Changes

Riley became the leading organizer of the movement for Fundamentalism. He created, at a large conference in Philadelphia in 1919, the World's Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA). It became the chief interdenominational fundamentalist organization in the 1920s, and Riley was president until 1929, after which the WFCA faded in importance.  

Riley became the leading organizer of the movement for Fundamentalism. He created, at a large conference in Philadelphia in 1919, the World's Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA). It became the chief interdenominational fundamentalist organization in the 1920s, and Riley was president until 1929, after which the WFCA faded in importance.  

Although the fundamentalist drive of the 1920s to take control of the major Protestant denominations failed at the national level, the network of churches and missions developed and controlled by Riley indicates that fundamentalism was growing in strength, especially in [[The South]]. Both rural and urban in character, the flourishing movement acted as a denominational surrogate and aimed at a militant orthodoxy of evangelical Christianity.<ref> William Vance Trollinger, Jr. "Riley's Empire: Northwestern Bible School and Fundamentalism in the Upper Midwest". ''Church History'' 1988 57(2): 197-212. 0009-6407 </ref>

Although the fundamentalist drive of the 1920s to take control of the major Protestant denominations failed at the national level, the network of churches and missions developed and controlled by Riley indicates that fundamentalism was growing in strength, especially in [[The South]]. Both rural and urban in character, the flourishing movement acted as a denominational surrogate and aimed at a militant orthodoxy of evangelical Christianity.<ref>William Vance Trollinger, Jr. "Riley's Empire: Northwestern Bible School and Fundamentalism in the Upper Midwest". ''Church History'' 1988 57(2): 197-212. 0009-6407</ref>

==Fighting evolution==

==Fighting evolution==

Fundamentalists in the 1920s devoted themselves to fighting the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools and colleges, both public and private.   

Fundamentalists in the 1920s devoted themselves to fighting the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools and colleges, both public and private.   

Riley took the initiative in the [[Scopes Trial]] of 1925 to bring in famed orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] as an assistant to the local prosecutor.  The trial revealed a growing chasm in American Christianity and two ways of finding truth, one "biblical" and one "scientific." Liberals saw a division between educated, tolerant Christians and narrow-minded, tribal, obscurantist Christians.<ref> David Goetz, "The Monkey Trial". ''Christian History'' 1997 16(3): 10-18. 0891-9666; Burton W. Folsom, , Jr. "The Scopes Trial Reconsidered." ''Continuity'' 1988 (12): 103-127. 0277-1446, by a leading conservative scholar</ref>

Riley took the initiative in the [[Scopes Trial]] of 1925 to bring in famed orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] as an assistant to the local prosecutor.  The trial revealed a growing chasm in American Christianity and two ways of finding truth, one "biblical" and one "scientific." Liberals saw a division between educated, tolerant Christians and narrow-minded, tribal, obscurantist Christians.<ref>David Goetz, "The Monkey Trial". ''Christian History'' 1997 16(3): 10-18. 0891-9666; Burton W. Folsom, , Jr. "The Scopes Trial Reconsidered." ''Continuity'' 1988 (12): 103-127. 0277-1446, by a leading conservative scholar</ref>

Gatewood (1969) analyzes the transition from the antievolution crusade of the 1920s to the creation science movement of the 1960s. Despite some similarities between these two causes, the creation science movement represented a shift from religious to scientific objections to Darwin's theory. Creation science also differed in terms of popular leadership, rhetorical tone, and sectional focus. It lacked a prestigious leader like Bryan, utilized scientific rather than religious rhetoric, and was a product of California and Michigan instead of the South.<ref> Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., ed. ''Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, & Evolution'' (1969)</ref>  

Gatewood (1969) analyzes the transition from the antievolution crusade of the 1920s to the creation science movement of the 1960s. Despite some similarities between these two causes, the creation science movement represented a shift from religious to scientific objections to Darwin's theory. Creation science also differed in terms of popular leadership, rhetorical tone, and sectional focus. It lacked a prestigious leader like Bryan, utilized scientific rather than religious rhetoric, and was a product of California and Michigan instead of the South.<ref>Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., ed. ''Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, & Evolution'' (1969)</ref>  

