Like the terms “legalist” and “perfectionist,” the “fundamentalist” label has of late become ubiquitous in the screeds of those Adventists who see themselves either as “progressives” or “moderates” in the church’s ongoing theological discussions. Despite what certain users of this label will allege, objective evidence shows that nearly none of those who apply this term to fellow Adventists do so in a positive or even a neutral manner. Far more being a passionless moniker used to identify a particular tendency in the Adventist community, this label is nearly always used as an epithet.
Attach this marker to a name voiced on a church nominating committee or an institutional search committee, and it soon becomes evident that the one applying this label isn’t looking to do the candidate in question any favors. Like the Communist label during the Red Scare of the 1920s and the Joe McCarthy era thirty years later—not to mention the “Marxist,” “socialist,” “woke,” and “fascist” labels in our own time—the legalist, perfectionist, and fundamentalist labels in contemporary Adventism are designed in nearly all cases to arouse prejudice, close minds, and shut down conversation.
Major Problems With the Fundamentalist Label
For three reasons, among perhaps others, I would like to urge fellow participants in contemporary Adventist theological discourse to avoid the use of the fundamentalist label:
1. Rejection of verbal inspiration. It is fair to say even the most theologically conservative among today’s Adventists would find themselves unwelcome among those Christians who commonly identify as fundamentalists. The principal reason for this, among many others, is Ellen White’s rejection of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, a central tenet of Protestant fundamentalism [1]. In Ellen White’s words:
The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts [2].
2. Adventism’s principal opponents. While many Adventists a century ago were attracted to Protestant fundamentalism because of the latter’s rejection of higher criticism, Darwinian evolution, and the general erosion of Biblical authority in modernist Christian circles [3], it has been rightly noted that this Adventist fondness for fundamentalism was largely one-sided, due to the many doctrines on which Adventists differed with those adhering to this label [4]. Indeed, the vast majority of evangelistically active Adventists during the past century could attest that their principal theological opponents in the Christian world have been those who have self-identified as fundamentalists.
Growing up as I did in a theologically conservative Adventist home, where evangelism and Bible studies were a key component of family life, I can testify that my initial exposure to the fundamentalist label was decidedly negative. These were, after all, those Protestants most passionately devoted to Sunday-sacredness, natural immortality, the eternal torment of the wicked, once-saved-always-saved, the secret rapture, and other unscriptural teachings.
3. Implied extremism. Third, it is fair to say most thoughtful people regard the fundamentalist label as denoting ignorance, racial prejudice, snake-handling, “holy rolling,” and similar tokens of fringe extremism. The use of this moniker is thus likely to inflame even more the incendiary climate already evident in so much of contemporary Adventist discourse. From the present writer’s standpoint, I have found few if any theologically conservative Adventists who self-identify as fundamentalists. Applying this label to them is thus not likely to facilitate gracious dialogue or civility among church members.
When one listens to theological discussions in Adventism today, online and otherwise, the use of the fundamentalist label is clearly not designed to win the respect of those to whom it is applied. Whether this word qualifies as the newest theological vulgarism in the denomination, or with some perhaps not so new, it is most unwelcome among those to whom it is commonly applied.
Conclusion
So long as human dialogue invites the interplay of varying ideas, labels will likely be unavoidable. (The conspicuous fizzling of the so-called “No Labels” movement in American politics [5] offers pointed evidence in this regard.) The late U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy, in his 1964 book A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge, acknowledged the inadequacy of the liberal and conservative labels in the political realm, while at the same time admitting that for the sake of convenience, “there is not enough time to change the flags” [6].
In all settings where mutual understanding is sought, the wisest course relative to labels is not to eschew them altogether, but instead to give precise definitions so as to avoid confusion and misrepresentation, and to avoid as much as possible those labels viewed as offensive by one’s ideological opponents. In the spiritual realm this is especially imperative, as Christian grace underscores the need for correctly understanding one another and thus enabling those with perspectives at odds with the Biblical consensus to more easily find their way toward harmony with Biblical teachings.
Perhaps most importantly of all, labels should never be allowed to intimidate those seeking faithfulness to the written counsel of God (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). The desire of certain Adventists not to be labeled a “cult” by Christians of other faiths has led to dangerous doctrinal compromises whose impact on the church is still wreaking havoc. The early Christians were often derided by the Romans as a “sect” and as “dissidents” [7], but at least in the earliest period of the Christian era, this verbal tarring didn’t dissuade the followers of Christ from faithful adherence to their Christian witness.
The old saying that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me” may sound trite, but like the late U.S. presidential historian Theodore White once said about clichés, they may be timeworn but they are generally true [8]. The only thing that counts for the Christian striving for eternal life is faithfulness, not popularity. Regarding the patriarch Enoch, the Bible says that “before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God” (Heb. 11:5). Regardless of the labels some might attach to us, pleasing God—not a majority of those around us—is what ultimately matters.
REFERENCES
1. “The Fundamentals” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals; “Biblical inspiration,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration#Evangelical_viewpoint.
2. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 21.
3. See Michael W. Campbell, 1922: The Rise of Adventist Fundamentalism (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2022).
4. Ibid, p. 24; see also Campbell, 1919: The Untold Story of Adventism’s Struggle With Fundamentalism (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2019), pp. 28,30,107.
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels
6. Eugene J. McCarthy, A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge (New York: MacFadden Books, 1964), p. 11.
7. See Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 B.C. to A.D. 476 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985), p. 38; Miriam Griffin, Nero: The End of a Dynasty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), p. 133; Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (New York: Methuen, Inc, 1985), p. 163; H.H. Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (New York: Routledge, 2003, fifth edition), pp. 362-363,366.
8. Theodore H. White, The Making of the President—1968 (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1969), p. 486.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan