Noted evangelical theologian and writer Packer wrote this short book in the midst of a battle between liberals and so-called fundamentalists, hoping to calm the storm by critiquing both poles in the dispute, while also reaffirming essential aspects of evangelical Christianity (as distinguished from both liberalism and fundamentalism). The controversy began when (liberal) Fuller professor Paul Jewett published Man as Male and Female, which attacked fundamentalism and suggested that the Bible often cannot be taken at face value and must be filtered through the principles of human reason. Harold Lindsell responded with a flaming fundamentalist and anti-Fuller response (The Battle for the Bible). It fell to Packer to provide this book as a more thoughtful exposition of the issue.
The book opens with a quote from C. H. Spurgeon: "Defend the Bible? I would as soon defend a lion." This frames the primary theme of the book; that the Bible must be the Christian's ultimate authority and that its authority does not rest on our ability to plead its case.
The first chapter ('Fundamentalists' under Fire) outlines the controversy at hand. Citing 'anti-fundamentalism' as an increasingly widespread fashion, Packer suggests that conservative Christians can at least take comfort in the fact that "those who differ from them can no longer ignore them," marking "a real increase in their influence" (9). Some critics see Fundamentalism primarily in theological terms, others as including both 'peculiar' practices and theology, but all agree that the fundamentalist insistence on scriptural authority (called variously dictation, literalism, inerrancy) is "new, eccentric and in reality untenable" (11). Some also impugn their character, claiming they have "an authoritarian cast of mind and compel their disciples to subscribe to all the peculiarities of their exegesis" (10). Some even use the term to refer to adherents of any religion who "assume the complete infallibility and inerrancy of [their] text" and make acceptance of their own interpretations obligatory.
Packer rejects this last as reductio ad absurdum, since the failure to distinguish conservative Christianity from other religions defeats the purpose of defining the former. Of course, a rejoinder would be that fundamentalism is not the same as Christianity, citing as evidence the 'fundamentalists' of other religions who err in similar ways. Grandpa Bowman used to call them "funny mentalists!" (another jab is "not much fun, lots of dam, not much mental!").
Other charges against fundamentalism accuse it of: "a denial of the human element in the Bible; a belief in the penal doctrine of the atonement; a habit of appealing for immediate decision at the close of evangelistic sermons; and an individualistic doctrine of the Holy Spirit's work in the believer which makes churchmanship and sacraments practically superfluous" (11). Packer dismisses these as being merely complaints by others that fundamentalism is not the same as their systems (e.g. liberals, sacramentalists, neo-orthodox, ...), failing to address fundamentalism for what it is.
Perhaps the most serious critique goes like this. Fundamentalism is a 20th century reaction against 19th century literary, historical and (ostensibly) scientific criticism of the Bible. "It represents a defiant hardening of pre-critical and pre-scientific views, a desperate attempt to bolster up obsolete traditions ... it is a flight from facts" (11). Adherents must close their minds to modern knowledge. It is thus retrograde, dishonest, obscurantist, "one among the many movements of blind reaction which disfigure the record of man's intellectual history" (12), paying "no heed to the work of modern scholarship" (12-13). Such qualities "must inevitably be hostile to the best interests of Christian scholarship and education" (13). Fundamentalist appeals to what 'the Bible says' impart an attractive (especially to adolescents) sense of certainty and authority, but this is just what critics feel cannot be honestly maintained, being superstitious, unreasonable, bibliolatrous, escapist, schismatic, crude and atavistic. Dr. Ramsey worries that "the stifling of the mind in the process of decision (a rousing sermon, a hurricane of emotion, a will to leap in the dark) may bring the most terrible revenges in [later] scepticism and disillusion" (14). At bottom, the critics reject the "uncompromising demand for submission to what 'the Bible says', because the Bible says it" (15) as essentially unreasonable. Further, they say, it is heretical (in the classic sense of being fixated on distorted biblical elements while lacking a balanced, holistic, traditional view of scriptural truth) and sectarian (having no regard for religion outside its own experience and vocabulary).
Fundamentalists included Billy Graham and the entire evangelical movement, while anti-fundamentalists were Dr. Gabriel Hebert, Dr. Michael Ramsey and the more liberal wing of the organized church Establishment (in deep decline as of 2006; as Dr. Phil might ask: 'How's that workin' for ya?').
