Inerrancy: a continental divide

Once parallel branches of the same head stream, fundamentalism and evangelicalism now represent distinct watersheds which have subdivided further into numerous sub-streams. Marsden supports this common ancestry, saying “some of the more moderate fundamentalists were using the word evangelical as a more respectable alternative, but that was by no means a rule, especially through the 1940s.”¹ The continental divide clearly formed around attitudes regarding the inerrancy of Scripture, easily attested from hindsight though somewhat unclear during the 1950s.

The fundamentalists rallied around inerrancy from the beginning, separating from old liberalism and “new evangelicalism.” Unfortunately, their separatist instincts occasionally drove them not only to affirm inerrancy, but also to allow other issues (sometimes non-essential) to further fragment the fundamentalist movement. These men, such as John R. Rice, Carl McIntire, and Bob Jones, Jr. were all committed to biblical inerrancy despite eventual enmities with one another.

The evangelicals responded to inerrancy with less harmony. Some such as Carnell, Dan Fuller, and Hubbard chose to reject it in favor of infallibility. Others, such as Lindsell, Henry, and Kantzer chose to affirm it, although they never separated like the fundamentalists.

Later, inerrancy passed from the forefront of discussion, but it had already defined the limits of fellowship for both groups. Each group subdivided to include the broad variety of viewpoints which today compose fundamentalism and evangelicalism while remaining distinct from each other.

Fundamentalism today remains largely committed to inerrancy, although those originally divisive non-essentials have continued to divide the ranks. A few (such as Peter Ruckman) have exalted non-essentials to the level of core doctrine and practice a “hyper-separatism” from all opponents that others almost universally regard as heresy. Ruckman’s idiosyncrasies make him a questionable fundamentalist, holding a doctrine of preservation that tampers with the traditional view of inerrancy. Fortunately, the vast majority of fundamentalism attempts to practice a separation motivated by the love of Christ and eschewing heretical hyper-isolationism.

Evangelicalism today has diversified far more than modern fundamentalism, allowing tremendous variety in doctrine. Self-described evangelicals range from conservatives (such as Mohler and MacArthur), to church growth phenoms (such as Hybels and Warren), to charismatics (such as Jakes, Osteen, and Meyer), to ecumenists (such as Graham and Colson), to social gospel advocates (such as Tony Campolo), to mainline denominationalists (such as Neuhaus, Packer, and Beckwith), and even to overt heretics (such as Pinnock and N.T. Wright). To some extent, leaders of the emerging church movement (such as McLaren and Driscoll) also call themselves evangelicals, though they try to repudiate key tenets of past evangelicals (such as the church growth movement). The evangelicals stand united only by their unwillingness to repudiate those who deny inerrancy or other key doctrines but would claim evangelical faith. Indeed, the term “evangelical” today sustains more abuse by application to these disparate men than the term “fundamentalist” used for its proper adherents.

1. Marsden, George. Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995, p. xi. [↩]