The term "fundamentalism" came into existence at the Niagara Falls Bible Conference which was convened in an effort to define those things that were fundamental to belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals," a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward. These two wealthy brothers were concerned with the moral and spiritual decline they believed was infecting Protestantism, and sought to restore the historic faith with a 12 volume call to arms that dealt with five subjects that latter became known as the five fundamentals of the faith: (1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs (the originals of each scriptural book); (2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ; (3) the substitutionary view of the atonement; (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; (5) The imminent return of Christ. These twelve volumes were sent to "every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological student, Sunday School Superintendent, YMCA and YWCA secretary." In all, some 3 million copies were mailed out.

These ideas had been circulating for some time. The first, verbal inerrancy, had been finely honed by A.A. Hodge, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, and B.B. Warfield, a professor at Western Theological Seminary. They had argued that the scriptures were inerrant, but limited that inerrancy to the original, and--might we add--now lost manuscripts of the Bible. These autographs, it was held, were "absolutely errorless" as they originally came from God, but Hodge and Warfield allowed that some "apparent inconsistencies and collisions with other sources of information are to be expected in imperfect copies of ancient writings...".

Obviously, the idea of revelation is basic to Christianity, and particularly for Protestants for whom Scripture is the sole source of authority. But this insistence on inerrancy did not take the measure of the problem. In arguing the point as did Hodge and Warfield, one could claim inerrancy without any fear of empirical refutation since these original autographs do not exist. More importantly, such a claim is of no practical value for the Christian because if the manuscripts of Scripture we do have are corrupt, then it matters little whether the originals were pure. We must make do with an text that may not be fully trustworthy. This illustrates a problem that appeared time and again in fundamentalism: the tendency to draw a line on an important point of Christian doctrine, but to draw that line in the wrong place.

Misconceptions

Unfortunately, any discussion of fundamentalism must deal with any number of misconceptions. It is often assumed that the Fundamentalist movement was Protestant, filled with unsophisticated rural country bumpkins, and appealed to the uneducated. But the reality, at least in the early years, was different. Belief in the fundamentals was not exclusively Protestant. A number of these beliefs were also held by Roman Catholics. In addition, the movement was primarily urban in its early form. The principle centers of strength for fundamentalism were Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Fort Worth, Denver, and Los Angeles. This movement was also closely associated with such prominent schools as Princeton Theological Seminary.

In essence, three views of how the church might address itself to a changed world had developed in the post-Civil War America. The first was that of the Modernists "who sought to adjust the inherited faith to the new intellectual climate" (Hudson). The Second was that of the fundamentalists who rejected science, and embraced the world view of the Scriptures, insisting the old ways must be preserved unimpaired. The third view was that of Henry Ward Beecher and other Christocentric liberals who argued on behalf of the existence of two revelations from God--one in Scripture and one in the natural world--and argued these revelations are compatible with one another on some deeper level. Beecher pointed out that the church had produced the Bible, rather than the Bible producing the Church, and since it was a product of human beings, it's understanding of reality might be contingent.

Fundamentalists also differed with their peers on the issue of social reform. Where many modernists and Christocentric liberals were drawn to the social gospel, fundamentalism--heavily influenced by dispensationalism had their own scheme of social reform. Reform of the sort advocated by proponents of the Social Gospel was a waste of time. The world would soon end, and as a result, all the energies of the church should be focused on converting individuals, and getting them saved.

Weakness of Leadership

These ideas had wide appeal in the country at large. But where the fundamentalists encountered difficulties was with the persons who served as spokespersons for their movement. For one thing, no one in the Fundamentalist movement was quite as gifted as Beecher, although J. Gresham Machen came close. Machen was an affluent, well-mannered academic. He studied at Johns Hopkins, Princeton, and spent a year abroad at the Universities of Marburg and Gottingen. Much his career was spent teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary. His work was well-reasoned, and he attacked Liberalism at its weakest point. According to Machen:

"the root of the movement (liberalism) is one; the many varieties of modern liberal religion are rooted in naturalism--that is, in the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God (as distinguished from the ordinary course of nature) in connection with the origin of Christianity...our principle concern...is to show that the liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is in essentials only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene. In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend...The plain fact is that liberalism, whether it be true of false, is no mere 'heresy'--no mere divergence at isolated points from Christian teaching. On the contrary it proceeds from a totally different root, and it constitutes, in essentials a unitary system of its own...It differs from Christianity in its view of God, of man, of the seat of authority and the way of salvation...Christianity is being attacked from within by a movement which is anti-Christian to the core."

But other spokespersons for the Fundamentalist movement were perfect targets for caricature. One such individual was Frank Norris of Fort Worth, Texas. Norris was a showman. He would announce sermon titles like: "The Ten Biggest Devils in Fort Worth With Names Given," and draw large crowds. He also was of questionable morals. His church burned down under suspicious circumstances, and when a friend of the Catholic mayor of Fort Worth came to see him about a sermon in which the mayor had been salvaged, Norris shot the friend with one of the two pistols he kept in his desk drawers to kill "critters."

