My interest is rather to point out that a) it is inaccurate to call anyone in our midst a fundamentalist insofar as that term is commonly understood today; b) doing so serves rather to confuse than to clarify the nature of our internal ecclesiastical disagreements, not only regarding the parties involved but also regarding the matters considered; and c) using language such as this is not fair to either the people so labelled or the actual fundamentalists, such as independent Baptists (who would be none too keen on being associated with many of our so-called fundamentalists).

There is a phenomenon in the church which consists of a sort of sustained reaction against the common attitudes of the wider culture. For example, where contemporary society fawns over alcohol as aqua vitae (the water of life) and a divine elixir, the people associated with this movement recoil in horror and say it is ‘the devil’s brew,’ and of such corrosive nature that its mere consumption is sin. Or again, where many people are rather slovenly and immodest in their attire, these people enjoin a rather strict code of dress for both sexes.

This movement of sustained reaction is multifold in its character, social, moral, and ecclesiastical. It is not new; but neither is it clear why everyone still insists upon calling it fundamentalism. It is not a fundamental of the faith to wear a suit and tie to church or to eschew attending a rock concert or a card game. Indeed it is quite un-fundamental, the taking of a general principle and making it into an absolute rule. Moderation gives way to abstinence; modesty to a prescribed rule in matters of dress; avoidance of false teachers to a separation from everyone of different opinion; avoidance of certain forms of entertainment (gambling, immoral films) to the avoidance even of more innocuous forms of them. This impulse is a movement too far in the other direction, the throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

But this spirit of reaction, which in former times appeared with the Anabaptists and Pietists and occurs now especially among independent churches, is not the spirit that animates any major party in the contemporary Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). Our so-called confessionalists or ‘traditional Reformed’ are more guilty of forgetting that Romans 14 exists than of being tee-totalers. I remember a picture from an informal meeting of prominent members of the Gospel Reformation Network (GRN) and the National Partnership back in 2018, which showed the parties gathered about with glasses of a shape (and internal contents) that suggested they had been chatting over something stronger than tea or coffee.[1]

Indeed, the thought of a presbyterian social gathering without alcohol is nigh well unthinkable among many of our people. All factions seem to regard that old jibe about PCA standing for ‘pipes, cigars, and alcohol’ as a standard to live up to—especially the young men. And if tee-totalers were excessive in their reaction against the very real and dreadful dangers of drunkenness, our own people seem to be too libertine, and to forget the consciences and temptations of their weaker brethren, more than a few of whom are recovering addicts.

Indeed, not only are we not fundamentalists on this point, but the actual consequences of our behavior are often worse than theirs. For they abstain from what often is dangerous and doing which is unnecessary, a position with some divine approbation (Num. 6:1-4; Jer. 35, esp. vv. 6-8 & 18-19). No one is made a drunkard by their behavior (at least directly), whereas ours runs a real risk of causing people to stumble.[2] So also with many of the other particulars of fundamentalist ethical practices. Wearing only dresses may not make a woman more holy, but it doesn’t make her less so either, nor cause her to be a stumbling block to others. (The strained and ridiculous attempts at scriptural grounds for mandating such things – and yet more, the legalism and the hypocrisy one sometimes finds in fundamentalist groups – are a different matter, however.)

But returning to the point, it is simply not true to accuse any of our major factions or their leaders of being ‘fundamentalist’ in this sense. There are some people among us who have some such traits, but in my experience they are not in the ‘strict subscription’ or ‘confessionalist’ school, and they have only certain of the traits and not others. I know PCA members who are not keen on alcohol, but they are not hardline teetotalers of the old-fashioned stripe, and they have no qualms about rock ‘n roll, dancing, or going to movie theaters. Or again, some have objections to certain forms of dancing or rock music, but not an absolute refusal to participate in them as such.

Moving from the realm of personal behavior to that of ecclesiastical matters, the fundamentalists tend to be skeptical of creeds and confessions, which trait obviously does not characterize the GRN and other proponents of emphasizing our confessions. Of course our so-called fundamentalists are not King James Version only types either, and if a mark of fundamentalism is a suspicion of the institutional church, then their way of engaging that impulse has been rather backward: they have encouraged more participation in the church’s courts and commissions, and have groups devoted to helping people understand their mechanics (PCA Polity), as well as providing material support to those that wish to become more involved (More in the PCA).