Edwards (2000) contradicts the conventional view that in the wake of the Scopes trial a humiliated fundamentalism retreated into the political and cultural background, a viewpoint evidenced in the movie ''Inherit the Wind'' and the majority of contemporary historical accounts. Rather, the cause of fundamentalism's retreat was the death of its leader, Bryan. Most fundamentalists saw the trial as a victory and not a defeat, but Bryan's death soon after created a leadership void that no other fundamentalist leader could fill. Bryan, unlike the other leaders, brought name recognition, respectability, and the ability to forge a broad-based coalition of fundamentalist and mainline religious groups to argue for the antievolutionist position.<ref> Mark Edwards, "Rethinking the Failure of Fundamentalist Political Antievolutionism after 1925". ''Fides Et Historia'' 2000 32(2): 89-106. 0884-5379</ref>  

Edwards (2000) contradicts the conventional view that in the wake of the Scopes trial a humiliated fundamentalism retreated into the political and cultural background, a viewpoint evidenced in the movie ''Inherit the Wind'' and the majority of contemporary historical accounts. Rather, the cause of fundamentalism's retreat was the death of its leader, Bryan. Most fundamentalists saw the trial as a victory and not a defeat, but Bryan's death soon after created a leadership void that no other fundamentalist leader could fill. Bryan, unlike the other leaders, brought name recognition, respectability, and the ability to forge a broad-based coalition of fundamentalist and mainline religious groups to argue for the antievolutionist position.<ref>Mark Edwards, "Rethinking the Failure of Fundamentalist Political Antievolutionism after 1925". ''Fides Et Historia'' 2000 32(2): 89-106. 0884-5379</ref>  

The American Civil Liberties Union at first had no objection to a general Christian outlook in the public schools, as long as it was that of no particular sect. By the time of the Scopes Trial, however, the ACLU and other advocates of secular humanism insisted that public education must not assume any religious outlook, laying the groundwork, as Bryan feared, for the triumph of materialism.

The American Civil Liberties Union at first had no objection to a general Christian outlook in the public schools, as long as it was that of no particular sect. By the time of the Scopes Trial, however, the ACLU and other advocates of secular humanism insisted that public education must not assume any religious outlook, laying the groundwork, as Bryan feared, for the triumph of materialism.

==Post-war reestablishment==

==Post-war reestablishment==

While other denominations rebranded as "evangelical," the Independent Baptists continued to describe themselves as "fundamentalist." Their foremost leader, [[John R. Rice]], founded a fundamentalist paper ''The Sword of the Lord'' in 1934 and served as its editor till his death in 1980. Its masthead states, "An Independent Christian Publication, Standing for the Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, the Deity of Christ, His Blood Atonement, Salvation by Faith, New Testament Soul Winning and the Premillennial Return of Christ; Opposing Modernism, Worldliness and Formalism." Noted fundamentalists in that group included H.A. Ironside, Bob Jones, Sr., Bob Shuler, William Culbertson, Harry Hager, R.G. Lee, Hyman Appelman, V. Raymond Edman, Scotchie McCall, E.J. Daniels, W.A. Criswell, Joe Henry Hankins.  However, in one illustration of different manifestations of fundamentalism, after the death of John R. Rice some took issue with with the direction the new editor of  "The Sword" had taken in separating brethren over details about which Godly Bible believers may have differing convictions. Primary among these was defining a true fundamentalist as only a independent Baptist who stood with him. In a letter by Rice's daughter,<ref>http://www.biblicalevangelist.org/index.php?id=282&view=Guest+Editorial</ref> she noted that her father even considered some evangelical non-Baptists (including Pentecostals) to be fundamentalists, if they also held to and earnestly contended for the fundamentals of the faith. She pointed to his note on Romans 14:l in the ''Rice Reference Bible'' which stated, "We then are to receive and have fellowship with all saved people who may differ on minor matters but agree on the great fundamentals of the Christian faith."<ref> Also cited were two chapters in Rice's book, ''I AM A FUNDAMENTALIST'' (1975), that of  ''Be a Fundamentalist, But Not a Nut,'' and ''Fundamentalists Should Love All Christ's Other Sheep.''</ref>

