Fundamentalism vs. Calvinism?

Collin Hansen speaks of the recent message that created some furor among some. (if you don’t know, don’t worry about it and thank God for his mercy on you.) He says,

While intending to rally like-minded pastors against this threat, the message actually drew out the growing network of young adults who have abandoned fundamentalism for the Calvinist ranks.

But I have to wonder, when did one have to leave fundamentalism for Calvinism? The two have always been compatible. The fact that some fundamentalists were anti-Calvinists, or non-Calvinists, does not mean that one could not be both fundamentalist and Calvinist (or Calvinistic, if you prefer). Though there is a great complexity to this topic especially concerning the role of Calvinism and the gospel in culture and community, historically, there have been a great number of fundamentalists who were also Calvinists. I would think Hansen would know this. But perhaps not.

Hansen goes on to speak of Kevin Bauder’s response and says,

But Bauder’s defense also points toward the possibility that the growing Calvinist influence on evangelicals could help heal their decades-long dispute with fundamentalists.

Again, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding (no pun intended). The issue between evangelicals and fundamentalists was not about Calvinism. After all, Billy Graham seems hardly a Calvinist, and Hansen rightly (though it sounds somewhat cynically) notes Graham’s role in the fundamentalist/evangelical divide. Evangelicals becoming Calvinist won’t solve the problem that caused evangelicals to separate from fundamentalists.

No, the issue was about obedience in the defense of the gospel. It was about how we apply the biblical commands of separation. Fundamentalists, both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic, believe that Graham was clearly disobedient to clear commands of Scripture about alliances with unbelieving apostates. For that reason, fundamentalists separated from Graham. And remember that many fundamentalists were not quick to separate from Graham. The separation came after many years and many appeals to Graham to turn from his practices that lent credibility to apostasy.

There is no doubt that many fundamentalists are non-Calvinist. But not because they have to be.

There is no doubt that many fundamentalists have made inaccurate and unfair diatribes against men like Piper and Mahaney, and “several other leading Calvinists” (to quote Hansen). But not because they had to by virtue of their Calvinism. And let’s remember that not all critique is unfair or inaccurate.

If there is “healing” because fundamentalists and evangelicals, it is because many evangelicals seem to be recognizing their sins of the past fifty years, and because many fundamentalists are recognizing their sins of the past fifty years.

It is not because of Calvinism, per se.

Of course, there is no doubt that some fundamentalists are weakening on some issues as well. I think there is a fine line here, and I do not profess to know where it is exactly. But I fear that while there is some healthy interaction, there is also some dangerous capitulation.

So let us be cautious in both respects. Let us not unfairly or unwisely separate or attack evangelicals. Let us neither fail to take seriously the biblical commands about the defense of the gospel against those who would, either by word or action, compromise it.

There’s room to be a fundamentalist and a Calvinist.