Billy Sunday was yet another spokesperson who helped discredit fundamentalism. A "professional baseball player turned evangelist," his antics in the pulpit did much to undermine the public's respect for the new movement. "He had no use for the 'bastard theory of evolution' or for the 'deodorized and disinfected sermons' of 'hireling ministers' who had given up the old faith to please their liberal parishioners." Sunday preached a "masculine "muscular" Christianity which equated salvation with decency and manliness. He proclaimed, "the man who has real, rich, red blood in his veins instead of pink tea and ice water," was both a real Christian and a real American. Sunday believed Christianity and patriotism were one and the same, just as "hell and traitors are synonymous." He and those who sympathized with him helped make popular the slogan "Back to Christ, the Bible, and the Constitution."

But perhaps the one person who did the most to do in fundamentalism was William Jennings Bryan, who fancied himself as one of fundamentalism's greatest defenders.

The Scopes Trial

In half the states, fundamentalists had succeeded in pushing bills through to outlaw the teaching of Darwinian biology or the view of creation put forward by Darwin. It was against the law to teach any other view than that put forward in the Bible.

To challenge these laws a test case was planned, and John Scopes became the defendant in what came to be known as the "Monkey Trial." Clarence Darrow, a famous lawyer, volunteered to defend him. The trial should have focused on the right of the public to insist on what and what not will be taught in the public schools. Instead, the debate came to be focused on whether the Bible was literally true, the position that William Jennings Bryan championed.

As a result of Bryan's decision to debate the Bible instead of the public's right to decide curriculum, popular interest was as great in that day as it has been in the recent trial in Los Angeles. It was the topic of conversation in such far-flung locales as Italy, Russia, India, and China. The atmosphere outside the courthouse was a carnival. Hot dog vendors, sold food and drink the multitudes who came to hear Bryan spare with Darrow, and copies of Darwin's book were available under the counter in brown-cover. Much as the hair styles of Marcia Clarke became the talk of the nation, when the Judge's daughter wore rolled stocking to court one day, it became a feature news story, and other women were encouraged to "roll'em girls, roll'em."

Darrow and H.L. Menken, the most famous journalist of his day, helped to spread the image of the fundamentalists as hicks. And Bryan was their willing accomplice. Bryan has been referred to by George Marsden as the "George Custer of fundamentalism." He allowed himself to be tricked into taking the stand to defend God and the Bible. Darrow had a field day, mercilessly laying bare the flaws in Bryan's understanding of Scripture. In fact, it is widely assumed that Darrow and Scopes won the trial, but such was not the case. Bryan and the Fundamentalists won technically. Scopes lost and was fined $100. But the truth was in winning, Bryan lost the sympathy of many, because he managed to make belief in the inerrancy of Scripture seem so foolish, most people were afraid that they would appear as foolish as Bryan if they claimed to believe in it. Indeed, many Christians became indifferent to the issues Bryan and the Fundamentalists raised. Most became convinced that it was more important to do something about social problems than to argue about whether it had rained for forty days and nights in the days of Noah. Fundamentalism would not soon recover from this "victory."

Some Consequences

But that was not the end of it. As Robert Handy notes, "the prestige of Protestantism was further lessened by the bitter controversy that erupted between fundamentalists and modernists." Fundamentalists were determined to oust liberals from places of influence within the major denominations, and conducted witch-hunts not unlike those Senator McCarthy would use a generation later on a national level. The struggle between fundamentalists and moderates was fought in the years after World War I, and this total war evidently inspired the ecclesiastical combatants because it became an all out struggle in which the issues in question were to be settled once and for all.

This campaign led to a bitter ten-year conflict that no one won. Fundamentalists enjoyed some success in their effort to purge those who did not profess faith in the five fundamentals, but they were unable to seize control of any of the major denominations. But the most significant aspect of this crusade was the resulting animosity and bitterness served to discredit religious institutions in general.

Another consequence of the Scopes Trial and its aftermath was a growing awareness of Protestantism's inability to shape and inform American opinion. The pyrrhic victory in Dayton, Tennessee was matched by similar victories on behalf of Prohibition and the passage of Blue Laws to protect the Sabbath. But these victories did little to stop the emergence of new attitudes towards alcohol and recreation despite strenuous campaigns to reverse these trends. As the public came to see the clergy--not as intellectuals and leaders--but as boobs like Bryan and the assorted hypocrites who peopled such novels as Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry, respect declined, and the best and brightest ceased to be willing to enter the ministry. Intellectuals and the more thoughtful began to leave the church in droves.

The loss of prestige was such that by 1925 H.L. Mencken could taunt his religious opponents, claiming: "Every day a new Catholic church goes up; every day another Methodist or Presbyterian church is turned into a garage." "Protestantism in this great Christian realm is down with a wasting disease." Even Protestants had to swallow their pride and acknowledge that he was right, and admit the "sad disintegration of American Protestantism."