"Fundamentalist" vs "Evangelical"

[All Along The Watchtower]

How are the two terms different? Here's an overview of how I see these two terms.

My understanding is that the term "fundamentalist" originally referred to those Protestants who were strongly opposed to the modernizing trends within American Protestant denominations in the late 1800s/early 1900s-trends which included acceptance of new scientific theories such as Evolution, as well as the Social Gospel movement. The fundamentalists stressed a stripped-down, simple message of personal salvation, which included the now-notorious doctrine of Biblical literalism. The fundamentalists were culturally insular/separatist, more rural, dominant in the South and parts of the Midwest (but also being found in places like Southern California), and generally less-educated and less affluent than the more modernist Protestants.

Nowadays, however, "fundamentalist" basically means any religious believer-Christian, Muslim, Jewish, doesn't matter-who displays particular rigidity in beliefs, absolutist thinking, and literal interpretation of religious texts.

"Evangelical" is a (mostly) Protestant-specific term that has many meanings, ranging from Lutheran Protestants in Germany to Methodists in England, to various revivalist movements in America in the 1800s, to the more familiar connotation of "politically active conservative Protestants from non-'mainline' denominations." The terms "mainline" and "evangelical", however, are by no means exclusive; the United Methodist Church, for example, is technically both, but is always referred to as a "mainline" church.

Basically, evangelicals are characterized by their strong belief in "a personal relationship" with Jesus and the significance of the cross, a focus on the Bible as being the main (and sometimes, the only) source of spiritual truth, emphasis on conversion and being "born again", and the willingness to share their faith with others. What is also common in evangelical congregations is less emphasis on liturgy and (increasingly) less emphasis on denominational differences.

So that's my view of the two terms, in a nutshell.

[useful idiot]

It's best to ground the the definitions in historical, rather than concrete doctrinal, terms, which I think you have done. In many cases it's purely an attitude that separates them. I would describe fundamentalism as a movement that sought to fight modernists on modernistic turf, failing miserably at it and then withdrawing from society, becoming increasingly dogmatic and legalistic.

Evangelicalism is much older (in relative terms), much broader and more adaptable. Hence you see Billy Graham conducting crusades with Catholics (and the blessing of some Catholic bishops), telling those who came forward not to leave their denominations but to go back to them and reform them if necessary. This is completely foreign to the fundamentalist mindset. There are no debates in fundamentalism about women in ministry, the literal nature of the creation account, ecumenical cooperation, the destiny of the unevangelized, etc etc. All issues are first order issues because, in their mind, the Bible is always clear. Therefore if someone disagrees it is because they have a deficient view of Scripture, and therefore revelation, and ultimately God's very nature, rendering them unbelievers or heretics.

The tenuous nature of fundamentalism is revealed most clearly in the fact that they believe the above positions, which they hold as sacrosanct, are either clearly taught in Scripture or have always been the consensus among the faithful. They fail to realize that many of their supposedly eternal truths are often simply 19th century innovations, the most amusing example being the fact that fundamentalists have overwhelmingly adhered to Dispensationalism...

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

So using your definition of "evangelical" and the traits you attribute to it, can't one easily make the case that all Christians are evangelical?  Very few Christians deny the spiritual necessities of having a personal relationship with Christ, the cross, baptism, and sharing the faith with others.

This is why I struggle with evangelicals.  I am unable to define them in a way that distinguishes them from other Christians, simply because all or most of their core beliefs are consistent with those of Catholics and mainline Protestants.  You cannot say you are above or below other Christians by assigning special labels or prefixes to yourself.  That is not what Jesus aimed for people to do in his life.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Evangelicalism to me is to me contrasted with Calvinism or more broadly with the doctrine of unconditional election.

Evangelicals generally see their evangelism as something that could make the difference in whether or not someone else ends up being saved.  By contrast, Calivinsts would at most view evangelism as the mechanism that God has chosen to bring the elect to him.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Evangelicalism to me is to me contrasted with Calvinism or more broadly with the doctrine of unconditional election.

Evangelicals generally see their evangelism as something that could make the difference in whether or not someone else ends up being saved.  By contrast, Calivinsts would at most view evangelism as the mechanism that God has chosen to bring the elect to him.

Good post.

[DC Al Fine]

So using your definition of "evangelical" and the traits you attribute to it, can't one easily make the case that all Christians are evangelical?  Very few Christians deny the spiritual necessities of having a personal relationship with Christ, the cross, baptism, and sharing the faith with others.

This is why I struggle with evangelicals.  I am unable to define them in a way that distinguishes them from other Christians, simply because all or most of their core beliefs are consistent with those of Catholics and mainline Protestants.  You cannot say you are above or below other Christians by assigning special labels or prefixes to yourself.  That is not what Jesus aimed for people to do in his life.