Thus also do they fall short of that independence that so often characterizes the leaders of fundamentalist churches, for the GRN has organized companies of pastors for mutual encouragement, while the Twin Lakes Fellowship exists for the purpose of church planting. And where fundamentalism tends to be anti-intellectual in general and anti-academic in particular, the PCA’s ‘fundamentalists’ have a good representation with Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and outlets such as The Confessional Presbyterian journal. In short, they are organized and institutional, well-represented in the church and her courts and commissions, and intellectual in general and seminarian in particular.

And if a fundamentalist is one who engages in second degree separation, then our own batch seem to fall short as well. Laying aside that such separation would sometimes be appropriate, and that anyone who doubts that will have to censure Martin Lloyd Jones for calling on Anglican evangelicals to leave the Church of England, our own so-named fundamentalists have not had the zeal for that which one would expect. Mark Jones writes occasionally for Reformation 21, the online site of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and yet he writes things like “there are some stellar Roman Catholic theologians today” and “what Reformed theologian can hold a handle to Thomas Joseph White [a Dominican] on the doctrine of God?” Hardly either separation or ‘tribalism,’ that, and neither did such things (or any other form of belligerence) show through in the GRN’s efforts at being at peace with the purportedly-now-defunct National Partnership mentioned earlier. Indeed, I suspect that our ‘fundamentalists’ are more likely to be swept up in the neo-scholastic movement that is represented by Credo magazine and the Center for Classical Theology, than to imbibe some hearty old-fashioned ‘no peace with Rome’ rhetoric worthy of someone like Ian Paisley or Bob Jones. (And as proof, I see that Kevin DeYoung spoke at their recent conference on the Trinity.)

No, the real purpose in calling someone a ‘fundamentalist’ in our internal affairs is entirely polemic, and negatively so at that: it is a rhetorical flourish that intends to hang all the bad associations of that term about someone who cannot be justly accused of them. Just as ‘racist’ often means simply ‘someone who disagrees with the political left’ in our civil politics, so does ‘fundamentalist’ serve as a simple and inaccurate put down for someone who does not ascribe to a certain set of beliefs about the church’s internal affairs and its ways of interacting with the wider world. I dare not attempt to label that contrary set of beliefs now, though it is the camp of those who talk endlessly about engaging the culture and of our ‘beautiful orthodoxy,’ and of the glories of the PCA’s ‘big tent’ of diverse practices in worship, local church government, etc., especially good faith subscription.

My interest is rather to point out that a) it is inaccurate to call anyone in our midst a fundamentalist insofar as that term is commonly understood today; b) doing so serves rather to confuse than to clarify the nature of our internal ecclesiastical disagreements, not only regarding the parties involved but also regarding the matters considered; and c) using language such as this is not fair to either the people so labelled or the actual fundamentalists, such as independent Baptists (who would be none too keen on being associated with many of our so-called fundamentalists). On moral grounds it may be asked whether it is acceptable to use such language. Last I checked portraying someone in a false light is a form of bearing false testimony about someone, which is egregious sin. But even if we are not of a mind to regard it as so much low level reviling or slander, it is to be deprecated insofar as it skews the debate, and on that account ought to be willingly foregone in our internal discourse.

But it would be sheer obtuseness to fail to mention that this is but one particular example of the larger problem of inaccurate and unfair labels in our midst, and that its counterpart question is that alluded to above: namely, what is a fair term for the opposite party among us? In particular, are liberal or progressive fair terms for groups such as the Alliance for Mission and Renewal or the signers of the open letter back in 2021?[3] Time and space being what they are, that is a question that must be considered another time, though for now it suffices to say that the principles of accuracy and fairness ought to govern all our terms. And on that account, fundamentalist needs to cease, at least as it is how often been used recently among us.

Tom Hervey is a member of Friendship Presbyterian Church in Laurens County, SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation, and helped modernize Volume I of James Hervey’s classic dialogue on evangelical faith, Theron and Aspasio, available now at Monergism.

[1] Discussed here: https://gospelreformation.net/cultivating-the-bonds-of-peace-in-the-pca/

[2] Though if we move from practice to the theory behind the practice, many have been repelled by the silliness (and in some cases, dishonesty) of the prohibitionists’ arguments, of which ‘Jesus made grape juice, not wine’ is amongst the most egregious.

[3] That letter appealed at afaithfulpca.net, but is no longer available.