Evangelicals vs. Fundamentalists: What’s the Difference?

Broadly speaking, there are four kinds of people in Protestant Christianity. These are not denominational lines, but apply more broadly, affecting the entire Christian worldview. What are these sections? Liberalism, progressivism, evangelicalism, and fundamentalism. All of these are rather distinct. Liberals tend to deny fundamental tenants of Christian doctrine in favor of a more private and unobtrusive spirituality, with an emphasis on social issues. Progressives tend to hold at least to the basic creeds of Christian belief (one God, Trinity, deity of Jesus, historical death and resurrection of Christ, future resurrection, etc.), but feel free to discard certain traditional teachings usually involving the Old Testament revelation of God, Hell, homosexuality, and abortion, among others (obviously within progressivism there is quite a bit of variety on these matters).

But the divide between evangelicals and fundamentalists is not always as clear-cut, and indeed to most liberals and progressives there is no real difference. Being an evangelical myself, though, I think the issue deserves further clarification. For most people, “fundamentalist” is a pejorative term, which “evangelical” doesn’t always have the same connotations. Moreover, the confusion of the two groups both causes bad association arguments by people both within and without them. 

To further complicate matters, not everyone agrees on the definition of “fundamentalist.” To some people, “fundamentalist” just refers to those who believe the basic tenants of Christianity, which would even include many progressives. To others, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that the Bible is inerrant. To still others, a fundamentalist is anyone more conservative than themselves.

The working definition I will be using here for “fundamentalism” aligns more or less with that used commonly by studied evangelicals. We recognize ourselves as distinct from but in some ways near to fundamentalism, but take many sharp breaks. So I’ll be for my purposes counting fundamentalism as more or less like you would see in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church, or this fundamentalist website. Evangelicalism will be represented by something more along the lines of where I am, the more average church with which my friends and family would be familiar, or names like John Piper, Michael Patton, Bobby Grow, Francis Chan, David Platt, William Lane Craig, maybe John MacArthur, etc.

So without further ado, here’s how I would differentiate between evangelicals and fundamentalists, using various issues to demonstrate. As always, these rules are pretty general and the lines can be really blurry at times.

  • Evangelicals celebrate Christian liberty; fundamentalists restrict it. Evangelicals are not likely to indiscriminately classify dancing, drinking alcohol, contemporary music, or movies as sinful. Fundamentalists tend to consider all of these and more as unacceptable and compromise with the world.
  • Evangelicals treat secondary doctrines with more charity; fundamentalists treat almost all issues as essential. Evangelicals usually allow for disagreement on questions like election, free will, modes of baptism, eternal security, spiritual gifts, styles of music and church services, etc. Evangelicals are charitable to those who disagree on such issues and will often cooperate with them for the Gospel. Fundamentalists often are quite strict on these matters, setting up stuff like the timing of the Rapture or the rejection of Calvinism as if they could make or break true Christianity.
  • Evangelicals are eager to celebrate many ministries proclaiming Jesus; fundamentalists are suspicious and looking for faults in well-known preachers. A great example of this: most evangelicals appreciate Billy Graham and his son Franklin Graham. Fundamentalists tend to consider them both dangerous compromisers. Evangelicals may like John Piper, Rick Warren, Beth Moore, or Francis Chan, while fundamentalists would be afraid of them all.
  • Evangelicals are generally more open to other Christian traditions; fundamentalists accept only a small minority. While not all evangelicals agree on all the boundaries, as a general rule evangelicals are more likely to consider people across certain major denominational lines like Catholics, Orthodox, or Lutheran as true brothers in Christ. Fundamentalists decry them all, and none more than the Catholics who they regard as the worst offenders of false gospel.
  • Evangelicals believe in God’s wrath; fundamentalists obsess over it. Evangelicals do believe that God has wrath and in hellfire for the unrepentant, but that is not the focal point of their theology. Usually, God’s love and grace are given a bigger spotlight as they deserve. Fundamentalists get really pumped from preaching God’s wrath and putting sinners under judgment. They act like Hell is the center of the Gospel: it looms, Jesus gets you out of it, so tell everyone else to avoid it.
  • Evangelicals allow for different opinions on creation; fundamentalists treat a young earth as core to the faith. Many evangelicals believe in a young earth, but many also believe in an old earth, or that God used evolution as His tool in creation, and even when they strongly disagree with each other they accept each other as brothers in Christ and cooperate in ministry with grace. Fundamentalists warn that anything other than a young earth belief is liberal compromise with atheists, and undermines the Bible’s authority, and sometimes even that it sends people to Hell.
  • Evangelicals freely use whatever translation suits their devotional life and ministry; fundamentalists usually only use the KJV. While evangelicals recognize that God’s word is best heard in whatever makes His voice clearest, and so are willing to use the HCSB, ESV, NIV, or NLT with few qualms, fundamentalists don’t trust newer versions and are usually unwilling to go further than the NKJV. Not all of them say the KJV is God’s only word (though many do), but if nothing else there’s usually a very strong preference.
  • Evangelicals believe in culturally appropriate modesty; most fundamentalists tend to straight-jacket attire into very specific and arbitrary forms. Everyone knows that evangelicals care about modesty, and of course it’s a controversial issue even among us. But fundamentalists are often not willing to even participate in this kind of discourse. Many of them are in the “women can’t wear pants” crew, or would balk at girls wearing anything without complete sleeves. They do not see rationally on how culture, modesty, lust, and practicality intersect because of traditions of men.
  • Evangelicals want to help improve the fallen state of the world; fundamentalists are content to condemn people and wait in their pews for the end. Evangelicals are willing to preach that we should help share life and grace in the world not just by witnessing, but also by projects which meet people’s physical, mental, or emotional needs. Food pantries, crisis pregnancy centers, orphanages, and other social projects actually have evangelical volunteers. Fundamentalists tend to simply complain about the state of things and sigh while they wait for Jesus to show up. Some of them even say we shouldn’t bother with these matters when we could be soul-winning.
  • Evangelicals try to win the world to Christ; fundamentalists just talk about soul-winning. In the evangelical world, people actually try to use whatever means they can to show people the life available in Jesus. They, like Paul, are willing to “become all things to all people” to save some. But fundamentalists tend to preach about evangelism, but instead of actually trying to win people they tend to do whatever it takes to repel and disgust them. They’ll witness about grace without using any, or talk about a Jesus no one wants to follow.
Evangelicals vs. Fundamentalists: What’s the Difference?

