Frank S. Mead, in his book Handbook of Denominations defines "fundamentalist" this way: "One who believes in the infallibility of the Bible as inspired by God, and that it should be accepted literally, as distinguished from the modernist, who interprets the Bible in accordance with more modern scholarship or scientific knowledge."

I have never thought of myself as a fundamentalist. It seems to put one in a category with people who are not altogether right in their thinking doctrinally. But if the above definition is correct, then I suppose that I am indeed a fundamentalist.

I know that I am not a modernist. To elaborate on Mr. Mead’s definition of a modernist, here is one who rejects God’s revelation as his primary source of information on matters of faith. The physical universe and nature itself are seen to be more reliable sources on such matters as the crossing of the Red Sea, the manna and the quail, the fall of the walls of Jericho and the flood of Genesis 6.

There are a couple of serious problems associated with such thinking. First, there seems to be as much confusion in the interpretation of the physical evidence as there possibly can be. Scholars offer dozens of explanations for the miraculous in the Bible stories, some quite at odds with the explanations of others. For example, I have read that the reason Moses was able to turn the waters of the Nile to blood was that there was a volcano eruption in Southern Europe whose fallout polluted the waters upstream making them undrinkable. Red silt in the water furnished the figure of speech, that the water was turned to blood. "Oh no," a modernist across the table cries, "that would be too far away to effect the waters of the Nile. It was a comet that struck the earth in the Mediterranean that cause an upheaval of silt, blah, blah, blah …." I have actually heard theses explanations. However, most modernists take the easy way and say the event never happened at all, it was an allegory given by God to demonstrate some great lesson. (That is a tactic use by modernists, even of ancient times. Anything of substance that is unpalatable, just call it an allegory. That way you can say it wasn’t so and spare yourself the trouble that comes with calling God a liar.)

Second, such thinking goes beyond the small details of the story and the little lessons that might be illustrated by them. When we cast doubt on one story in the Bible, we open the door to doubt ALL of them. In other words, if we must believe that Moses led the people across the Sea of Reeds instead of the Red Sea because it was too deep, what makes us think that Jesus walked on the water? If we cannot believe that God destroyed the earth with a flood, what makes us think that Jesus fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. If we cannot accept what Genesis says about the creation of the world and all that is in it in six days, how can we possibly believe that time will end, Jesus will say the word, and all of the dead shall come forth (John 5:28-29).

There is the proverb about the camel who gets his nose under the wall of the tent. Once that occurs, he comes in – and no man has the power to stop him. Modernism represents a departure from not only the truth, but the way of truth. It is like coming to a fork in the road. If you take the wrong fork and continue travelling, more and more modernism imposes itself on the thinking. The only way out is to backtrack all the way to the fork, denying all that has gone on since taking the wrong way.

Modernism begins with a seed of doubt. "I just can’t believe this or that." But as the seed sprouts, it leads to a rejection of all that "can’t be believed." The process will not likely conclude in the first generation or the second, but if we point ourselves in that direction, that is where it invariably leads. Every denomination has come to this fork in the road. Those who promiscuously took those first steps are eyeball deep in infidelity today. In a survey among the denominations in North America taken several years ago, it was found that the majority who sought naturalistic explanations for beginnings now reject the virgin birth, the resurrection, heaven and hell, etc.

Are we headed the same way? Is the camel’s nose under the tent? There are some among us who cannot accept any explanation for the beginning of things than the naturalistic explanation. Upon examining further, there seems to be some doubt among us with things as simple as the fall of man, the flood, and the tower of Babel. What’s next? Have we planted that seed of doubt?

What if we are not the ones who sow the seeds, but we do nothing to root out the weeds they spawn? Will we not share in some of the responsibility for the unbelief that is certain to result? Those who sit idly by, those who put forward modernists as examples and as teachers of the Bible that can be recommended to parents and students are not innocent.

"Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:6-8).