(22 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...I often get asked what the difference is between a fundamentalist and an evangelical, and I’ve realized that in my book on Revelation – almost done with the editing! (I think…) – I may need to address the matter. Here is my first shot at it. Tell me what you think.
******************************
It is rather difficult to differentiate cleanly between “fundamentalists” and other “evangelicals” – in large part because
If you’re interested, join the blog. I provide five posts a week, mainly on the New Testament and early Christianity, but also on modern religion as it relates to them. There is a small membership fee, but it all goes to help those in need. So why not? Click here for membership options
Solid definitions. The only thing I would add is a short contextualiization of fundamentalism: When and where did it first emerge? What was it a reaction to? How marginal or popular is it in 2022?
Thank you for these definitions Dr Ehrman. I found them very useful. It’s amusing that the one part of the NT that Fundamentalists don’t take literally is Jesus’ command to eat ‘my body’ and drink ‘my blood’. Incidentally, I was reading that Evangelicals are poised to replace Roman Catholics as the majority religion in Brazil. BTW, thank you for your response to my previous question about Arianism. It was very helpful.
Jesus explained himself in jn6:36
So all fundamentalists are evangelicals but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists?
Yup.
I’ve always thought of ‘evangelical’ as more of the ‘Inter Varsity’ variety of Christianity (with Campus Life/Youth for Christ more ‘fundamentalist’?). But now-a-days, the media has widened the evangelical brush to include both charismatics and apostolic brands, particularly their practice of prophesying, virtually extending the Canon. No evangelical (or fundamentalist) I grew up with would regard such modern prophecy legitimate. It might be helpful to clarify this ambiguity calling any flavor of Christianity “evangelical”. Just a thought.
Landmarkian, “fundamental” Baptists often do jot identify as Protestant or Evangelical. They have qn idea that they are the true, unbroken Church going back to the apostles. It’s a whole thing, but they would often reject those labels as “too comprising” and “liberal”. The rabbit hole is endless because within THAT sub group is the NEW IFB movement which plants its flag even further to the right side of the spectrum than all of the above.
“Fundamentalists as a result place a heavy emphasis on the literal truth of such traditional Christian doctrines as the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, and the atoning work of his sacrifice on the cross”
Sounds like all the Christians that I know!!
Yup, in some parts of the world, that *is* Christianity.
Wow, that really flabbergasts me, because in Greece virtually *everyone* would be a fundamentalist by your criteria! 😂
And what’s really funny about it is that, here in Greece, when we hear the word “fundamentalist”, we directly associate this word in our minds with the archetypical image of a jihadist! 😂😂 I’m not joking! Dead serious!
Actually, when I first started watching clips of yours on YouTube, and I would hear you say “fundamentalist”, it would really struck me, because in my mind also (as in pretty much every Greek’s), a “fundamentalist” would be a jihadist or some kind of a hardcore Muslim anyway! 😂
It’s funny and at the same time really interesting to elucidate such differences in the use of certain words that can carry radically different connotations depending on where they are spoken and in what context!
In the United States many “Mainline” Protestants, including clergy, would understand the Virgin Birth, for instance, to be a symbolic truth, although not a literal fact, not an actual violation of the laws of science. I would also expect many Roman Catholics to agree.
Fascinating view of how words are interpreted in other pats of the world. And an inadvertent example of importance of good translation for the understanding of a text!
I have a friend at work, a very sweet woman, who told me the vaccine for Covid is forbidden because it says so in the Bible. I told her I would be extremely interested in reading that bit of verse. She said she would bring it in. I asked a few times about it but have yet to see it. I no longer ask as I do not think she either can really produce it or does not know how to communicate the interpretation to do it justice.
Sigh…
Very strange biblical interpretation indeed!
Do most evangelicals really believe in literal hell, that is, eternal punishment which is equivalent to burning?
That would be very bad news, not good news.
Did you believe in literal hell when you were young?
Is there any greek word meaning “bad news” in analogy with “evangelion” meaning “good news”?
Yes they do. And yes I did.
Yup, but it wasn’t used much (I’m not sure it was ever used in Christian texts, but I haven’t checked)
What Greek word is the opposite of “Ευαγγέλιο”???
It would have to be “Δυσαγγέλιο” or something of that sort! But perhaps there is one and I can’t recall it right now!
It’s KAKAGGELIA, but it’s used only a few times in Greek literature, so far as I know. I don’t know if there’s another one.
“Κακαγγελία”??! Wow! I didn’t know that, very interesting!
“Is there any greek word meaning “bad news” in analogy with “evangelion” meaning “good news”?
BDEhrman January 23, 2022 at 7:58 pm – Reply
Yup, but it wasn’t used much (I’m not sure it was ever used in Christian texts, but I haven’t checked)”
Oh c’mon, what is the word???
KAKAGGELIA.
I guess that would meant that a whole lot of so-called Evangelicals I know are more accurately designated “Kakangelicals.”
I’d say that traditionally the Christian message has been bad news followed by good news. Bad news: you’re irretrievably lost and cannot save yourself; Good news: God himself has made your salvation possible through Christ.
Thanks for the reply! I wonder how you, and all others who used to believe in literal hell, or still do, really used to think (or still think). How could one even imagine eternal pain, for billions and billions of years?? How could a good and merciful God do anyhing like that? Not even Adolf Hitler deserves this. The pain and damage he caused was, however enormous, finite. So, I really wonder how anyone could ever believe so. My experience is that when people are pressed, they don’t really believe so, they talk about the pain of being separated from God, not real eternal pain.
