________

The Fundamentalist Fellowship was founded in 1920 by a group of pastors in the Northern Baptist Convention who wanted to rescue it from theological liberalism. It was founded at a pre-convention conference before the annual National Baptist Convention meeting. The conference was held at Delaware Avenue Baptist Church of Buffalo, New York, and the theme was “The Fundamentals of Our Baptist Faith.”

The “Call” for the conference was signed by 156 pastors and laymen:

“To all Baptists Within the Bounds of the Northern Convention.

“Greeting: We view with increasing alarm the havoc which rationalism is working in our churches as evidenced by the drift upon the part of many of our ministers from the fundamentals of our holy faith. The teaching in many of our educational institutions is proving disastrous to the faith of the young men and women who are to be the leaders of the future. A widespread and growing worldliness has crept into the churches, a worldliness which has robbed us of power and brought upon us open shame. We believe that there rests upon us as Baptists an immediate and urgent duty to restate, reaffirm, and re-emphasize the fundamentals of our New Testament faith. Beyond all doubt the vast majority of our Baptist people are as loyal as were our fathers to our Baptist principles and our Baptist polity, but this loyalty will not long continue unless something is done to stay the rising tide of liberalism and rationalism, and to preserve our principles in their simplicity and purity. Therefore, acting upon our own initiative as your brethren, we issue this call for a conference on ‘The Fundamentals of Our Baptist Faith,’ to be held in the Delaware Avenue Church, Buffalo, from seven P.M. Monday, June 21, to 9:30 P.M. Tuesday, June 22. These dates immediately precede the meeting of the Northern Baptist Convention. All Baptists within the bounds of the Northern Convention are invited to attend this conference. Let increasing prayer be made for the guidance and favor of God. Adopted April 21, 1920, Your brethren in Christ.”

The leaders were W.B. Riley, Jasper Massee, John Straton, Cortland Myers, A.C. Dixon, William Pettingill, and Curtis Lee Laws, editor of the Watchman Examiner.

Three thousand attended the meeting and heard 13 messages, which were compiled into a book entitled Baptist Fundamentals.

The Fundamentalist Federation of the Northern Baptist Convention was founded as well as the General Council of Cooperating Baptist Missions of North America (now called Baptist Mid-Missions).

“This was the first of what would become a series of churches and individuals who would abandon the NBC and build new fundamentalist agencies and associations” (Larry Oats, To the Praise of His Glory).

It was at that time that a term was coined which became the name of the movement. In the Watchman-Examiner, the leading Baptist magazine in the North, Curtis Lee Laws wrote,

“We here and now move that a new word be adopted to describe the men among us who insist that the landmarks shall not be removed. ‘Conservatives’ is too closely allied with reactionary forces in all walks of life. ‘Premillennialists’ is too closely allied with a single doctrine and not sufficiently inclusive. ‘Landmarkers’ has a historical disadvantage and connotes a particular group of radical conservatives. We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called FUNDAMENTALISTS” (Watchman-Examiner, July 1, 1920).

This first mention of “fundamentalists” noted its three major characteristics: a stand for fundamental landmarks, inclusiveness (interdenominational), and militancy (“who mean to do battle royal”).

The Fundamentalist Fellowship allowed pastors and churches to continue as members of the Northern Baptist Convention. This allowed them to make a small protest against liberalism while retaining the social and material advantages of denominational membership, including retirement benefits.

The Fundamentalist Fellowship did not take a stand on Bible prophecy. Many of the pastors were amillennial. It was a mixed multitude. “The preconvention conference was indeed a heterogeneous group of conservatives, many weak, some strong, and a few (perhaps unwittingly) on the threshold of embracing liberal ideas” (David Beale, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 195.

Led by W.B. Riley, the Fundamentalist Fellowship wanted to “save the convention.” They intended to use denominational politics as a means of taking power from the liberals and getting them out of the schools.

Had it been “saved” by denominational political maneuvering, it would still have been an unscriptural mixed multitude, and that was true even in 1920 when the battle was joined. Denominational battles are pragmatic, not biblical.

Every year after that, the “fundamentalists” and “conservatives” of the Fundamentalist Fellowship tried to get their policies passed at the annual Northern Baptist Convention. In 1922, they tried to get the Convention to agree to a statement of faith that all teachers in the schools would be required to sign. This was rejected in favor of a move by liberal Cornelius Woelfkin that the New Testament be the only rule. The liberals pretended that they believed the New Testament even though they “re-interpreted” it. The proposal passed by a vote of 1,264 to 637. In 1925, W.B. Hinson presented a resolution that would require all missionaries to sign a statement that they believed in the divine inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the blood atonement of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, and the new birth. It was voted down by a margin of two to one! That should have told the “conservatives” that there was no hope for the Convention, but they plowed on. In 1926, the conservatives tried to have a simple resolution passed requiring immersion for church membership. Even this failed by a margin of two to one!

One reason the effort to “save the convention” didn’t work was because so many of the “conservative” pastors weren’t fighters. The Convention was made up of “heretics and softies” (Dollar). The “conservatives” were typical of non-fighters of all times. They are “inbetweenites.” They say they love the truth and oppose error, but they won’t pay a price to stand against error. If they can make a cost-free protest, they will do it. They might talk privately against the error and the men who hold the error, and they might even attend a conference where error is being condemned, but they won’t take a bold, public stand of their own. They won’t risk having people leave their churches, losing offerings or property or retirement or even prestige. They claim to “esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right,” but they don’t “hate every false way” (Ps. 119:128).

