Darryl Hart

Beginning with discussion of the problematic nature of the term ‘fundamentalist’, this chapter examines the role of Princeton Seminary within the fundamentalist–modernist debates of the early twentieth century. After placing Princeton within the context of nineteenth-century American Protestantism, the chapter looks at its initial reaction to theological liberalism, arguing that the response of the Princeton theologians was at first nuanced and sophisticated. It was not until the intra-Presbyterian controversies in the 1920s that the lines became more firmly drawn. Examining the career of J. Gresham Machen in detail, the chapter shows that while Machen battled liberalism and modernism, his critique was of a very different nature to the more populist arguments sometimes adopted by fundamentalists more widely. The chapter contends that fundamentalism was far from being a monolithic movement.

Reformed Protestants inherited older biblical and medieval understandings about the difference between civil rule and ecclesiastical authority which fostered a variety of responses to secularization. After the Reformation, Calvinists worked from received categories even as they adapted to a diverse set of political circumstances, sometimes being a persecuted minority, sometimes having unrestrained access to municipal governments, and sometimes disappointed with monarchs who promised more than they gave. Once the political revolutions of the eighteenth century upended the prevailing Constantinian pattern of ecclesiastical establishment (whether Roman Catholic or Protestant), Calvinists made even further adjustments to the sacred–secular distinction. Those adaptations contribute to ongoing debates about society, the church, and a Christian’s civic responsibilities. No matter how varied Calvinists have been in their responses to secularization, they are no stranger than other Christian communions that also struggle to make sense of Jesus Christ’s assertion that his ‘kingdom is not of this world’.