To be fair to Progressive Realist, he mentioned an emphasis on being born-again, which is relatively unique to Evangelicals.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

So using your definition of "evangelical" and the traits you attribute to it, can't one easily make the case that all Christians are evangelical?  Very few Christians deny the spiritual necessities of having a personal relationship with Christ, the cross, baptism, and sharing the faith with others.

This is why I struggle with evangelicals.  I am unable to define them in a way that distinguishes them from other Christians, simply because all or most of their core beliefs are consistent with those of Catholics and mainline Protestants.  You cannot say you are above or below other Christians by assigning special labels or prefixes to yourself.  That is not what Jesus aimed for people to do in his life.

To be fair to Progressive Realist, he mentioned an emphasis on being born-again, which is relatively unique to Evangelicals.

What's the difference between a born-again Christian and a non-born-again Christian?

[DC Al Fine]

So using your definition of "evangelical" and the traits you attribute to it, can't one easily make the case that all Christians are evangelical?  Very few Christians deny the spiritual necessities of having a personal relationship with Christ, the cross, baptism, and sharing the faith with others.

This is why I struggle with evangelicals.  I am unable to define them in a way that distinguishes them from other Christians, simply because all or most of their core beliefs are consistent with those of Catholics and mainline Protestants.  You cannot say you are above or below other Christians by assigning special labels or prefixes to yourself.  That is not what Jesus aimed for people to do in his life.

To be fair to Progressive Realist, he mentioned an emphasis on being born-again, which is relatively unique to Evangelicals.

What's the difference between a born-again Christian and a non-born-again Christian?

I meant born again=conversion experience is more of an evangelical thing.

[useful idiot]

So using your definition of "evangelical" and the traits you attribute to it, can't one easily make the case that all Christians are evangelical?  Very few Christians deny the spiritual necessities of having a personal relationship with Christ, the cross, baptism, and sharing the faith with others.

This is why I struggle with evangelicals.  I am unable to define them in a way that distinguishes them from other Christians, simply because all or most of their core beliefs are consistent with those of Catholics and mainline Protestants.  You cannot say you are above or below other Christians by assigning special labels or prefixes to yourself.  That is not what Jesus aimed for people to do in his life.

Most within the mainline institutions, and many liberal Catholics, would deny the necessity of all of the above (though most evangelicals wouldn't consider baptism "necessary" for salvation, but necessary for the validity of the church in question). If you believe in some sort of eschatological pluralism then you're not an evangelical, though inclusivism has been present in evangelicalism at least since Wesley. This obviously affects your view of the cross, Christ's work and message, and of evangelism. Fundamentalists reject culture and modernity outright (or at least try to, they fail at it), Evangelicals embrace culture and modernity when it doesn't conflict with Scripture (obviously interpretations vary), and liberals embrace Scripture only when it doesn't conflict with modernity. These are vastly different worldviews, and that's what we're talking about here: worldviews, not a list of membership requirements.

As someone who wears the evangelical label I have no problems saying that there are Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, and possibly even EO evangelicals, in a broad sense. The problem is looking at it as a club, in which you have to sign off on a certain checklist or perform an initiation rite to enter. It's a stream of thought and practice within Christianity that exists in a number of different traditions. Of course there are positions that are decidedly non-evangelical: pluralism as mentioned before (and along with it a denial of absolute truth), a non-substitutionary interpretation of the atonement (not necessarily penal substitution), meritorious salvation as opposed to a necessary grace, denying or downplaying the necessity of evangelism and discipleship, etc etc.

Let's take an issue where evangelicals may disagree as a case study: women in ministry. Fundamentalists will say that it's clear that Paul never believed women should be elders because it is there in black and white, and to think otherwise is to reject the Bible, and therefore God since he wrote the Bible. Complementarian evangelicals may come to the same position practically, but will allow that other evangelicals may interpret the text differently without destroying the Gospel, and will usually have no problems endorsing or working with those who hold a different position. Egalitarian evangelicals will interpret the relevant passages in a way that would hold that while Paul may have prohibited it in certain circumstances (1 Tim 2), he wasn't opposed to it on principle (Rom 16, Gal 3:28). A liberal would say that regardless of whether or not Paul forbade women from ministry, we should allow it because we live in a more enlightened time than he did and we know better. The two evangelical positions are vastly different from the fundamentalist or liberal positions. A dozen other such case studies could be given on other issues such as Calvinism/Arminianism, eschatological chronology, creation, infant vs. believer's baptism, etc etc.