Also, not all fundamentalists believe in hell. Neither Jehovah’s Witnesses nor the Seventh Day Adventists do.
We thought that God’s ways weren’t ours and if that’s what he’s decided is right, he, not we, would be the one who would know about that.
I like the early clarification that these represent points on a continuum rather than wholly discrete categories.
When I was an evangelical, I thought there was a big difference between the two. I attended from K-12 a private Christian school in Lynchburg, Virginia. The sponsoring church was more of the Bob Jones version of fundamentalism – Jerry Falwell’s version wasn’t quite conservative enough!
But my family attended a Presbyterian (USA) church whose pastor was a thoughtful evangelical, and graduate of Wheaton College. The differences in approach, atmosphere and intellectual openness between those 2 worlds seemed at the time fairly stark and significant. Then I attended Wheaton College myself and again by comparison it seemed (at the time) an open minded place compared to my fundamentalist high school or fundy Baptist schools some of my friends were attending, and more like the evangelical church of my youth. For example theistic evolution was an acceptable position for science faculty, scriptural “authority” rather than literalistic inerrancy was emphasized by dome professors, and some of my professors were even (quietly) democrats!
Yeah, at Moody we always laught at the students at Prairie Bible Institute who were REALLY conservative. 🙂
You have said that it was the suffering which made you move away from Christianity. Did the (imagined) suffering in Hell matter for this?
Not so much. I was more concerned with what was going on in life, and by the time I was considering the existence of God as a Christian I had already more or less given up on the idea that he was making people roast forever.
(Continued from above) Now that I am neither fundamentalist nor evangelical, from my new vantage point those 2 places on the continuum while still having differences worth noting, now appear much closer to one another in most respects than I once thought and both much farther to the riight of any theological (or political since both seem largely enmeshed in politics as well) “Center” than I once thought them to be. Like on a 10 point scale I’d see fundamentalism as a 1.0 and non-fundamentalist evangelicals ranging between approximately 1.25 and 3. Whereas when I was an evangelical myself I’d have mistakenly placed myself solidly in the reasonable center.
You will find “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation” 2020 by historian Kristin Du Mez. The best-selling book covers the history of evangelicalism in America, especially from the 1940s on, leading to a plausible explanation of why they make up a large segment of the political right. Du Mez provides evidence that the evangelical movement is more of a culture than a religion, where theological beliefs are not the fundamental binding force. Check UTube for numerous interviews and lectures involving author Du Mez.
After going through some more of the Wondrium courses on 20th century development in Europe, I would just comment that Fundamentalism existed before it become more associated with political terms such as ‘far-right’ or ‘far-left’. There are both far-right and far-left liberal ties to Fundamentalism. If we can acknowledge that ‘far-left’ and ‘far-right’ orthodoxies, in both the social and political sense, have been present in embracing and/or abusing traits of Fundamentalism to further their causes, then there is no strong reason to make a direct association with either side. So, while there is little doubt that the ‘far-right’ currently holds a significant portion of the attendance in the Fundamentalist camps, especially within America, that is a fluid variable that does not add much substance to an accurate definition of Fundamentalism. I like the use of ‘literal’ and ‘historical’ in your definition. Evangelicals certainly have little difficulty in trying to adapt to more modern thought and compromise.
I think you’re right on. I grew up in a VERY fundamentalist home. We couldn’t even read the newspaper on Sunday. I agree it’s a continuum very far right to “evangelical”. So do you say evangelical is to the left of fundamentalism? 😉
It took me 40 years to cleanse myself of my childhood fundamentaist experience. I share your journey. I’ve now spent the last 44 years free of guilt and regret.
I was raised in a strict fundamentalist sect: Women were not permitted to speak during services (1 Corinthians 14:34) and were expected to keep their hair long (1 Corinthians 11:15). No television, no movies, no dancing. no going out to play on Sunday. These things are not typical of evangelicals as far as I know. So yes, I would say that evangelism is well to the left of fundamentalism, in my experience at least.
After being spoon fed fundamentalist teachings continuously for 20 years it took me at least another 30 to finally and completely set them aside for good.
My impression is that fundamentalists have sort of co-opted “evangelical” in recent years. The ELCA is a large but not particularly conservative branch of Lutheranism, certainly not compared to Missouri or Wisconsin Synods. 70- some years ago, I asked my dad (a Lutheran minister, then ULCA) what evangelical meant and he indicated that all of our beliefs could be traced to, or were “TRUE TO THE BIBLE”, as opposed to the Catholics, who relied on edicts of Popes, etc..
Do many ‘fundamentalists’ actually self-identify as such?
It’s been my experience that the term is most often used pejoratively even by conservative evangelicals who would bristle or be deeply insulted to be labeled “fundamentalist’.
It’s always other people that are ‘fundamentalist’, never them.
I don’t know for sure. My sense is that for almost every conservative Christian, the fundamentlists are those wackos on their right…
My father was a Presbyterian minister. We always considered ourselves Evangelical and Reformed, not Fundamentalists, but my family had many connections with Presbyterians who had left the United Presbyterian Church and had joined the Bible Presbyterian Church under the leadership of Reverend Carl McIntire. He certainly was proud to wear the label “Fundamentalist Christian.”
