Having spent the better part of thirty years trying to decide whether to cling to the title “evangelical” on the basis of its historical meaning or to drop the title like a bad habit due to the many bad habits of evangelicals, I’ve come to recognize that labels are sticky things. I remember, when attending the Cambridge meeting of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, asking a friend, “Why can’t we just tell the world, ‘There’s nobody here but us fundamentalists.’” Behind me as I type is a painting of J. Gresham Machen, a giant of the faith who worked side by side with fundamentalists against theological liberalism in the early parts of the 20th century. I literally look up to the man. He is a high hero to me. He didn’t mind being grouped with fundamentalists, especially by those who denied the fundamentals. There are qualities of fundamentalists that I desperately wish described evangelicals. They have always been courageous, disinterested in the approval of men, all in on the authority of God’s Word. So why not just embrace the term?
Ironically, because I don’t want to be tarred with their weaknesses. While fundamentalism’s fundamental identity is wrapped up in their laudable commitment to the fundamentals, the next most easily identifiable marker is their propensity to practice what is called “second degree separation.” If evangelicals are too quick to call unbelievers believers, fundamentalists are too quick to call believers unbelievers.
Second degree separation works this way. It isn’t enough for the fundamentalist that a person rejects wrong ideas and the people who hold them. One must also reject persons who reject wrong ideas but not the people who hold them. If, for instance, John Stott embraces annihilationism I, along with the fundamentalists would object, disagree, tell the learned Dr. Stott, “What gives?” If, however, I continue to treat Dr. Stott as a brother not only does that make me a bad guy to fundamentalists, despite my agreement with them and disagreement with Dr. Stott on the issue, but ultimately also means that anyone not treating me like a bad guy is also a bad guy.
Here’s a real-life example. Just recently my dear wife posted something on social media encouraging me that we together are blessed to make known His name, to fight the good fight against the devil and his minions. A comment came quickly from an evangelical who, wisely, apparently has a great passion against the New Apostolic Reformation and the Word of Faith movements. Which led her to say that my wife’s words were the same words those aberrant groups would use. Which is true enough. I pointed out, however, that those nefarious purveyors of goofy ideas have also been known to say this- “Praise the Lord.” Which doesn’t make me, or my wife, or anyone, guilty of NAR or WOF errors when we too say “Praise the Lord.”
A fundamentalist is someone who is so busy looking for bad guys and bad ideas that they miss out on good ideas from good guys because of guilt by association. That’s a quality I can do without, though I face the same temptation. Affirming the fundamentals is something we all need to do better. Practicing second degree separation is something we all need to put behind us.