Carnell was the second president of Fuller Seminary, forced out after he wrote The Case for Orthodoxy. The following quote from that book gives a fair sense of how the word fundamentalism was being used in 1959. You can see why he seems to have been forced out of the presidency of Fuller by some of its key funding streams, not to mention some of the Machen fans on the faculty at that time. In some cases, I have had to guess at what was said, since this version of the text is corrupted at some points in its scanning.
Chapter 8: Perils
ORTHODOXY is plagued by perils as well as difficulties, and the
perils are even more disturbing than the difficulties. When
orthodoxy hits difficulties, it elicits criticism; but when it slights its perils, it elicits scorn. The perils arc of two sorts: general and
specific. The general perils include ideological thinking, a highly
censorious spirit, a curious tendency to separate from the life
of the church. The specific peril is that with which orthodoxy
converts to fundamentalism. It is orthodoxy gone cultic.
When we speak of fundamentalism, however, we must distinguish
between the movement and the mentality. The fundamentalist movement was organized shortly after the turn of the twentieth century.
When the tidal wave of German higher criticism engulfed the
church, a large company of orthodox scholars rose to the occasion.
They sought to prove that modernism and Biblical Christianity were
incompatible. In this way the fundamentalist movement preserved
the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Its "rugged bursts of individualism" were among the finest fruits of the Reformation.
But the fundamentalist movement made at least one capital mistake, and this is why it converted from a movement to a mentality.
Unlike the Continental Reformers and the English Dissenters, the
fundamentalists failed to connect their convictions with the classical
creeds of the church. Therefore, when modernism collapsed, the fundamentalist movement became an army without a cause. Nothing was left but the mentality of fundamentalism, and this mentality is orthodoxy's gravest peril.
The mentality of fundamentalism is dominated by ideological
thinking. Ideological thinking is rigid, intolerant and doctrinaire; it principles everywhere, and all principles come in clear tones
of black and white; it exempts itself from the limits that originally sat in history; it wages holy wars without acknowledging the elements of pride and personal interest that prompt the call to battle; it creates new evils while trying to correct old one.
The fundamentalists' crusade against the Revised Standard Version illustrates the point. The fury did not stem from a scholarly
conviction that the version offends Hebrew and Greek idioms, for ideological thinking operates on far simpler criteria. First, there
were modernists on the translation committee, and modernists corrupt whatever they touch. It does not occur to fundamentalism that
translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship.
Secondly, the Revised Standard Version's copyright is held by
the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the
Churches of Christ. If a fundamentalist used the new version, he
might give aid and comfort to the National Council; and that, on
his principles, would be sin. By the same token, of course, a fundamentalist could not even buy groceries from a modernist. But ideological thinking is never celebrated for its consistency.
2. Gresham Machen
The mentality of fundamentalism sometimes crops up where one
would least expect it; and there is no better illustration of this than
the inimitable New Testament scholar, J. Gresham Machen. Machen
was an outspoken critic of the fundamentalist movement. He argued
with great force that Christianity is a system, not a list of fundamentals. The fundamentals include the virgin birth, Christ's deity
and miracles, the atonement, the resurrection, and the inspiration
of the Bible. But this list does not even take in the specific issues of
the Protestant Reformation. Roman Catholicism easily falls within
the limits of fundamentalism.
While he was a foe of the movement, he was
a friend of the mentality, for he ran
on a related path and a wrong one at that, his prominence with the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. If the church has
modernists in it and its official missionaries, a Christian has no other choice than to withdraw support.
So Machen promptly set up "The Presbyterian Foreign Missions," and with equal promptness the General Assembly ordered the Board dissolved. Machen made the
order on the conviction that he could from the General Assembly bring amendments to the Constitution of the church.
But this conviction traced
to ideological thinking, for if a federal system is to succeed, supreme
judicial power most be vested in one court. This is federalism's answer to the threat of anarchy. Wrong by a court are not
irremediable; but until due process of law effects a reversal, a citizen
must obey or be prosecuted.
Machen became so fixed on the evil of modernism that he did not
see the evil of anarchy.
This prompted him to follow a course
that eventually offended the older and wiser Presbyterians. These
men knew that nothing constructive would be gained by defying the
courts of the church. Perhaps the General Assembly had made a mistake; but until the action was reversed by due process of law, obedience was required. No individual Presbyterian can appeal from the
General Assembly to the Constitution, and to think that he can
Ideological thinking prevented Machen from seeing that the issue
under trial was the nature of the church, not the doctrinal incompatibility of orthodoxy and modernism. Does the church become
apostate when it has modernists in Its agencies and among its officially supported missionaries? The older Presbyterians knew enough
about Reformed ecclesiology to answer this in the negative. Unfaithful ministers do not render the church apostate.
those descriptions in which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and
others, deplore the disorders of the church of Jerusalem. There was
such general and extreme corruption in the people. In the magistrates and the priests that Isaiah does not hesitate to compare
Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah. Religion was partly despised,
partly corrupted. Their manners were generally disgraced by thefts,
robberies, treacheries, murders, and similar crimes. Nevertheless, the
prophets on this account neither raised themselves new churches,
nor built new altars for the oblation of separate sacrifices; but
whatever were the characters of the people, yet because they considered that God had deposited his word among that nation, and
instituted the ceremonies in which he was there worshiped, they
lifted up pure hands to him even in the congregation of the impious.
If they had thought that they contracted any contagion from these
services, surely they would have suffered a hundred deaths rather
than have permitted themselves to be dragged to them. There was
nothing therefore to prevent their departure from them, but the desire of preserving the unity of the church. But if the holy prophets
were restrained by a sense of duty from forsaking the church on account of the numerous and enormous crimes which were practiced,
not by a few individuals, but almost by the whole nation it is extreme arrogance in us, if we presume immediately to withdraw from
the communion of a church where the conduct of all members is not
compatible either with our judgment, or even with the Christian
Machen thought it would be easy to purify the church. All one
had to do was to withdraw from modernists; the expedient was as
simple as that. "On Thursday, June 11, 1936," said Machen to his
loyal remnant, "the hopes of many long years were realized. We
became members, at last, of a true Presbyterian church." It was not
long, however, before Machen's true church was locked in the convulsions of internal strife. The prophecy of the older Presbyterians
Since Machen had shaken off the sins of modernists,
but not the sins of those who were proud they were not modernists,
the separatists fondly imagined themselves more perfectly delivered
from heresy than the facts justified. This illusion spawned fresh
resources of pride and pretense. The criteria of Christian fellowship
gradually became more exacting than Scripture, and before long
Machen himself was placed under suspicion. He had not taken his reformation far, the church not yet free. This was not Christian liberty. And quarrel boded, no true
Still, no classical effort to the continuity of the
church. This is how the mentality of fundamentalism operates.
Status by negation, not precise inquiry, is the
order of business. When there are no bodies from which to
withdraw, fundamentalists continue by withdrawing from one another.
Machen tried to bleed the classical view of the covenant with a
separatist view of the covenant people. He affirmed Reformed doctrine, but not the Reformed doctrine of the church.
This inconsistency had at least two effects: first, it encouraged Machen's disciples to think the conditions of Christian fellowship could be
decided by subjective criteria; secondly, it planted the seeds of anarchy. If Reformed doctrine could not define the nature of the
church, how could it define the nature of anything else? The result
was a subtle reversion to the age of the Judges: each man did what
was right in his own eyes. Rebellion the courts of the church
converted to rebellion against the wisdom of the and the counsel of the brethren...
I might post more later...