McIntire had a national newspaper and radio program. He also made the Historic Beach Resort Town of Cape May, New Jersey, into a Fundamentalist mecca along the lines of Heritage, USA. He established a Liberal Arts College and a Theological Seminary there. When I was a child, my family used to have Sunday dinners at the luxurious, old Christian Admiral Hotel.
The Admiral Hotel had been a high class resort built in 1908 for the exorbitant sum of $1 million dollars. As an investment, it was a flop. As a Cape May legend, it will live on for generations. McIntire saved it from demolition in 1963. Due to his outstanding fundraising savvy, he was the only owner to actually make it pay for itself. There is an excellent history of the building with great pictures on the Cape May Magazine website, dated July, 2016.
These last couple of posts have been really enlightening with regard to clarifying certain terms such as “prophet” and the ones with which you deal here. I would assume that one is getting better at shaping definitions as one is getting older (and more knowledgeable and wise)? I really believe you should do this kind of posts more often – they’re more interesting and valuable than you maybe think.
I also have a question. It sometimes blows my mind to think that really educated people (some maybe as educated as you) can *really* believe that the Bible does not contain any mistakes of any kind whatsoever.
What exactly are your thoughts on this? Do you think they really believe that with all their heart? Or deep down they don’t, but they defend this view for their own reasons? Or is it something in between? Like, they have somehow convinced themselves about it?
I think some absolutely believe it; and I think all *want* to believe it! It’s not that weird though — think of all those unbelievably well trained Muslims who have memorized the Qur’an who think it doesn’t have a single mistake in it….
I remember in one of your debates, in the Q&A section, someone asked something along the lines of why haven’t you done similar scholarship about Islam, and your response was really hilarious, something along the lines of “because I like my life” or something like that – I remember laughing really hard. I think you should stick to this perspective and keep avoiding making remarks about Islam! 😂😂😂
You’re too valuable and you have a lot more to give! You’re not done yet!
I’m not aware of any Protestants, including the older, now marginalized, mainline groups such as Presbyterians and Methodists, who do not believe in “the physical resurrection of Jesus, and the atoning work of his sacrifice on the cross” in a literal sense. Accordingly, I don’t think you can use those specific beliefs to distinguish evangelicals from fundamentalists. Those beliefs are, from my perspective, fundamental to almost all Christians. Fundamentalists do believe in the literal accuracy of every word of the Bible, though, so Jonah really did spend 3 days in the belly of the large fish, and Shadrach, Meshach and Abendneggo (sp) really did sing unscathed in the Babylonian furnace. I do agree that mistrust of science and human knowledge generally help define Fundamentalists, although, as you say, the differences are on a continuum rather than clearly defined.
I actually know a lot of Christians who don’t believe in the literal physical resurrection of Jesus.
I have no doubt that you know such people. I don’t think I expressed myself well in my comment, as I was not talking about individuals, whether they are people sitting in the pews or even standing at the pulpit. I was referring to the official creeds of mainline Protestants, all of which express belief in the literal physical crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. (I researched that before making this reply.) My sole point is that I do not think you can use that belief to draw a line between evangelicals and fundamentalists. While fundamentalists are likely to expouse silly, imho, beliefs, such as the KJV is the only divinely inspired Word of God, it is really, as you said, a continuum where you can’t find one basic theological position that divides the two. My personal unresearched opinion is that the real difference is in how politically conservative the two groups are, and the extent to which politics make it into the church itself.
Yet creeds, such as The Apostles Creed that I said weekly as a Methodist many decades ago, can also be understood symbolically. Is the Son literally seated at the right hand of the Father, since they are both the same Trinitarian God? Many Methodists, including clergy, understand that as a symbolic truth, not a literal seating arrangement. And some denominations, such as the United Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ, say they are non-creedal.
I think that is as good a distinction as I have ever seen expressed. I think the confusion results because most “fundamentalists” tend also to be “evangelical” in the sense that they want everyone to think as they do, but not all “evangelicals” are in any meaningful sense “fundamentalists.” Evangelical Lutherans, for example, are “evangelical” but their own declaration, but not all of them are “fundamentalists,” although some may be.
I am always happy to have a genuine discussion with people who have experiences or well-thought out views that differ from mine, but that is a rare thing to actually accomplish. Too often, people of both labels noted are too interested in converting others into agreement, and not merely exploring or explaining, and most have not really thought things out much at all.
An interesting thought that I have often considered, from time to time, is if God really did present himself to you, personally, how would you explain that to anyone else? Could you do so, and would you attempt it? A fully personal experience, no matter how profound to the individual, is not really transferable. The one trick might be to be able to demonstrate special knowledge.
All I know is they all voted for the same guy. 🙂
You know they all voted for the same guy? Please cite your evidence and tell us who it was. Presumably you have illegal access to voting information, including the ability to match ballots to individual voters. This would require violating election laws in every state and territory.
The point being of course, please keep the discussion appropriate to the blog, and omit your political views
I argue that the terms, “fundamentalists” and other “evangelicals” can also refer to Catholics, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, etc. It refers to a type of mind-set or world view rather than a specific group.
Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. I believe that there were 28,000 distinct protestant denominations in the 1980’s when I researched this.
Some Roman Catholics have “a high view” of the Church – are they evangelicals? They say the Church “makes no mistakes” and the Pope is infallible. They replace the Bible with the Church and the Pope.
