Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1970, 328 pgs.
Summary: Ernest R. Sandeen (1931-1982) wrote careful and academic history of Fundamentalism tracing the resurgence and development of millenarianism, particularly the Dispensational variant, to the Fundamentalist movement in the United States. His theological perspective and assessment were mainline Protestant, but his facts and the tracing of historical trajectory are generally accurate. Sandeen grew up in a conservative/fundamentalist home and graduated from Wheaton and then University of Chicago.
Sandeen saw three categories of Christians involved in the maintenance and continuance of the church: Fundamentalist who were also Dispensational millennialist, conservatives, and moderate liberals (269). The conservatives were represented by the likes of Machen and Westminster Seminary, portions of the Southern Baptist Convention (264), and one would assume the Missouri and Lutheran Synod.
The founder of Dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) in creating and promoting a unique understanding of the church as wholly separate from Israel and functioning within an un-prophesied church age redefined the visible church, history, and to a great degree preaching. Further, Darby’s theological system tended to both explain and respond to the cultural changes caused by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thought and the Industrial Revolution; thus offered a ready solution to the confusion and upheaval of the era.
Dispensationalism was popularized in the United States by denominational figures like James Brookes, by a leavening of Plymouth Brethren converts including Darby, and by the evangelistic circuits and meetings established by Finney but maintained and expanded by Moody (178-181), and then Billy Sunday and Bob Jones. The doctrine had some academic defenders (142).
The conservatives—those wed to historical theological systems—welcomed the adherents of Dispensationalism into the wider cultural contests of the day as cobelligerents against liberalism or modernism. Yet there was some degree of confusion and tension between the conservatives and the Fundamentalist in practice and intent. A quote from the conservative Francis L. Patton of Princeton Seminary illustrates the befuddled appreciation and critique in 1890:
Then there is what is called a Bible-reading; very good to in its way, but a very poor substitute for a sermon. I suppose that the Bible-reading is a feature of the school of thought of which Mr. Moody is such a distinguished leader. With some of the theology of some of the members of this school I have no sympathy; and I particularly object to their arbitrary and unhistorical system of interpretation. But we cannot too much admire the earnestness of these men; their reverence for the Divine Word; their profound faith in the blood of Christ; and their working familiarity with the English Bible. But few, I fear, know the English Bible as they do. I advise you to learn their secret in this regard, but do not adopt their shibboleths; and I warn you against supposing that you have given an adequate substitute for a sermon when, with the help of Cruden’s Concordance, you have chased a word through the Bible, making a comment or two on the passages as you go along. (137) Quoted from Presbyterian and Reformed Review 1 (1890): 36-37.
Sandeen then traces the development of Fundamentalist up into the 1930s when the fragmentation of the movement began and closes with these words:
Millenarian leadership in the twenties did not show the strength of character, deep grasp of and reverence for biblical truth, or intellectual acuity demonstrated by the late nineteenth-century leaders. The movement appears split and stricken, possibly because some of the men who became most popular could not direct their followers either as consistent conservatives or as moderate liberals (269).
It should also be noted that Sandeen created a historical narrative that was picked up by other scholars wherein Princeton conservatives created a “new” defense of the inspiration of Scripture.
Benefits/Detriments: The Roots of Fundamentalism is a helpful book as long as the perspective of the author is kept in mind.
The author makes statements like “the inspiration of the ‘original autographs’” “is another example of the way in which Princeton doctrine of Scripture was refined” (127). Sandeen may not like this doctrine, but it’s simply orthodox Protestant doctrine since the Reformation. (Cf. “The Princetonians and Biblical Authority: an Assessment of the Earnest Sandeen Proposal,” in Scripture and Truth, 251-279).
Shoehorning all Fundamentalist into Dispensationalism doesn’t quite work; and odd sentences like “the old-line millenarians such as James H. Brookes had hoped would happen in their own day and exactly J. Gersham Machen, one of the leaders of the extreme conservatives in the denominations and professor at Princeton Seminary, had called for. . .” (253), prove this.
Brookes (1830-1895) and Machen (1881-1937) were both Presbyterians, though separated by some years. Brookes was highly regarded by Hodge as a preacher and preached at and graduated from Princeton. Brookes was also the person most responsible for introducing and popularizing Dispensationalism in the United States.
We also read of Machen:
Machen could be understood by other intellectuals. . . . but when he stepped out of his role as the intellectual into that of the denominational politician, he proved hopelessly inept. He had no notation of the essence of politics—compromise. What he called faithful, militant witnessing for the truth was often nothing more than perverse obstinacy and a fatal lack of openness to the truth that might (however dimly) glow in some other heart (257).
Machen thought that if you got the gospel wrong you were going to hell and so he refused to compromise on the gospel or the doctrines necessary to maintain the gospel. Most folks would call these doctrines the fundamentals. Machen also believed that a dimly glowing truth may save the one with the truth, but it cannot save others. The proclamation of the gospel requires clarity on the gospel.
And while, I have no brief for Dispensationalism, the agreement that occurred among conservatives/fundamentalist and Dispensational fundamentalist/conservatives was about the gospel and the doctrines necessary to maintain the gospel. Dispensationalism’s pedigree in the United States was stolidly Presbyterian though it was forcibly rejected at Princeton.
The Roots of Fundamentalism is interesting, well-written, factually accurate, but biased in assessment. Should be read along with In Pursuit of Purity by Beale and Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture. Non-Dispensationalists should not consider Sandeen the last word on the history of Dispensationalism in the United States.