While other denominations rebranded as "evangelical," the Independent Baptists continued to describe themselves as "fundamentalist." Their foremost leader, [[John R. Rice]], founded a fundamentalist paper ''The Sword of the Lord'' in 1934 and served as its editor till his death in 1980. Its masthead states, "An Independent Christian Publication, Standing for the Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, the Deity of Christ, His Blood Atonement, Salvation by Faith, New Testament Soul Winning and the Premillennial Return of Christ; Opposing Modernism, Worldliness and Formalism." Noted fundamentalists in that group included H.A. Ironside, Bob Jones, Sr., Bob Shuler, William Culbertson, Harry Hager, R.G. Lee, Hyman Appelman, V. Raymond Edman, Scotchie McCall, E.J. Daniels, W.A. Criswell, Joe Henry Hankins.  However, in one illustration of different manifestations of fundamentalism, after the death of John R. Rice some took issue with with the direction the new editor of  "The Sword" had taken in separating brethren over details about which Godly Bible believers may have differing convictions. Primary among these was defining a true fundamentalist as only a independent Baptist who stood with him. In a letter by Rice's daughter,<ref>http://www.biblicalevangelist.org/index.php?id=282&view=Guest+Editorial</ref> she noted that her father even considered some evangelical non-Baptists (including Pentecostals) to be fundamentalists, if they also held to and earnestly contended for the fundamentals of the faith. She pointed to his note on Romans 14:l in the ''Rice Reference Bible'' which stated, "We then are to receive and have fellowship with all saved people who may differ on minor matters but agree on the great fundamentals of the Christian faith."<ref>Also cited were two chapters in Rice's book, ''I AM A FUNDAMENTALIST'' (1975), that of  ''Be a Fundamentalist, But Not a Nut,'' and ''Fundamentalists Should Love All Christ's Other Sheep.''</ref>

Further descriptions of fundamentalism are offered by other writers, such as Joel Carpenter in his book, ''Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism'' who writes about "the complexity and contributions of fundamentalism as a faith system whose purposes and beliefs have all too frequently been reduced to caricature."<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Revive-Us-Again-Reawakening-Fundamentalism/dp/0195129075 From Library Journal review]</ref>  Reviewer William Martin,<ref>[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=153 "How the Fundamentalists Learned to Thrive"], by Rice University professor of sociology, William Martin in The Christian Century, September, 23-30, 1998, pp. 872-875</ref> notes how author Joel Carpenter acknowledges the value of "fundamentalism" as a generic label for militant religious and cultural conservatism. But he focuses on that particular, identifiable strain of evangelical Christianity that is persistently revivalistic, emphasizes dispensationalist premillennialism and biblical inerrancy, militantly opposes theological modernism and cultural secularity and feels a strong sense of "trusteeship" for American culture.

Further descriptions of fundamentalism are offered by other writers, such as Joel Carpenter in his book, ''Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism'' who writes about "the complexity and contributions of fundamentalism as a faith system whose purposes and beliefs have all too frequently been reduced to caricature."<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Revive-Us-Again-Reawakening-Fundamentalism/dp/0195129075 From Library Journal review]</ref>  Reviewer William Martin,<ref>[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=153 "How the Fundamentalists Learned to Thrive"], by Rice University professor of sociology, William Martin in The Christian Century, September, 23-30, 1998, pp. 872-875</ref> notes how author Joel Carpenter acknowledges the value of "fundamentalism" as a generic label for militant religious and cultural conservatism. But he focuses on that particular, identifiable strain of evangelical Christianity that is persistently revivalistic, emphasizes dispensationalist premillennialism and biblical inerrancy, militantly opposes theological modernism and cultural secularity and feels a strong sense of "trusteeship" for American culture.

==Other states==

==Other states==

Webb (1991) traces the political and legal struggles between strict creationists and Darwinists to influence the extent to which evolution would be taught as science in Arizona and California schools. After Scopes was convicted, creationists throughout the United States sought similar antievolution laws for their states. These included Reverends R. S. Beal and Aubrey L. Moore in Arizona and members of the Creation Research Society in California, all supported by distinguished laymen. They sought to ban evolution as a topic for study or, at least, relegate it to the status of unproven theory perhaps taught alongside the biblical version of creation. Educators, scientists, and other distinguished laymen favored evolution. This struggle occurred later in the Southwest than in other US areas and persisted through the Sputnik era, which inspired increased faith in evolutionism.<ref>George E. Webb, "The Evolution Controversy in Arizona and California: From the 1920s to the 1980s." ''Journal of the Southwest'' 1991 33(2): 133-150. 0894-8410. See also  Christopher K. Curtis, "Mississippi's Anti-Evolution Law of 1926." ''Journal Of Mississippi History'' 1986 48(1): 15-29. </ref>