“Fundamentalists as a result place a heavy emphasis on the literal truth of such traditional Christian doctrines” and so do most Christian denominations.
Some type of Catholics that I know tend to be “Fundamentalists tend to be right-wing conservatives, socially and politically.” They even voted for Trump.
If I may. . . I cannot agree. Evangelicalism, and its fundamentalist (semi-)offshoot, are specifically products of Luther’s revolt against the Catholic church and its insistence that it alone was capable of understanding the Bible. Luther argued that everyone needs to read the Bible for themselves.
To this day, Catholics accept the magisterium over Scripture. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, argue that their “literal” interpretation of the Bible (usually the KJV translation) trumps everything else. (Also, papal “infallibilty” is a XIX century doctrine and only applies to certain pronouncements ex cathedra.)
Beyond that, one hallmark of both evangelicals and fundamentalists is that one must be “born again,” that is, accept Jesus as their personal savior once they are old enough. Baptism isn’t enough.
Another characteristic that I believe applies to both is a strong focus on the eschaton, in the case of fundamentalists an apocalyptic one, while evangelicals may be more varied. Catholics in particular are amillennialist, following Augustine’s argument. (Individual Catholics may differ.) So are most mainstream Protestants.
Dankoh, and WM I think what you bring up is that perhaps it’s a multivariate thing.. there are certain “conservative” positions that are shared (in a sense) among traditionalists of every denomination (even Orthodox Jews and traditional Muslims) .. kinds of cultural conservatism.
Then there is the importance of the Bible and other kinds of tradition (for Catholics, the Magisterium) .. so for example Catholics are fighting Catholics about the retention of the Latin Mass. Liberals, who argue that they believe in “live and let live” actually don’t when it comes to things that they think are theologically dangerous or wrong. Sigh.
Dankoh gives the example of a focus on the eschaton.. what does a person think about that?
Then there are “evangelical or conservative Christian people” versus “Evangelical or conservative Christian denominations” within each one there is variation. To me, it would be a useful exercise to delineate all the variables… and possibly do a principle components analysis on those variables.
What you are asking is a book. And not a short one, either.
Not all “conservative Christians” are evangelical, and not all evangelicals are conservative (at least in the political meaning of the word; see the National Association of Evangelicals, for example). But the conservative evangelicals make the loudest noise.
There is also confusion arising from using the label “fundamentalist.” As applied here, it refers to a specific ideology spun off from American evangelicalism early in the XX century (or perhaps even late XIX). A minimum definition of an evangelical includes believing that one must have a personal relationship with Jesus (“born again”). A minimum definition of a fundamentalist Christian would, I would say, include a literal reading of the Bible. I am not so sure it includes an imminent expectation of the eschaton (apocalypse, really), but it does seem to be very common.
But “fundamentalist” (unlike evangelical) also can apply to Jews or Muslims, and probably Hindus.
And that’s just for starters.
Well said! Plus I don’t know any devout Christian, liberal or conservative, who denies the divinity and literal resurrection of Jesus.
Ah — we run in different circles then! I know lots who do (liberals).
Interesting!
Excellent.
“Fundamentalists tend to be right-wing conservatives, socially and politically.” That may be true of the USA, even worldwide, but it may be interesting to some that in the UK you can still find left-wing fundamentalists.
I think there’s merit in differentiating between the two, especially regarding lay believers who may not conceive of their faith in fundamentalist ways.
That being said, the whole ‘human knowledge’ apologetic and rejection of modernism (or now postmodernism!) is so widespread in major evangelical denominations, and certainly amongst evangelical thinkers, that I don’t know if this distinction serves any purpose other than to be polite to more ‘refined’ evangelicals who are nonetheless fundamentalist in many ways (they are still strongly ‘orthodox’ but maybe they’re not KJV only or aren’t young earth creationists or don’t teach the *strongest* form of inerrancy). Effectively, I often don’t see a huge difference between many ‘academic’ evangelicals and more blatant ‘fundamentalists’. They both obfuscate and create self-serving histories about why scholarship or the average person doesn’t agree with them on the Bible, on evolution, on gay & transgender people, &c. (the difference being the fundamentalist says things like ‘postmodernist conspiracy or cabal’, the evangelical says ‘postmodern paradigm shift’).
I totally get what you’re saying Bart. I personally tend to be more pragmatic in viewing thinkers and often fail to see any effective difference between the two groups. But I might be too harsh!
Bart,
Perhaps answering said question with a question is in order?
Did God appoint any of these religionistas as chair of Her membership committee? (I think not!)
Who’s in, and who’s out is such a silly contest.
~eric. MeridaGOround dot com
I used to be what I called a Fundamentalist Lite (FLite?). I believed the Bible to be the inspired word of God, but I couldn’t take the timeline (6000+ years), a worldwide flood, other things literally because I had too much science education. After reading through the Bible cover-to-cover I could no longer think of it as the inspired word of a divine being. Whew, what a relief from the cognitive dissonance!
I’d like to hear your thoughts are about the spectrum within liberal Christianity. Is there a point where it would be considered disingenuous to call oneself a “Christian” if certain tenants are not held?
I think everyone has a different view of that. I know some people who think that I should call myself a Christian even though I not only do not believe Jesus is the Son of God but don’t even believe in God! For me there’s a pretty firm line when it comes to God. If I did believe in God but did not believe that Jesus was literally the son of God who was brought back to life and now lives in heaven, I probably (not certainly!) would call myself a Christian but explain what I mean, that Christ, for me, reveals the true identity of God and his will for his people.