Interestingly, most critics, after trashing Fundamentalism, were quick to praise its forthright witness and deny any major doctrinal difference between it and themselves. Packer counters this curious two-faced approach with the observation that "the cause of the division is ... the deepest doctrinal divergence of all - disagreement as to the principle of authority; for there can be no stable agreement on anything between those who disagree here ... [this] is the heart of the controversy" (17).
Responding to the ecumenicals' pleading for Fundamentalists to join them, Packer notes the two characteristic weaknesses of ecumenical theology; "the tendency to treat every theological position as no more than a loosely linked isolated collection of insights" and "the working principle that all doctrinal views held, at any rate, by sizeable groups within Christendom are facets and fragments of God's truth" (17). But "the evangelical faith is a systematic and integrated whole, built on a single foundation," and "the essense of right theological method is reformation" (19, i.e. submission to scriptural authority), not conglomeration. If ecumenicals converge based on agreement, it doesn't mean they're converging on the truth (indeed, most likely otherwise). "Some of our fancied insights and cherished traditions may prove to be radical perversions of truth when tested by Scripture" (19, e.g. RCC accumulations like indulgences, papal infallibility, etc.).
"There is certainly an arrogant, hide-bound type of traditionalism, unthinking and uncritical, which is carnal and devilish. But there is also a respectful willingness to take help from the Church's past (through its heritage of teaching to Jesus Christ and His apostles) in order to understand the Bible in the present; and such traditionalism is spiritual and Christian" (21).
"We shall argue that subjection to the authority of Christ involves subjection to the authority of Scripture ... Types of Christianity which regard as authoritative either tradition (as Romanism does) or reason (as Liberalism does) are perversions of the faith, for they locate the seat of authority, not in the Word of God, but in the words of men" (21).
In short, Fundamentalism (understood as consistent Evangelicalism, notwithstanding individual lapses) is nothing but Christianity itself ... not a new heresy or an eccentric deviation, but the oldest orthodoxy ... not obscurantist, but having fully faced facts its opponents have not (decisive against their positions) ... not intellectually dishonest or narrow, but using the mind in a Christian way and thus freeing it from current prejudice to achieve a genuinely Christian outlook ... not spiritually prideful, but intellectually humble ... not schismatic, but conducive to the truest catholicity ... not deserving of received criticism, but a victim of both failure of critics to discern its true nature and error in the presuppositions on which their judgements are based.
In the second chapter (What is 'Fundamentalism'?), Packer reviews the history of the term. Since it was the [derisive] name given to a movement after WWI which arose in reaction to perceived liberal encroachment, Packer discusses Liberalism itself for clarification. Although not all liberals were willing to totally buy into it, the basic tenets were: universalism (God is love, no condemnation of anyone); humans are basically good; Jesus was our Teacher and Example (but not divine, no miracles, no resurrection); Christianity is not unique, but only the best and highest religion yet to appear (evolutionary view, all religions are expressions of a universal human religious urge); The Bible is not divine revelation, but only a human expression of religious feeling and intuition. Packer notes that the clash in America was sharper, since among the defenders of orthodoxy there were "men of a broader range of learning, deeper theological insight and greater intellectual virility than their British counterparts" (e.g. B. B. Warfield, J. G. Machan's Christianity and Liberalism). Machan showed in his book that liberalism was, in fact, a coherent system of thought, although a non-Christian one.
In 1909, the first of 12 volumes of The Fundamentals appeared. These writings were designed to defend orthodoxy against Romanism, Darwinism, 'higher criticism' and cults such as Christian Science, Mormonism, Spiritualism and Jehovah's Witnesses. One summary distilled 5 primary tenets; "the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth and miracles, His penal death for our sins, and His physical resurrection and personal return" (28, other themes were the reality of sin, salvation by faith through spiritual regeneration, the power of prayer, the duty of evangelism).
Chapter 3 (Authority) ...
Chapter 4 (Scripture) ...
Chapter 5 (Faith) ...
Chapter 6 (Reason) ...
Chapter 7 (Liberalism) ...
Here's a note I made in my DayTmr for 12 Dec 2001 after reading in this section: On the reality of divine action in the world: 1) miracles 2) the work of Christ (resurrection) 3) conversion of individuals 4) govt of history (152). Hmmm, maybe I seek #4 (evidence in politics, history, etc.) since ...
Conclusion
Appendix I: Professor Alan Richardson on 'Fundamentalism'
Appendix II: Dr. Hebert of Pseudonymity in Scripture