How does the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy appear when looked at from a Systems Perspective?

Pastor Andy Arnold sent me a question about what I wrote about Fundamentalism. "How does the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy appear when looked at from a Systems Perspective?"

First, for those unfamiliar with the term "Systems Perspective," let me describe briefly what this refers to.

A "Systems Perspective" is a way of thinking about something, e.g. a family, an institution, even a single human body, as a whole consisting of many interrelated and interconnected components or "systems," rather than as just an assortment of processes that co-exist within a single entity. For example, a human being is more than just flesh, bones, blood, organs, etc. as you would see laid out before you on a medical examiner's autopsy table. In order for a body to function most effectively the various "systems" (digestive, respiratory, nervous, auditory, optic, circulatory, excretory, etc.) not only co-exist but collaborate with each other. As the apostle Paul said, "the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you . . .'" (I Cor. 12: 21a).

To view something from a systems perspective requires both some distance and much knowledge.

In a sense, Pastor Andy's question would be an excellent PhD dissertation topic.

But simply put, a few things can be said right here. The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy was the result of the intergenerational transmission of anxiety and a crisis in leadership among the Christian community. After the development of "Higher Criticism" as a way of interpreting the scriptures, the exaltation of the doctrine of Evolution promulgated by Charles Darwin, the industrialization of Western society, the growing movement toward the Nation-State throughout Europe, the American Civil War and the struggle for Reconstruction in the U.S., the rise of Marxist thinking and Freudian psychology etc., the Protestant Christian community in the U.S. and the U.K., reached an impasse in its theological discussions.

Some anxious Christians wanted to resolve their anxiety by forcing the Church to adapt its approach to doctrine to the changes occurring all around it (Modernism). Other anxious Christians, whose constituency included many who were very conservative believed that the best way to resolve the crisis was to simply "hang onto" the "faith once delivered to all the saints." To them, "progress" meant re-investing their energy in re-discovering their spiritual and theological roots so they could effectively apply the wisdom of the scriptures to the changing world (Fundamentalism).

In the Roman Catholic tradition, this struggle was resolved by the First Vatican Council where the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was affirmed officially.

Post-Enlightenment Protestants had only the Bible as a source for faith and life, so as new techniques for interpreting the scriptures came into use, the future became uncertain and conflict erupted between biblical scholars of both parties. The extremely diverse and highly fragmented Protestant community lacked the leadership that could bring about a resolution, so the two styles of interpretation gradually became institutionalized and began to operate quite independently from each other. In denominations where battles were fought over these issues, the result was greater fragmentation and the hardening of positions. However, at the same time in the U.S., in other traditions such as the Lutheran tradition, a different "genetic history," certain liturgical traditions, and a historic reliance on the authority of the Lutheran confessions was at work, bringing immigrant denominations closer to each other and forming new bodies not by separation, but by merger.

Ironically, it is the history of this 19th and 20th century Protestant controversy and the coincidental failure of leadership in mainline church bodies such as the ELCA that makes current social crisis over the acceptance of homosexual persons as clergy arise with no clear solution in sight.

By "failure of leadership," I am not referring simply to current leadership at various levels in the ELCA. It actually goes much further back into each of the Lutheran family histories that contribute to the current crisis in North American Lutheranism. Again, at the risk of oversimplification, it seems to me that too much attention was given to the politicization of the "New Lutheran Church" (e.g. forcing membership quotas in forming the Committee for a New Lutheran Church etc.) at the expense of the "familiarization" of the merging families.

Isn't that what often happens with young engaged couples who spend so much energy on making arrangements for the perfect wedding celebration that they have none left for building a healthy and resilient family system for future generations?

I might sum up by quoting a portion of the epilogue from Rabbi Ed Friedman's recently revised posthumous work, A Failure of Nerve. In addressing leaders he encourages leaders to spend time analyzing the "presence of the past" in order to find a way to provide leadership for the future. He says that there are at least four benefits to this analysis: "First, it puts leaders in touch with the nature and the power of emotional process. Second, it delineates both difficulties and capacities, offering a way of understanding how their own past supports the power of presence (differentitaion). Third, it enables them to understand why relationships and institutions do not change. Finally, and most important, it gives them an angle of entry into their own past, their differentiation, and their presence as leaders."