Would you then also find a church that did not adhere to the apostles creed? At a point well after not accepting any divinity of Jesus or any biblical paranormal event, I still attended on occasion a Christian Church with my wife for social reasons. So there I was standing with them quietly while they recited the Apostles Creed… until I asked myself why was I standing for something that begins We Believe, and I certainly did not believe.
Yes, there are certainly churches that do not insist on a literal interpretation of the traditional doctrines! But I’ve never felt a strong inclination to start going back to one.
As I said in another thread, this is very relevant to me since my wife is having somewhat of an existential crisis because she sees issues with the Bible but is incredibly fearful about losing her Christianity altogether.
Oh, she doesn’t need to lose everything. I was a very devoted Christian for many years after realizing the Bible has mistakes in it. All of my Christian friends absolutely do, including the two ordained Presbyterian ministers I had a glass of wine with last night!
Dm.. last Sunday I attended my usual church service with a retired Roman Catholic bishop presiding. Because of the reading that day, he talked about Luke/Acts, and how they were stories that were important. I can’t remember the words he used exactly, but I thought “I don’t see a crucial difference between this and current scholarship” but then I am a theological lumper, not splitter.
The only thing that I saw as different was that NT scholars might talk about “the author of Luke/Acts” and he spoke as if there was definitely a Luke, but we didn’t know all that much about him, but thought he was with Paul, was from (I can’t remember sorry) and may have been a physician.
As to your wife, she might enjoy a fun book called “Gospel: A Novel” by Wilton Barnhardt. The Christian characters are manuscript hunters of the Catholic persuasion.. and yet regardless of the nature of the manuscript (revealed at the end) the characters struggle and God Herself is in the background.. For me, it revealed many historic facts of interest I needed to look up.
Spot on!
I grew up, and still am part but trying to leave, in the fundamental Baptist church. I know people who find the adjective “fundamental” offensive, and some who bear it as a badge of honor.
I came to your material a couple of years ago and was blew away by it. Then I understood that almost nothing that you teach is new.
The first time I saw you was in a debate vs James White. So you know, JW is viewed as a liberal where I come from. Pretty far right was I.
I say this bc I know you didn’t enjoy your debate with White. But please understand, some people are so deep in fundamentalism (like me) that just a ray of light from real scholarship shines so bright… I couldn’t get enough of you after that.
I read “how Jesus became God” after that (along with Forged, Misquoting.. and Jesus Interrupted) and finally came out of fundamentalism completely.
To my point, thank you for debating fundamentalists like James White. Your work there may have saved more than one from fundamentalism. At least it helped me.
What do political leanings have to do with defining evangelicals or fundamentalists? It seems that the Christian beliefs of any group can be described without recourse to bringing politics into the discussion, unless being politically conservative is a requirement for being an evangelical or fundamentalist. It may or may not be true that they are mostly conservative, but it doesn’t shed any meaningful light on beliefs, any more than any other non-christian aspect of their lives that could be mentioned. Maybe I’m off base with thinking this way, or maybe just tired of seeing everything cast in right-wing/left-wing terms.
I could give examples of what I mean with, say, the political leanings of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (see https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/ ) versus what they believe, but I don’t think it necessary to make the point.
Anyway, no offense intended! That’s my two-cents worth and the rest of the description seems fine.
No offense taken. For me it is a very, very strange phenomenon, that people with certain religious beliefs take a specific set of political beliefs. But they do and it’s part of what it means to them to self-identify with right wing causes, because they think the Bible says one thing or another (about things the Bible actually says nothing about: gun control, abortion, and so on)
Stranger to me is the idea that of all the people God might have chosen to save the nation from the heathens, he picked someone whose name I hate to even type. Yes, it might be argued that God picks flawed people (what other choice would he have), but Matthew reformed after he was chosen as a disciple, if we accept the story as told, while their chosen one continued to not only revel in his flaws, to to find new ones. They could hardly have picked a worse example of Christian ideals.
This matches with my understanding. I grew up in a denomination that called itself “conservative evangelical”. This was a point of pride, distinguishing them from those anti-intellectual fundamentalists. But there was a spectrum, even within the denomination. Some very “fundy”, a term used by me and friends, some very liberal (compared to me!). I even heard one denominational leader say that he trusted a liberal translation of the Bible more than a conservative one because the liberals tried harder to give an accurate translation, rather than letting tradition get in the way! At any rate, I think your description is pretty much on target.
Before reading the essay by Nathan Finn linked below, I had the impression that all evangelicals believed in biblical inerrancy. Perhaps most do, but some evangelical theologians do not. Although Finn argues for inerrancy, he concedes (and I was very surprised to learn) that even some of the original fundamentalist authors were not inerrantists:
“British theologian James Orr, who contributed to the five-volume project The Fundamentals (1910–15), rejected inerrancy outright in his widely read Revelation and Inspiration (1910). Another contributor to The Fundamentals, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president E. Y. Mullins, emphasized the infallibility of the Bible’s message but was reticent, in his systematic theology (1928), to make claims concerning the text itself.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/inerrancy-evangelicals/%3famp
Evangelicals try to convert people on Bourbon Street on Mardi Gras weekend. Fundamentalists pass ballot referendums to make your hometown a dry county (in a low-turnout election year).
Good one.
