Almost everyone who’s ever discussed religion and politics with me knows that one of my pet peeves is the common misperception that evangelicals are some sort of political monolith.  It is a false and unfortunate stereotype.  In fact there is a great deal of political diversity among evangelicals, and in truth evangelicalism is apolitical, notwithstanding the best efforts of some famous televangelists to convince their flocks to the contrary. 

In a non-political context I recently came across what may be a semantic solution to part of the problem.  

Peter Enns is an Old Testament scholar and was until recently on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary.  Dr. Enns is no longer affiliated with Westminster because of an amazing book called Inspriration and Incarnation, which he published in 2005.  It is a beautifully written book that takes on some of the disquieting issues of Old Testament evangelical scholarship, such as the similarities between the OT and other ancient Near Eastern literature, theological diversity within the OT, apparent misuse of the OT by New Testament writers, and the like.  I intend to separately blog about the book someday, so I won’t go into much detail here.  If any of what I’ve written piques your interest–do yourself a favor and get the book.

Because Dr. Enns posed these questions, and suggested answers and ways of thinking that aren’t lock-step with traditional conservative evangelical thinking, he was forced out at Westminster.  To be fair, it wasn’t so much the Seminary that forced him out, as it was the Presbyterian churches who feed students to the Seminary, and who hire its graduates.  If I have mischaracterized the events of Dr. Enns’ departure in any way, I apologize.  But that is what I understand the circumstances to have been.

By the way, lest any of y’all assume that all seminaries are afraid of books like Inspiration and Incarnation, it is actually a required text in my Old Testament class at Asbury.

But back to the subject at hand.  In some interviews following the controversy, Dr. Enns referred to his opponents as “evangelicals.”  When some evangelicals objected to that, Dr. Enns acknowledged that it was unfair to to lump all evangelicals in with his critics.  It was then that he made an interesting suggestion:  “Perhaps it would be better to describe the more progressive articulations of evangelicalism as “evangelical” (which I would prefer) and invent a new term for the mixture of evangelicalism and fundamentalism with which I am contending, e.g., “fundagelicals.””

Dr. Enns was joking.  But I’m not. 

Rather than paint all evangelicals with the fundamentalist brush, I suggest those who combine fundamentalism and evangelicalism be called “fundagelicals.”  The rest of us can continue as evangelicals.  Problem solved.

And by the way, I love and respect my brothers and sisters who find comfort in fundamentalism.  It’s a big tent, with room for all.

Love Wins


5 comments on “Fundagelicals

  1. Rachel says:

    I appreciate this, Dr. Enns is a wonderful scholar whose work we are familiar with. How sad to hear what happened to him at Westminster. I like the distinction of “Fundagelicals”! I happen to be one of those folks who sees much of american evangelicalism as extremely politicized, perhaps due to the recent heated political climate (especially Prop 8 in my home-state of CA), but I like this distinguishing expression better. Thanks for sharing the view from your window and reminding me that “evangelicalism” is a much broader spectrum than those who try to shout the loudest!


  2. Rachel says:

    P.S. If you like Dr. Enns, you might also like one of our favorites, N.T. Wright(an Anglican bishop and top-notch biblical scholar). His recent work, “Surprised by Hope” is thoroughly refreshing.


  3. Joeywahoo says:

    Wright is on my list, but I’ve not yet read any of his work. I continue to be amazed at how well-read y’all are. I sure wish y’all lived closer to us. We’d love to meet you and your family.


  4. Joeywahoo says:

    By the way Rachel, here is a good piece from the New Yorker last year that you will appreciate if you haven’t seen it already.


  5. Rachel says:

    Thanks for the link, looks like an interesting article. I’m sure I’ll enjoy reading it!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s