Stott’s repudiation of fundamentalism

John Stott, in Essentials: A liberal evangelical dialogue (1988), boldly declares: ‘For thirty-five years now I have felt it right to repudiate the label fundamentalist…’ Stott concedes that the term comes from the publication entitled, The Fundamentals – a testimony to the truth, published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles between 1910 and 1915, which contained around 90 essays defending the Christian Faith. Two Christian laymen, deeply concerned about the modernist attack on the Bible and the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith, funded and distributed The Fundamentals free of charge. Sixty four different authors from mainline Protestant Christian denominations wrote essays affirming Protestant beliefs, especially those of the Reformed tradition. These essays are widely considered to be the foundation of modern Christian fundamentalism. In the foreword, the authors explain their purpose: ‘This book is the first of a series which will be published and sent to every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological professor, theological student, Sunday school superintendent in the English speaking world… Two intelligent, consecrated Christian laymen bear the expense, because they believe that the time has come when a new statement of the fundamentals of Christianity should be made. Their earnest desire is that you will carefully read it and pass its truth on to others.’

 John Stott

To justify his repudiation of those he labels fundamentalists, Stott writes: ‘But gradually all words change their meaning, and today fundamentalism is associated in many minds with certain extremes and extravagances which Evangelicals reject’.[1]

 Are We Fundamentalists?

In the booklet “Are We Fundamentalists?” Dr  Peter Masters, Pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in central London, writes:

‘There are now two kinds of evangelical… The old is the authentic, biblical position.  The new is far off the track, not in its basic view of salvation, but in its readiness to compromise with doctrinal error and worldly ways. The new is selling the faith for earthly respect and recognition… and churches are being ruined. Today, old-style evangelicals are in the minority….  This booklet attempts to give a clear picture of the present alarming scene, in order to encourage believers to take a clear stand.

Masters explains:

‘Old-style evangelicals are often called fundamentalists, particularly in the USA. New-style evangelicals adopted the term, ‘new evangelical’ to describe themselves in the 1950s… It would be fairer to say that a fundamentalist is someone who cares about the defence and preservation of the Gospel… Those of us who are old-style evangelicals are now being labelled as fundamentalist by our critics, the new-style evangelicals…

Why are the new-style evangelicals calling us fundamentalist? They are doing so for reasons of tactical self-advantage. … Harold J. Okenga, the distinguished Boston pastor, joined with Carl F. Henry and Billy Graham to steer American evangelicals into a more liberal position, they were keen to be known as the new evangelicals. They founded the magazine Christianity Today as the flagship journal for their new direction…

The new evangelicals were inclusivistic rather than separatistic. They urged Bible-believers to stay in compromised denominations… Liberal scholarship was studied and in many respects embraced… The old, sharp line between worldly activities and spiritual activities was swept away, and believers were encouraged to be much more involved in worldly culture, leisure and entertainment.

The new evangelicals began to put less stress upon the ‘new’, and to speak of themselves simply as evangelicals, and the old-style believers as fundamentalists. This made them sound more orthodox. All that remained was to give the term fundamentalist an objectionable, negative image, and the new evangelicals would then appear to be mainstream.

This is precisely what is now happening in Britain. The new evangelicals are appropriating to themselves the exclusive use of the term evangelical, and calling old-style believers fundamentalists. Like their American mentors they define the latter term in the most objectionable way.’

 Stott’s repudiation of fundamentalists

Stott was deeply antagonistic towards traditional evangelicals, whom he disparagingly labelled ‘fundamentalists’, reserving the term ‘evangelical’ for himself and other like-minded ‘new evangelicals’. In Essentials: A liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (1988), he provides a list of ‘eight tendencies of the mind-set styled fundamentalism’ from which he wishes to dissociate himself.