It may be worth mentioning that many evangelicals especially fundamentalists are abnormally prone to denying that other Christians are indeed “true Christians”, a trait they share with the sects they consider heretics such as LDS, JW, etc. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and mainline Protestants for example are currently more ecumenical.
Are “conservative” and “traditional” synonyms? If “fundamentalism” is to the far right of the spectrum… Could it be that “Evangelical” is one step closer to the left, while “conservative” and “traditional” are even a step further?
I”d say they are not synonyms, no. It would depend on what “traditions” a “traditionalist” follows.
The irony is that, although many of them will say, “There is the wisdom of man and there is the wisdom of God,” it is the wisdom of man that has decided the Bible is the word of God, that it is without inconsistency and contradiction, and that it should be read literally. They sell the snake oil of a personal experience of Christ as a cure for being fallen–a condition Christians made up by NOT taking Genesis 2-3 literally but making it say things the Hebrew does not say and which the logic of the verses do not imply.
This is an interesting review of a book about women in early Christianity with some new evidence. See
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/recovering-the-female-clerics-of-the-early-church/?mc_cid=3ce616369a&mc_eid=789e44ae1f
Ah, Shaily Patel, one of the authors, was my student.
Just wondering if the inclusion of the Niagra Bible Conference(s) would be helpful or not.
YEs, I’ll be dealing with them in the book at a different point, more fully.
Fascinating, Dr. Ehrman! Additional thoughts:
In the 1980s, I recall hearing the term “Fundamentalist” in the media almost daily…and the connotation was generally pejorative. Fundamentalism, beyond a rigor for fundamentals, was generally characterized as grim, taciturn, unforgiving, judgmental, and humorless. Such that, after a while, only people with those qualities were likely to describe themselves with the “f-word!”
Then came the 1990s and 2000s…and our encounters with the Islamic brand of Fundamentalism did little to improve the stock of this benighted word.
“Evangelical,” on the other hand, started off with a bright future. It had “good news” (and “angel”) sewn right into the fabric of it, right? As a non-Christian, I have also tended to hear this word as having a Charismatic connotation…perhaps because a few Evangelical friends who actually came to their faiths via the Catholic “New Jerusalem” movement. This impression has been further reinforced for me by the popularity of modernist “Contemporary” megachurches – such as (in my SW Ohio area) Crossroads and the Vineyard, as well as by the immense popularity of Contemporary Christian Music…phenomena that I can only imagine would be frowned upon by those dour, disgruntled Fundamentalists.
I think that there are a number of differences both theologically and culturally. Both agree on a set of “fundamentals” such as the inerrancy of Scripture, a literal virgin birth, the atoning death, burial, and fleshly resurrection of Jesus, as well as salvation by faith. Here’s where I see the differences: theologically, a big difference is literalism. Fundamentalists tend to be far more literal in their understanding of the Bible whereas Evangelicals allow for figures of speech, idioms, and hyperbole. A cultural difference is that fundamentalists tend to be “strict constructionists”: you are not allowed to dance, not allowed to drink anything with alcohol, you aren’t allowed anything but very conservative dress, etc. Evangelicals tend to have a “lose constructionist” approach to culture: you are allowed to dance but nothing dirty/sexual. You are allowed to drink but in moderation. You are allowed more liberal dress but nothing provocative. The similarities and differences could probably make a book in itself but this is what comes immediately to mind.
Thanks for clearly explaining the distinction Bart.
Do Catholics not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?
As a rule they certainly believe in the authority of the BIble, but they are not required to believe in teh strict literal interpretation of the whole thing.
I want to echo what sbruck said about fundamentalists’ tendencies to deny that other Christians are “true Christians.” I came out of a fundamentalist group that taught that they were the only ones going to heaven based on adherents’ belief in/obedience to the group’s specific doctrines about salvation, the Godhead, and living a holy lifestyle. No one else was going to heaven. No. One. Additionally, in fundamentalism, there seems to be a lot of power given to local clergy. There is an authoritarianism present related to the pastor of the church and his (not her: no women pastors) ability to tell congregants what they should do with their lives. Pastors were considered oracles of God, and if you didn’t obey your pastor, you were not obeying God. Fundamentalist pastors have a lot of influence over the major life decisions of their congregants.
Dr. Ehrman:
Can you seriously consider composing an essay on this blog on how this “Born Again” movement actually came about? These folks are REAL Anti-Everything except for their own beliefs, especially towards Roman Catholics and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox! I cannot begin to tell you how much castigation is delivered to me by these folks…
I’ll be dealing with it a bit in my book, though possibly not along the lines you’re thinking.
I would argue that there are some fundamentalists who are not evangelical. For instance, some interpretations of Calvinism conclude that those who are saved were set apart for salvation since before they were born, and those who are damned were always going to be damned, and no human agency can affect that. There is therefore no point in trying to convert anyone. These people treat every word of the Bible as literally true, but hold that the Great Commission was only for those in the first century, not those alive today, and that it would be hubris for them to attempt to convert those whom God has not chosen for salvation. Their fundamentalism leads them to reject the evangelical mission. (The view is rare today, but it was much more common in the 17th and 18th centuries; after Lutherans generally found their missions to Jews and Muslim to be ineffective, many were ready to give up on their unrealistic hopes of mass conversions, and this ideology allow them to do so.)
