York: Oxford, 1997), 31.
22. Ibid., 28.
23. Elmer Towns, The Ten Largest Sunday Schools: And What Makes Them Grow (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969). Of the ten churches, five were in the Baptist Bible Fellowship; three others declared themselves to be independent Baptist; one was Southern Baptist; one was interdenominational. Later Towns published An Inside Look at 10 of Today’s Most Innovative Churches (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990). No independent Baptist churches are listed. Two are SBC churches. The tenor of the book is slightly different, so a full comparison may be unwarranted. However, the contrast may show that earlier fundamentalist successes were beginning to wane.
24. Aubrey Malphurs, Strategic Disciple Making: A Practical Tool for Successful Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 15.
25. C. Peter Wagner, Church Planting for a Greater Harvest (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990), 11.
26. Ken Davis and Roger McNamara, The YBH Handbook of Church Planting (n.p.: Xulon, 2005), 53.
27. Although it is theological nature, there is the sure pre–written history of the tribulation period predicted in many places in Scripture and covered in detail in Revelation 6-19. During this awful time there is great opposition and persecution of Christ–followers, yet there is also a large influx of converts to the true and living God. Once again, the presence of negative circumstances does not prevent the work of God in outreach.
28. H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1956).
29. For a brief analysis of these points in this light, see Carson, Gagging of God, 405-6.
30. The “otherworldliness” expressed in fundamental doctrines of personal separation from the world and ecclesiastical separation from apostasy is one of those areas which has been a major point of contention for new evangelicals and for fundamentalists who feel abused by overstatements and hyper–praxis in this area. For a brief discussion of this, see Mouw, What Evangelicals Can Learn from Fundamentalists, 46-47.
31. Schaff, History of the Church, 1:8. In the original volumes, this citation would be found in 2:13ff. Schaff suggested that the progress of the Christian faith due to such factors was generally spread throughout the Empire rather than being localized to some individual region.
32. For example, see Nicholas Kristof, “Apocalypse (Almost) Now,” New York Times, 24 November 2004. See this writer’s analysis of the perceived harsh side of Christian doctrine in Mike Stallard, “The Tendency to Softness in Postmodern Attitudes about God, War, and Man,” JMAT 10 (Spring 2006): 92-114. This article was first presented at the Conservative Theological Society in August 2005 under the title “Is the Doctrine of the Second Coming Too Negative?” The three example doctrines of this published article on postmodern softness are borrowed for the outlining of this section.
33. See J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). Another example of hostility to propitiation and penal substitutionary atonement is Tony Jones, A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin (n.p.: JoPa Group, 2012).
34. Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor, trans. A. G. Hebert, repr ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1969).
35. Ibid., 101-22.
36. Stallard, “Tendency to Softness,” 108ff.
37. Christopher Marshall, “Atonement, Violence and the Will of God: A Sympathetic Response to J. Denny Weaver’s The Nonviolent Atonement,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 77 (January 2003). This article may now be accessed at <https://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/jan03marshall.html.>
38. It is important to remember that not all professing Christians who reject propitiation are nonevangelical or liberal. Some are conservatives who hold to the governmental view of the atonement.
39. Kevin T. Bauder, “What's That You Smell? A Fundamentalist Response to the Smell of Sawdust” in Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail: Evangelical Ecumenism and the Quest for Christian Identity ed. Timothy George (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 57-70; and “Fundamentalism” in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, ed. by Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 19-49. This writer has been drawn more to the analysis of Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British & American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago: Univ of Chicago 1970) than to that of George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth–Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford, 1980). While both historians give excellent analysis, Sandeen appears to give more consideration to theological issues within fundamentalism.
40. Carson, Gagging of God, 13-54.
41. His most recent column in this vein is Tom Krattenmaker, “’Rock Star’ Pastors Lose Luster,” USA Today, August 3, 2014. The date here is when the article was posted on the newspaper’s website. This editorial is a critique of Mark Driscoll and scandals surrounding him and his ministry.
42. Tom Krattenmaker, Onward Christian Athletes: Turning Ballparks into Pulpits and Players into Preachers (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010).
43. Ibid., 19.
44. Ibid., 207.
45. Ibid., 208-9.
46. Mike Stallard, “Evangelicals and Sports,” JMAT 15 (Spring 2011): 5-23.
47. Paul D. Numrich, “Fundamentalisms and American Pluralism,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 42 (Winter 2007): 9-14. Numrich gives a short survey of issues and illustrations in the relationship between fundamentalism and pluralism. See also Mark Eaton, “Book Review of Paul Maltby, Christian Fundamentalism and the Cultureof Disenchantment (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013).
48. Such a statement is not to dismiss the spiritual dimension of the work of the Spirit in speaking to men through the Word of God.
49. For example, see the recent article by Sam Sokol, “We Are Looking at the Beginnings of a Holocaust,” The Jerusalem Post, July 28, 2014; <http://www.jpost.com/Jewish–World/Jewish–News/We–are–looking–at–the–beginnings–of–a–Holocaust–369165> (accessed 4 August 2014).