Webb (1991) traces the political and legal struggles between strict creationists and Darwinists to influence the extent to which evolution would be taught as science in Arizona and California schools. After Scopes was convicted, creationists throughout the United States sought similar antievolution laws for their states. These included Reverends R. S. Beal and Aubrey L. Moore in Arizona and members of the Creation Research Society in California, all supported by distinguished laymen. They sought to ban evolution as a topic for study or, at least, relegate it to the status of unproven theory perhaps taught alongside the biblical version of creation. Educators, scientists, and other distinguished laymen favored evolution. This struggle occurred later in the Southwest than in other US areas and persisted through the Sputnik era, which inspired increased faith in evolutionism.<ref>George E. Webb, "The Evolution Controversy in Arizona and California: From the 1920s to the 1980s." ''Journal of the Southwest'' 1991 33(2): 133-150. 0894-8410. See also  Christopher K. Curtis, "Mississippi's Anti-Evolution Law of 1926." ''Journal Of Mississippi History'' 1986 48(1): 15-29.</ref>

==Fundamentalism in various religions==

==Fundamentalism in various religions==

===Jews===

===Jews===

There are no fundamentalist Jews, as all movements to return to the basic tenets of [[Judaism]] simply result in increased orthodoxy.  Judaism may be unique in this regard. Though according to scholars such as Samuel C. Heilman, Menachem Friedman, and Werner Backeberg, there are "truly fundamentalist Jews" who are "a minority of a minority of a minority (that is, approximately 30 percent of Orthodox Jewry, which itself is only about 15 percent of the approximately twelve million members of world Jewry)."<ref> Fundamentalism, Werner Backeberg (Faculty of Theology) Institute for Missiological and Ecumenical Research (IMER), University of Pretoria, p. 19 </ref><ref> [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Fundamentalism-Observed/Martin-E-Marty/e/9780226508788 ''Fundamentalism Observed''], p. 198 </ref>

There are no fundamentalist Jews, as all movements to return to the basic tenets of [[Judaism]] simply result in increased orthodoxy.  Judaism may be unique in this regard. Though according to scholars such as Samuel C. Heilman, Menachem Friedman, and Werner Backeberg, there are "truly fundamentalist Jews" who are "a minority of a minority of a minority (that is, approximately 30 percent of Orthodox Jewry, which itself is only about 15 percent of the approximately twelve million members of world Jewry)."<ref>Fundamentalism, Werner Backeberg (Faculty of Theology) Institute for Missiological and Ecumenical Research (IMER), University of Pretoria, p. 19</ref><ref>[http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Fundamentalism-Observed/Martin-E-Marty/e/9780226508788 ''Fundamentalism Observed''], p. 198</ref>

In recent times, the media has taken to describing any conservative non-denominational church or conservative evangelical church as fundamentalist.  Indeed these churches do strive to return to the basics of Christianity&mdash;its fundamentals.

In recent times, the media has taken to describing any conservative non-denominational church or conservative evangelical church as fundamentalist.  Indeed these churches do strive to return to the basics of Christianity&mdash;its fundamentals.

See [[Christian Zionism]]

See [[Christian Zionism]]

Historically speaking, the majority of American Fundamentalists have been and remain [[zionism|zionists]].  Fundamentalist-evangelicals rejoiced when part of Jerusalem was annexed after the 1967 six day war, whereas the [[National Council of Churches]] denounced Israel.  Liberal Christianity called for the "internationalization" of Jerusalem throughout the 1960s, while Fundamentalists expressed their hope for Biblical [[prophecy]]: God promised Jerusalem to Israel.<ref name=Rausch>''[http://books.google.com/books?id=-BPjHQAACAAJ Zionism Within Early American Fundamentalism 1878-1918: A Convergence of Two Traditions]'', David A. Rausch, Edwin Mellen Press, 1979, ISBN 9-88946-875-3, ISBN 0-88946-976-8, p.4 </ref>   

Historically speaking, the majority of American Fundamentalists have been and remain [[zionism|zionists]].  Fundamentalist-evangelicals rejoiced when part of Jerusalem was annexed after the 1967 six day war, whereas the [[National Council of Churches]] denounced Israel.  Liberal Christianity called for the "internationalization" of Jerusalem throughout the 1960s, while Fundamentalists expressed their hope for Biblical [[prophecy]]: God promised Jerusalem to Israel.<ref name=Rausch>''[http://books.google.com/books?id=-BPjHQAACAAJ Zionism Within Early American Fundamentalism 1878-1918: A Convergence of Two Traditions]'', David A. Rausch, Edwin Mellen Press, 1979, ISBN 9-88946-875-3, ISBN 0-88946-976-8, p.4</ref>   

===Differences between liberal and fundamentalist Christians ===

===Differences between liberal and fundamentalist Christians ===