A fascinating post with equally fascinating responses, and does help clear up what has got to be one of the more confusing divisions in Protestantism. I’d add that evangelicals tolerate more diversity and doubt and have a broader political spectrum than fundamentalists. The National Association of Evangelicals, for example, takes a seriously liberal position on global climate change and calls for government action on it, much to the consternation of some fundamentalists.
A question on eschatology, then: From what I’ve seen, fundamentalists are consistently premillennialists (mostly dispensational); are there any exceptions? Evangelicals used to be more postmillenialist, and some still are, so would you agree that’s another generalized distinction (with exceptions)?
Addendum to above: I believe the Christian Reconstructionists (Rushdoony, Gary North, et al.) have been described as “fundamentalist postmillennialists.”
I don’t know for sure — every group has numbers of dissidents, even fundamentalists. But fundamentalism itself arose as a premillennial movement, and in connection with dispensationalism. Evangelicals were traditionally post-millennialists (think: Jonathan Edwards), but for the most part that didn’t survive the trenches of WWI. Most now are pre-millenialists.
I agree with your distinction between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. The other label that gets thrown around a lot is “Liberal Christian” and I wonder how you would define them. An increasingly common response to questions of belief is “spiritual but not religious.” Any thoughts on that one?
They could be that, but most liberal Christians are still religious in that they attend to traditional religious practices They are liberal typically becuase they do not take the Bible as literally true in every way but find it important for guidance, they are not dogmatic, they don’t insist that everyone agrees with them theologically, they recognize that our world is different from the world of the Bible and so do not pretend to adopte ancient codes of ethics in every way, they tend to think God gave them their brain and wants them to use it, that there is nothing to be feared in science, history, and philosophy — etc. etc.
‘A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something.’ (George Marsden, author of various works on evangelicalism and fundamentalism)
Excellent definitions, but I’d agree with a previous post which (essentially) argues that the definitions become more universally useful when you omit the last phrase of the evangelical definition, and omit the last sentence of the fundamentalist definition.
I tend to think also that ‘fundamentalist’ as an identity went into a steep decline post 9/11, and that it has been supplanted by ‘evangelical’, as individuals wanted to avoid the perception of equivalence between their beliefs and those of Al-Qaeda, Salafists and others broadly lumped together in the Western mind as ‘Islamic fundamentalists’.
I went to Biola University for graduate school. The professors there claimed that the term fundamentalists came from Biola faculty and board members who would pass out pamphlets in downtown LA entitled “Fundamentals of the Faith.”
I would love it if Bart would write about “sophisticated Christian” beliefs and something called revisionist theology. As an atheist who was a evangelical, sophisticated Christians are a bit of head scratcher for me. I feel like evangelicals’ beliefs make more sense. Many atheists call these s. Christians intellectually dishonest.
My sense is that the kind of religion one grew up in/with — including which form of Christianity they did — will almost always make the “best sense” to them. It’s probably worth noting that for the vast majority of church history there wasn’t anything like the modern evangelical understanding of the faith; that should probably tell us something… Thanks for the suggestion!
Well, the world ended in 1839 (or maybe it was 1843, I forget), so I don’t even know why or how we are having this discussion.
Great definitions of evangelicals and fundamentalists. It clearly states the difference between the two and is easy to digest.
One suggestion I might have is to read back over the political references and determine what the greater point is in referencing them in this text. The reasons being:
1. While most evangelicals and fundamentalists are conservatives, not all conservatives are evangelicals and fundamentalists (or Christians or believers for that matter).
2. While it is irritating when people try to use politics to force their religious beliefs on society, and while it is absolutely baffling that people think their modern day political beliefs can be found in the bible, I don’t think that’s what your point is in this post. If you are making a bigger point about those issues in this text, then I could see keeping the political references in. But if not, I don’t think the political references belong.
Just my perspective from a readers point of view 😊
Thanks. 1. YEs, I definitely did not mean to say that most conservatives have particular religious views; I was talking about the politics of those who do have such religious views. 2. the point will become important later in the book, when I talk about evangelical support for Israel and disproportionate disinterest in issues connected with the environment and climate change, and how those affect American policy.
Ah, gotcha. Sounds very interesting. Can’t wait to read the book!
Which new book are you writing up Bart?
I’m debating! Just yesterday I finished my book on the Revelation of John, and sent it to my editor (though I’ll still have to do edits once she’s finished looking it over)
…difference between a fundie and an evangelical?
For professional ministers it is often just a modicum of education in a closed environment such as a bible institute or seminary.
“a little learning is a dangerous thing”
–A. Pope
Bart, you state that fundamentalism believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. But that definition leaves me feeling it is missing something important. I can’t quite put my finger on it. It has something to do with their ability to read Leviticus and become militant homophobics but simply ignore the other commandment to not eat shellfish. (Ever see a protest outside Red Lobster?) Or their ability to ignore the New Testament admonition that women must keep their head covered. I remember once reading a Baptist pamphlet entitled, “Let the Bible speak about speaking in tongues.” The main point was that the Bible says, “Where there are tongues, they shall cease” and this was used to emphatically state that the Bible teaches us there is to be no more speaking in tongues. Funny, they seemed to ignore the very next verse which says, “Where there is knowledge, it shall pass away” because, frankly, I found them quite lacking in knowledge. Anyway, I don’t know how to add this to your definition but I don’t believe it can be right if it doesn’t somehow include the concept that they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible only when it suits them.
