I did not want to answer this question. No good would come of it anyway. The question, an accusation really, had been slung at me like a stone intended to wound, and it came from a person who would not likely hurl a racial or ethnic epithet at anyone.

People have accused me of being a fundamentalist. I use the word accuse, which may not be a completely accurate description of the motive of every speaker, but some words sound like a negative insult in certain contexts, whether the speaker intends it as such or not. When used as a label or stereotype, it may reveal a deep-seated prejudice, even anger. 

Few today know what the word means, and most do not know the history of fundamentalism; it is therefore a word used in ignorance to diminish, demean, and defame any Christian who takes a stand for the Bible and Christ, regardless of whether he or she is a true fundamentalist. Many Christians today would not appreciate the fundamentalist label being applied to them. The truth is, I do not like it myself. However, if I look at how the original definition of fundamentalism should be understood, then I have to admit that, indeed I am one.  

The Original Definition and History 

At the beginning of the twentieth century, when anti-Christian liberalism was on the rise, especially in the universities, some American conservative Christians formulated the fundamentals of the faith in an attempt to counter the growing liberalism in the seminaries, denominational headquarters, and churches. They declared a faith in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and affirmed the deity, blood atonement, bodily resurrection, and return of Jesus. Except that evangelicalism was grouped together with fundamentalism in the view of academics, there is nothing too controversial here. The points stated above are actually normal biblical views; that is, if one takes the Bible seriously at all. So why the fuss about being a fundamentalist? 

One problem was that the early fundamentalists began fighting among themselves as to who was the purest in doctrine and practice. It became quite vicious, and the squabbles spilled over into the media. Then, one group separated from another, followed by more splits, and the fabric of denominationalism was literally coming apart at the seams. 

Strong Accusations 

The liberal contingent of American Christianity even accused the fundamentalists of aiding and abetting the Axis powers during World War I because of premillennial, dispensational end-times views. These views predicted a world getting worse and worse, and when this appeared to be happening, the fundamentalist scolded, “See, I told you so.” It was certainly untrue that the fundamentalists supported America’s enemies, but bad publicity has an impact regardless.

The famous 1925 Scopes Trial, otherwise known as the “Monkey” trial, that pitted William Jennings Bryan, a Christian, against the renowned criminal lawyer, Clarence Darrow, was widely reported in the American press. The issue was whether evolution should be taught in the public schools. Bryan, an educated and gentlemanly defender of the Christian faith, and constantly defined as a fundamentalist, came off less than second best to Darrow, with the result that fundamentalism, along with all of Bible-believing Christianity, was made a laughing stock around the world. In fact, fundamentalists were often called Bryanites. Many Christians, I suspect, were scandalized by it all, and many more turned away from Christianity altogether. This legacy continues into the modern age. 

False Predictions 

But there is still more. Some fundamentalist preachers, convinced they had the correct understanding of end-time prophecies, were sure that Mussolini (then later, Hitler, and still later, Stalin) was either the beast or the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation. After the process of history demonstrated the fallacy of such predictions, the fundamentalists lost a lot of credibility. Predictions are still being made that eventually fail and thus continue to cause difficulties. 

Politics! 

The fundamentalists developed social and political agendas as well. Soon, becoming a Christian also meant adopting a particular political affiliation or outlook – almost always of a conservative persuasion. Bible-believing Christians, it was thought, voted in a particular way. Fundamentalism took on science, too, hoping to counter the growing influence of evolution. This sometimes resulted in a pseudo-science, which was often laughable. According to hard-core fundamentalists, true Christians had to consider science as an enemy of the faith. 

Some fundamentalists thundered against things like hair and clothing styles and various forms of popular entertainment, with dancing often singled out as being particularly evil. They sharply rejected the use of alcohol and tobacco, and some historians blamed them for the American Prohibition. The list goes on. 

The fundamentalists were portrayed as meddling with people’s private lives, and it did not go down well in either the media or over the back fence. Fundamentalist came to be a word applied to people who were considered narrow, bigoted, backward, uneducated, and boring. 

Accusation by Analogy 

Even in today’s parlance, religious terrorists of any stripe, color, or creed are called fundamentalists: Hindus, Muslims, even Buddhists who attack and kill other people for any reason are labeled extremists or fundamentalists. Every crazy cult that makes the news can receive the fundamentalist tag. 

Does anyone want to be called a fundamentalist? Most would say, “No!” And even the threat of being called one is enough to scare people away from churches, a desire to read the Bible or entertain a spiritual thought that might be vaguely Christian in character. People will even be embarrassed to say anything that might vaguely connect them with things Christian and biblical, while at the same time, the same stigma is not attached to Eastern, alternative, and pagan religious practices and ideas. This is an unhappy and unnecessary state of affairs. 

Survival of the Accused 

Since I am often asked if I am a fundamentalist, and since I have to deal so often with the emotional stress of facing the fundamentalist branding in face-to-face confrontations, perhaps I could pass on some of my survival techniques. 

The bottom line is: I don’t much care what I am called personally. I would like to think my inner strength is developed well enough to take the name-calling. Jesus’ strength is sufficient for me. He was accused of all sorts of things, so why should I think I would escape unthinking, unkind, even cruel accusations? People will call me strange things and think of me in ways that do not reflect who I really am – this goes with the territory on which I stand. 

I stand for the fundamentals of the faith. However, I am not necessarily going to stand behind all that has been identified as fundamentalism. For instance, I do not expect, much less demand, that society as a whole adopt social and political agendas that I embrace. I have accepted that I live in a pluralistic society, which is essentially post-Christian. By this, I mean that Christianity is rapidly becoming a minority faith, and our society is not governed by a biblical ethic. I must recognize this or I will be forever disappointed, discouraged, and angry. In addition, I am satisfied with people forming their own conclusions about how they will live their lives. Even when I see actions that I think are less than biblical, I will not react with judgment against people who are not interested in adhering to the biblical standard. But I hope, and know to some degree, that believers will grow up to the fullness of Jesus as God works his will and ways into their lives. Living in the midst of this fallen world, I know I am in it but not of it. I am careful to keep my “light” out in the open and burning as brightly as possible, so I am not going to slink away with my tail between my legs. 

Furthermore, I am careful to fight the right battles. I will even let go of some so-called important issues, because they are not central to the core gospel of Christ. 

In the right circumstances I present a history of fundamentalism to people of good will who have a genuine interest in the subject. I do not “cast pearls before swine,” yet I have found many people appreciate a new understanding of the history of fundamentalism as well as evangelical and reformed Christianity. Mainly, I am concerned that people do not close themselves off from Jesus for fear of being branded a fundamentalist. How sad that an unfounded fear, augmented with historical ignorance, should result in a person being cut off from God’s love and salvation. 

The Better Label 

What labels do fit me? I prefer simply “Christian.” But I will accept evangelical, Protestant in the Reformed tradition, conservative, and even fundamentalist if I can set the historical context. I am a Christian, because God the Father opened my eyes, my ears, and my heart to hear Jesus’ voice calling out to me. He saved me. He washed all my sin away. He gave me the gift of eternal life. His Spirit indwells me. I belong to him. He made me a part of his family, the Church, both in heaven and on earth. This is who I am. Hang whatever other label you want to on me. I know who I am.