Evangelicals Within Contemporary American Politics: Differentiating Between Fundamentalist and Non-Fundamentalist Evangelicals
| Author | Corwin Smidt |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591298804100312 |
| Published date | 01 September 1988 |
| Date | 01 September 1988 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
EVANGELICALS
WITHIN
CONTEMPORARY
AMERICAN
POLITICS:
DIFFERENTIATING
BETWEEN
FUNDAMENTALIST
AND
NON-FUNDAMENTALIST
EVANGELICALS
CORWIN
SMIDT
Calvin
College
VER
the
past
decade,
political
analysts
have
given
renewed
atten-
tion
to
the
role
of
religion
in
American
politics.
One
facet
of
this
renewed
attention
has
been
an
increased
focus
upon
the
political
nature
and
electoral
importance
of
American
evangelical
Christians.
In
fact,
over
the
past
several
years,
a
great
number
of
studies
have
emerged
on
the
role
of
evangelicals
in
American
politics
(e.g.,
Lipset
and
Raab
1981;
Fairbanks
1981;
Guth
1981;
Patel
at
al.
1982;
Lienesch
1982,
Johnson
and
Tawney
1982;
Smidt
1983a,
1986,
1987;
Kellstedt
1984, 1986;
Woodard
1986).
However,
while
the
evangelical
movement
has
&dquo;captured&dquo;
both
public
and
scholarly
attention,
analysts
have
frequently
been
insensitive
to
im-
portant
differences
within
that
movement.
While
knowledgeable
ob-
servers
have
recognized
the
tremendous
diversity
within
evangelicalism
(e.g.,
Quebedeaux
1974;
Webber
1978;
Fowler
1982),
evangelicals
have
usually
been
treated
as
an
undifferentiated
mass.
Such
a
lack
of
differen-
tiation
may
well
lead
to
imprecise,
misleading,
or
erroneous
assessments
of
both
the
political
characteristics
and
importance
of
the
evangelical
movement
and
the
way
in
which
evangelicals
may
be
tied
to
political
changes
occurring
within
American
politics
today.
One
of
the
most
important
distinctions
within
the
ranks
of
evangeli-
cals
today
is
that
between
fundamentalist
and
non-fundamentalist
evan-
gelicals.
Because
certain
differences
between
the
two
groups
are
more
a
matter
of
degree
and
emphasis
than
absolute
in
nature,
the
exact
lines
separating
fundamentalist
and
non-fundamentalist
evangelicals
are
not
always
totally
precise.’
Nevertheless,
broadly
speaking,
fundamentalism
tends
to
represent
a
distinct,
more
extreme,
form
of
evangelicalism.
Con-
sequently,
while
all
fundamentalists
are
evangelicals,
not
all
evangelicals
are
necessarily
fundamentalist
(Reichley
1985:
312).
EVANGELICALS
AND
FUNDAMENTALISTS
At
its
core,
evangelicalism
represents
that
school
of
Protestant
Chris-
tianity
which
emphasizes
personal
salvation
through
Jesus
Christ
and
Received:
March
18,
1987
First
Revision
Received:
September
1,
1987
Accepted
for
Publication:
September
10,
1987
1
See
Smidt
(1983b)
for
a
discussion
of
some
of
the
analytical
issues
associated
with
defin-
ing
the
relationship
between
fundamentalism
and
evangelicalism.
602
which
regards
the
Bible
to
be
the
final
authority
concerning
all
matters
of
faith
and
practice
(Quebedeaux
1974:
3).
Fundamentalist
and
non-
fundamentalist
evangelicals
not
only
share
many
core
theological
beliefs,
2
but
both
groups
are
highly
active
religiously.
Thus,
the
two
groups
can-
not
be
differentiated
easily
on
such
bases.
Rather,
fundamentalist
and
non-
fundamentalist
evangelicals
tend
to
differ
primarily
in
terms
of
their
atti-
tudes
toward
cooperation
with
other
Christians
and
in
terms
of
their
at-
titudes
toward
the
Christian’s
relationship
to
contemporary
culture.
These
differences,
in
turn,
are
rooted
largely
in
different
historical
experiences,
different
social
locations,
and
different
theological
emphases.
During
the
nineteenth
century,
evangelicalism
constituted
the
domi-
nant
religious
expression
within
America
(Coleman
1980:
20).
Its
ethical
and
interpretative
system
permeated
American
culture
to
such
an
extent
that
it
can
be
argued
that
&dquo;the
story
of
American
evangelicalism
is
the
story
of
America
itself
in
the
year
1800
to
1900&dquo;
(McLoughlin
1968:
1).
But,
by
the
turn
of
the
century,
serious
strains
were
evident
within
the
evangelical
movement
due
to
the
emergence
of
new
social
and
economic
problems
within
American
society
-
problems
largely
associated
with
the
growing
industrialization,
urbanization,
and
immigration
of
Catho-
lic
and
Jewish
ethnic
groups.
In
response
to
these
problems,
a
strong
liberal
element
emerged
within
evangelicalism
which
stressed
the
incorporation
of
contemporary
assump-
tions
and
paradigms
within
the
Christian
tradition3
and
which
rejected
revivalism
as
a
basis
of
social
reform.
Rather,
these
liberals
advocated
a
&dquo;social
gospel&dquo;
-
the
modification
of
those
structures
of
society
per-
ceived
to
be
precipitating
the
social
maladies
of
the
day.
Nevertheless,
while
Protestantism
was
moving
toward
polarization,4
4
a
spectrum
of
theological
positions
continued
until
the
1920s
(Handy
1955).
Only
then
did
theological
conservatives
launch
a
strong
attack
on
modernist
forces,
and
as
a
result,
Protestantism
became,
for
a
period
of
time,
divided
into
two
camps
(i.e.,
the
modernist
and
fundamentalist
2
For
example,
fundamentalist
and
non-fundamentalist
evangelcials
share
a
belief
in
the
di-
vinity
of
Jesus
Christ,
an
acceptance
of
the
authority
of
the
Bible,
and
the
recognition
of
the
necessity
of
"conversion"
for
salvation.
3
This
element
tended
to
emphasize
(1)
God’s
immanent,
rather
than
transcendent,
nature;
(2)
a
more
naturalistic,
rather
than
a
more
divine,
stance
toward
scripture;
(3)
a
con-
tinuing,
rather
than
a
fixed,
nature
of
God’s
revelation;
and
(4)
the
general
revelation
of
God
in
nature
and
history
rather
than
a
particular
revelation
of
God
in
Jesus
Christ.
4
In
addition,
during
the
latter
part
of
the
nineteenth
century,
a
gradual
transition
occurred
as
well
within
the
more
conservative
elements
of evangelicalism.
Essentially,
this
tran-
sition
involved
a
movement
"from
a
basically
’Calvinist’
tradition,
which
saw
politics
as
a
significant
means
to
advance
the
Kingdom,
to
a
’pietistic’
view
of
political
action
as
no
more
than
a
means
to
restrain
evil"
(Marsden
1980:
85).
Doctrinally,
this
transi-
tion
embodied
a
movement
from
a
postmillennial
to
a
premillennial
interpretation
of
the
relationship
between
the
present
order
and
the
coming
Kingdom.
Pre-
and
post-
millennialists
disagree
whether
Christ
will
return
before
or
after
the
millennium —
with
premillennialists
arguing
that
Christ
will
return
before
the
millennium.
For
a
discus-
sion
of
the
political
ramifications
of
these
different
millennial
interpretations,
see
Clouse
(1983).
To continue reading
Request your trial