My sense is that fundamentalists are not unique in cherry-picking among the Scriptures they find authoritative, but that this is a feature common to every Christian group, and, in my experience, every CHristian individual. Fundamentalists would say that the laws, e.g., were inerrant for their time, but not for today.
While it’s true: Fundamentalism is a kind of far-right conservative evangelicalism that stresses the inerrancy of the Bible;
Aren’t there other variants beside this one ?
Where Fundamentalist (ie: christian fundamentalist) do not have to be Evangelicals. Take monk’s or nun’s for instance, both can be pretty fundamental, while at the same time not evangelical. Particularity since we’ve also agreed or accepted to limit Evangelist as being Protestant only in your opening definition.
Or for another the non-Trinitarian . Who technically reek of extreme fundamentalism, while vehemently protesting Protestantism. I’m guessing, these guys are another layer of fundamental (or even more fundamental) than the guys in your description? Yet, not welcome in most Evangelical’s home.
Just wondering if the second half was perhaps a bit narrow?
OK, thanks. Yes, I was speaking of Protestant fundamentalists. I’ll make sure I’m a bit clearer.
Dr. Ehrman, are you familiar with Kristin Du Mez’s 2020 best-selling book “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation”? If not, I hope you will read it. She makes a strong case that evangelicalism is a culture far more than it is a religion. Significant numbers of self-proclaimed evangelicals attend church once a year or less (range of 40%-50%). Rather than theological beliefs, they are held together by cultural issues and wars, including views on a chain on authority (God—>religious leaders—>political leaders—>men—>women—>children), acceptance of authoritative male leaders (even if misbehaved), mistrust of “experts” etc. This book offers a much broader understanding of evangelicals than what you provide, and has revolutionized my understanding of evangelicalism and the political power they enjoy.
The video, link below, provides a quick summary of her motivation in writing the book, and its content. Du Mez, a Christian in the Reformed community, is talking to students at Dordt University, her alma mater. Start at about 3.40 and stop before the Q & A ending. UTube offers many other interviews and lectures featuring Du Mez and her book.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgwyj1MoeDE&t=1248s
Thanks. Yes, I do know the book. Thanks. I may need to reconsider how I frame my discussion; I was directing it to people who want to know the difference between evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.
I know evangelism now has a common, colloquial meaning that is tied to the concept of proselytization, but I was always taught that, historically, the evangelicals essentially *are* fundamentalists who broke away from the fundamentalist movement in the 1940’s, due to different opinions on how Christians should engage with the world. Although the two groups (which began as a single group) shared the same beliefs about the “Fundamentals,” in 1941, there was a split, after Rev. Carl McIntire founded the American Council of Christian Churches, which called for Christian separatism from hostile cultural forces, leading many fundamentalists to shun secular culture and anyone who interacted with it. The evangelicals were fundamentalists who disagreed with this, and thus broke off to form their own movement, but still shared the remaining views, such as the belief in biblical inerrancy, the importance of being “born again,” etc. If that history and definition is correct, the evangelicals are more problematic for society, because they’re the ones who attempt to force those views upon it, rather than just keeping to themselves about their beliefs.
Ah, right — that is ineed part of the more recent story. But there were evangelicals who were understood to be evangelicals before the fundamentalist movement kicked in especially in the 1890s and then the 1920s.
Dr Bart,
I am intrigued that you used the term “personal relationship with Jesus” in your effort to explain the difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalisim. As someone who became “born again” after college, entered the ministry, pastored for more than 4 decades, and read through the Bible entirely more than 40 times I have always been fascinated by this elusive term. What exactly is a personal relationship? In these days of CoVid we distinguish “in person” from “virtual” learning by the bodily presence of 2 persons in some sort of physical proximity. So by today’s use my personal relationship with Jesus all those years was not truly personal. In fact it was not even equal to a virtual encounter between a teacher and student today. Looking back now, it was all imaginary. So evangelicals have an imaginary relationship with Jesus. “He lives within my heart” , and “He walks with me, and He talks with me and tells me I am His own”. How would you today describe your “personal encounter” with Jesus as a teenager? To claim that one has a personal relationship with Jesus is a discussion stopper.
Right! I am decided not saying that they have an *actual* relationship with Jesus. But this is the language that gets used, as you know, to emphasize that it is not some kind of remote transcendant being they worship but one deeply intwined in their soul…. ANd yes, it’s a discussion stopper, as are most religious claims when you think aobut it. They are not subject to verification the way many other claims are. Then again, my own personal emotional states are not subject to verification either. To say “it’s all in your head” for me is a tautology. Where else would our inner experience be?
I am over 80, so I have memories going back to the 1940s. I was raised in a proudly fundamentalist (non)denomination. As I recall, there were precisely nine fundamentals, failure to subscribe to all of which would disqualify you as a true Christian and bar you from heaven. Do I remember right, and if so can someone point me to a source for the nine fundamentals? As I recall, one of them was belief in a “personal Devil” (not just as a personification of evil.) It seems it was not enough to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, you must also accept Satan as your personal Devil (tongue planted firmly in cheek!).
Also, taking an interest in politics of any kind was severely frowned upon. We were citizens of God’s kingdom and should not be involved in the political affairs of an earthly kingdom. My parents even thought it was unChristian to vote. How this has changed over the course of my lifetime!
Addendum to above: How personal can a relationship be with someone you have never encountered with your senses?
I guess it happens on the Internet a lot…