First on Stott’s list is the assertion that fundamentalists have ‘a general suspicion of scholarship and science, which sometimes degenerates into a thoroughgoing anti-intellectualism’. Dr Peter Masters, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, recognising Stott as a committed theistic evolutionist, responds: ‘The absurdity of this could be demonstrated at length, but what is probably meant is that fundamentalists accept God’s act of creation in six days as opposed to the theory of evolution.’[2]

Stott dissociates himself from ‘a mechanical view or “dictation theory” of biblical inspiration, with a consequent denial of the human, cultural element in Scripture and therefore of the need for “biblical criticism” and careful hermeneutics’. Masters responds that ‘fundamentalists believe in the total inspiration and authority of the Bible, the message of which was in no way distorted by the ignorance or culture of its human authors. New evangelicals, however, have a very low view of scriptural authority, having absorbed many of the humanistic views of liberals about the formation of the Bible.’[3]

Another problem for Stott is that fundamentalists adopt ‘a literalistic interpretation of all Scripture… leading to an insufficient recognition of the place of poetry, metaphor and symbol’. Masters says this is a deeply serious issue. ‘Over the years new evangelicals (intimidated by liberalism) have plunged into an increasingly “secular” approach to Bible interpretation in which an obsessively technical analysis of the text has ousted the Bible’s own rules of interpretation (so well articulated at the time of the Reformation).’[4]

Stott declares that fundamentalists adopt ‘a separatist ecclesiology, together with a blanket repudiation of the Ecumenical Movement and the World Council of Churches’. As a committed ecumenist, he dissociates himself from reformed Christians who reject the ecumenical movement and the liberalism of the World Council of Churches. Here we should remember the Nottingham Conference of 1977, chaired by Stott, which asserted: ‘Seeing ourselves and Roman Catholics as fellow-Christians, we repent of attitudes that have seemed to deny it.’[5]

It seems more than strange that Stott, who accepts Roman Catholics as fellow Christians, is not able to accept reformed Bible-believing Christians, who actually believe the fundamentals of the faith and promote the doctrines of the Reformation, as fellow Christians.
A few fancy features like the external look may increase the price find out that getting viagra online but not the functionality. Its Key Ingredient Makes Kamagra More Effective The manufacturer of generic sildenafil tablets 100mg sildenafil online india produced this medication just by following genuine medication. Kamdeepak capsules have been engineered to tackle issues of loss of libido among females. levitra canada Now they are more than willing levitra online usa to accept this and resort towards medications and technique to prevent or reduce hair loss.
Stott accuses fundamentalists of ‘a cultural imprisonment, whose evil consequences have included racial prejudice and prosperity teaching’.[6] Here Stott is suggesting that ‘culturally’ imprisoned fundamentalists are really racists. The fact that Stott attaches the ‘racist’ tag to his theological opponents illustrates a reckless disregard for truth. Having branded ‘fundamentalists’ as ‘racist’, Stott no longer needs to deal with the genuine biblical concerns they have with his liberal agenda.

Stott goes even further, accusing fundamentalists of ‘some extreme right-wing political concerns’.[7] Here we have a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, who openly supports a radical left-wing political agenda, accuse his reformed theological opponents of right-wing politics. Surely there is more than an element of hypocrisy in this accusation. But not in Stott’s mind, for those who do not support his socialist agenda are branded as having extreme right-wing concerns.

Masters responds by saying that fundamentalists, in obedience to the great commission, make the work of soul-winning their highest priority, ‘believing that this is the greatest work of compassion, and all other acts of compassion will flow from converted hearts. New evangelicals, however, underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to apply the Gospel to hearts, and believe they must secure a hearing by social activity.’[8]

In the above we see a true picture of the real John Stott. The vehemence of Stott’s repudiation suggests that he feels threatened by reformed, Bible-believing Christians. Hence, he creates a caricature of old-style evangelicals, pejoratively labelling them as fundamentalists, in his attempt to discredit Bible-believing Christians who disagree with his socio-political agenda and theistic evolution.

 

[1] John Stott and David Edwards, Essentials, Hodder and Stoughton, 1988, p91

[2] Peter Masters, ‘Are we Fundamentalists?’, Sword and Trowel, 1995, reprinted 2003, p31

[3] 26 Ibid. p15

[4] 27 Ibid. p16

[5] 28 Ibid. p17

[6] John Stott and David Edwards, Essentials, Hodder and Stoughton, 1988, p91

[7] 29 Ibid. p31

[8] 30 Ibid. pp20-21