The liberal’s call for love and unity was effective in swaying the “inbetweenites.” “If at this early stage those who held orthodox theology had acted in concert, using their votes, their money, and their influence, they could have ended liberalism within their denomination almost immediately. One reason that they did not is because they listened to the plea for toleration. ... they used collegiality as a solvent to dilute conservative opposition and prevent it from crystallizing. Whenever conservatives began to put on a confrontational face, liberals would wax eloquent about unity, toleration, and the importance of denominational goals They were able to sway many with these pious-sounding words” (Kevin Bauder, and Robert Delnay, One in Hope and Doctrine: Origins of Baptist Fundamentalism 1870-1950, p. 50). The theme of the 1922 Northern Baptist Convention was “Agreed to Differ but Resolved to Love.”

(We don’t agree that such political maneuvering would have “ended liberalism within the denomination.” It would have remained a mixed multitude with the “conservatives” in control rather than the liberals, but the principle of leaven would still have operated to destroy the Convention in time.)

Consider Jasper Massee, the first president of the Fundamentalist Fellowship. Before the 1920 Convention, he said, “We will not go with swords sharpened to conflict, but with spirits prayerfully called to unity.” But a unity of truth with error is not a biblical unity. He refused to provide the Convention with specific examples of the liberalism within the Convention. He didn’t like naming names. He could sound as if he were strong for the truth. At a preconvention meeting in 1920, he preached, “If we would save them [the schools], we must cease now to let Philistine teachers plow with our educational heifer.” That sounded as if he believed liberals are unsaved Philistines, but Massee wasn’t a David to take a sword after those Philistines. “Massee was hardly ready ‘to do battle royal for the fundamentals.’ Unfortunately, he represented the attitude of most NBC conservatives” (Beale, In Pursuit of Purity, pp. 195, 196). “It was clear to a growing number that Massee was sound in doctrine but moderate in attitude. A moderate attitude was polite but not the essential ingredient for a battle” (Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America). By 1924, Massee called for a moratorium on debate about liberalism and a focus, instead, on “the greater cause of soulwinning.” He didn’t explain how that liberal theology, such as denying Christ’s atonement, can produce sound soul winning. He simply cared more about peace and unity than truth, and that has been true of a large number of Baptist preachers.

Another reason why the efforts of the fundamentalists to change the Northern Baptist Convention failed was the love for denominational unity. “Convention unity was the prime object of the leaders and people attending to make a good religious show” (Beale). This has always been the case, and it shows the danger of establishing denominational and associational organizations. Men tend to become more loyal to institutions than to Christ and truth.

Another reason for the failure was the carnal, even vicious, tactics of the denominational leaders. The Northern Baptist Convention professed to believe in the autonomy of the church, but this didn’t play out in practice. They did everything they could to intimidate preachers and congregations from leaving the Convention. Denominational structures tend to bring out the worse in men, not the best. They become more loyal to an ecclesiastical machine than to Christ and the Word of God. Consider the following example, which could be greatly multiplied:

“Rev. William Shaline was the pastor of the First Baptist Church, Richland Center, Wisconsin. He was a gospel preacher and deeply interested in reaching the lost. Some of his congregation, however, were loyal to the NBC. They accused him of not being a loyal Baptist because he did not support the Wisconsin Baptist Convention or the NBC even though the church contributed to both organizations. Another complaint was that he encouraged the church to support CBFMS missionaries. In late 1950, the NBC loyalists asked Pastor Shaline to call in Dr. Ezra Roth [denominational state secretary] ... In true Baptistic fashion, Shaline called for a special business meeting of the church to vote upon the request. The convention element brought in enough irregular attendees and persuaded enough of the regular attendees to produce a tie vote, which was insufficient to pass the motion. Undaunted, the NBC supporters insisted that Roth come anyway. He came, there was a meeting, but the conclusion was simply Roth encouraging the pastor to support the Convention faithfully. The opposition continued to stir the pot, however, until things finally boiled over on January 31, 1951, at the regular quarterly business meeting. Behind Shaline’s back, the contentious element had invited Roth back to the church. With their numbers bolstered by their dissenting cronies, Roth was elected moderator of the meeting. The pastor refused to be a part of the unscriptural and unconstitutional procedure and left the building. Roth allowed all present at the meeting to vote, members or not, and the pastor was voted out. This was all too typical of the politics of the NBC...” (Oats, To the Praise of His Glory, p. 91).

In spite of the efforts of the Fundamentalist Fellowship, the Northern Baptist Convention became more liberal with each passing year. In 1920, the Convention voted in favor of approving Cecil Fielder for continued missionary work in India, in spite of the fact that he denied Christ’s vicarious atonement. He wrote, “Atonement must go. It remains for us to make our own atonement by living the best life we can. It was not necessary for Jesus to die” (cited in Robert Ketcham, The Answer, 1965, p. 33). In 1921, a woman became president of the Convention. Helen Barrett Montgomery was the first woman president of any major denomination. The convention Baptists were simply adapting to the times, moving along with the world’s thinking.