6 thoughts on “Evangelicals vs. Fundamentalists: What’s the Difference?

  1. Ronald Gordon says:

    I care not about all the definitions – rather I lean toward believing in Jesus Christ and that He was sent to tell us to seek Him/God. I try to avoid sin.

    The Bible was written by man and might not be 100% correct; but is the best choice of all religions/beliefs. We should also lean toward bringing others to seek Jesus Christ/God – be that overtly or by example. To me religion is a belief and it is by faith that I accept it and strive to live according to what Jesus taught us in the Holy Bible.

    I use a parallel Bible with the KJV on one side of the page and the NLT on the other half. I like to use Study Bibles with plenty of additional info. I also like Bible Commentaries; preferably Matthew Henry’s. I do not truly understand the whole concept of the Trinity. I see each one mentioned in the scriptures and choose not to spend time on the purpose(s) of each. Perhaps God was with those in the OT, Jesus was with those in the NT and the Holy Spirit is with us now.

    My concern is to make myself a better person by avoiding as much sin as I can. It is not easy, but I know I’m getting better. Have thought that for the most part – I am a miserable failure as a Christian. But pleased that I am no longer where I was.

    I read where all liars will go to hell, yet read where all believers will be saved. Confusing, but I do not dwell on such matters and trust that I will be “shown or guided” by God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit if I am on the wrong path. I constantly strive to improve my walk as a believer.

  2. Darius says:

    I’m a Catholic, becoming an Orthodox Christian. My overall Christian worldviews in comparison with the Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists is somewhat a mixed bag with some stuff from Evangelicals, others from Fundamentalists, and some independent or in between. For example, while I find that listening to modern music and things like dancing, movies, modern clothing, and mixed swimming is not offensive to God as long as it is done in moderation is not offensive to God as long as it doesn’t contradict the faith, I am at the same time against Ecumenism, I believe that the movement is dangerous, which forces us to sacrifice truth for unity in error. I also opposed to Evolution (though I believe in an Old Earth), believe that the Christian truth has fallen away, and am aware that certain Bible versions can be corrupt, though I’m not a KJV-Onlyite.

    1. Your opposition to ecumenism is not surprising for a traditional Catholic/Orthodox (and I just say Cathlodox for now?), as any attempt to compromise the status of the “true Church” would seem awfully problematic. That said, I don’t believe that there are any truths essential to the Gospel which must be compromised for ecumenical efforts.

      I find it unusual to see a Cathlodox these days opposed to evolution. Why?

      What Christian truths do you believe have fallen away?

      What BIble versions do you think are corrupt, and why?

      1. Darius says:

        I believe that the Majority Text, which is what is in the KJV, NKJV, and the authorized Orthodox Christian text is a better NT text. Do note, that not all Fundamentalist Protestant churches who bash all forms of modern culture and interpret the Bible all literally are KJV-ONLY and some Fundies even use Bible versions like NASB and NIV.

  3. Darius says:

    I would consider myself quite conservative in terms of Christian doctrine and lifestyle but being picky.

So what do you think?