Examination of the Historiography on Fundamentalism Pt. 3

In 1967, Ernest Sandeen, an assistant professor of History at Macalester College, began his published writings on the subject of Fundamentalism. His work attempted to apply a new theory to the subject that was divergent with the prevalent views of Stewart Cole and Norman F. Furniss. Furniss wrote an important book in the 1950’s. In his book, he had partially adopted some of Cole’s arguments and argued from a cultural perspective at the same time.[1]

Sandeen’s first work that traced the origins of Fundamentalism was an article in Church History.[2] In this article Sandeen argued that:

“Both Cole and Furniss were interested in Fundamentalism primarily as a negative force, interested in it because it impinged upon denominational machinery.” [3]

Sandeen believed that this particular approach effected or colored the view of both scholars and as a result, their accounts and those who followed them make Fundamentalism appear like a political controversy and never a religious movement.[4]

Sandeen argued that all the evaluations of the Fundamentalist movement, to that point, invariably treat it in purely political, sociological, or psychological terms. Disagreeing with this view, he attempted to study it through religious and theological means. Ultimately, the thesis of his article was that the movement was made up of an alliance between Dispensationalism and the Princeton Theology. These two groups, he argued, came together and formed the core of the movement based on theological like-mindedness until 1918.[5]

At the end of his argument, Sandeen offered a four-part critique of the traditional historiography on Fundamentalism. First, Fundamentalism saw itself as a champion of certain religious truths and, in-so-ignoring these religious motivations, other scholarship was incomplete. Secondly, Fundamentalism was marked by doctrinal innovation and claims by Fundamentalists to an unbroken theological heritage can not be accepted at face value. Thirdly, earlier historiography had needlessly given in to semantic confusion on a definition of Fundamentalism and that the movement could indeed be defined and clarified. Fourthly and finally, earlier scholarship that had portrayed Fundamentalism as agrarian, anti-intellectual, or even uneducated was incorrect.[6]

Sandeen’s work on Fundamentalism was a fresh take to the academic community. In one article written in response, LeRoy Moore wrote that Sandeen, “corrects many of the misunderstandings contained in the hitherto standard treatments of Cole and Furniss”.[7] While LeRoy disagreed with Sandeen’s definition of Fundamentalism, he did greatly appreciate the religious/theological evaluation that had hitherto, been absent in historical scholarship.

Within three years of writing his article, Ernest Sandeen published a book on The Roots of Fundamentalism that instantly became one of the pivotal works on the subject. Continuing the themes he began in his article, Sandeen stated that the purpose of the book was to argue that Fundamentalism existed, “as a religious movement before, during, and after the controversy of the twenties”.[8]

to be continued…

---

[1] Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918-19331 (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1963).

[2] Ernest R. Sandeen, "Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism," Church History 36, no. 1 (1967).

[3] Ibid. 66

[4] Ibid. 66

[5] Ibid. 67

[6] Ibid. 82-83

[7] LeRoy Moore, "Another Look at Fundamentalism: A Response to Ernest R. Sandeen," Church History 37, no. 2 (1968). 195

[8] Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1970). xiii