David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism since 1850

Unusual Publications, Greenville: 1986, 457 pgs.

Summary: A clear, well-researched and documented history of Fundamentalism from the perspective of a scholarly separatist at Bob Jones University. The basic argument is that nonconformist Fundamentalism (1857-1920) progressed into separatist Fundamentalism (1920s to present) as the true Fundamentalists discovered that “a full-orbed holiness includes both personal and ecclesiastical aspects” (6). Thus the best Christians are separatists and the suspect Christians are New Evangelicals, Neo-fundamentalist, and Broad Evangelicals. There is a tentative admittance in a footnote that godliness exists among a category of conservative Christians that are neither Fundamentalist nor New Evangelicals (270) but who strictly maintain a confessional position through a doctrinal statement and denominational associations.

In Pursuit of Purity has the only academic introduction to the Free Presbyterians of Northern Ireland of which I am aware and contains a large amount original research from primary sources on the development of Dispensationalism in the United States and its relationship to separatist Fundamentalism. There is also a chapter on the Canadian Baptist Shields’ attempt to turn Des Moines University into a Fundamentalist Bible College and the resulting riot.

A fascinating subtext exists within the footnotes as Beale corrects older and less scholarly historians within the Fundamentalist movement. For instance, George W. Dollar’s A History of Fundamentalism is corrected as is Brenda M. Meehan in Foundations.

The tone is much more irenic then the above summary sounds, in part because Dr. Beale is such a careful historian and is earnestly attempting to serve Jesus Christ. Some of Dr. Beale’s interpretations and applications of history may be imbalanced, but the careful scholarship is exemplarily.

Benefits and Detriments: There is an almost habitual assumption of in-house definitions: holiness is separation (6-7) and biblical theology is Dispensationalism (33).  Both statements may be defensible, but they cannot be assumed in an academic setting.

The Baptist Frank Norris and Presbyterian Carl McIntire receive much gentler treatment than they deserve; Norris more so that McIntire. Both men’s behavior was a public embarrassment to Christ, but both maintained Fundamentalist boundary markers.  The words, “Norris introduced a silver-plated weapon, which he claimed Chipps had been carrying at the time of the shooting,” during his trial “for the murder of an unarmed man” (234) describe too grotesque a situation to not require some sort of biblical condemnation.

The Norris-McIntire issue illustrates the central weakness of the book; there is no critique or record of Fundamentalists declining into reactionary and rigorist heresies or confusion. Peter Ruckman and Jack Hyles are not mentioned, though Hyles played a key role in Fundamentalist history.  Evangelical propensities toward sin are exposed but Fundamentalist’s propensities towards heterodoxy and sin are gilded over.

Extremely helpful introduction to separatist Fundamentalism in the modern era. Evangelical pastors should read it to recognize the sinful potential within their doctrine and practice. A bit academic for lay readers, but should be required reading for Baptist pastors and modern church historians.