Fundys, Evangelicals and the Eye of a Needle …

I minister in a church sub-culture that has no understanding of the fundamentalism/evangelical debates. I received theological training from an excellent fundamentalist seminary. But, the church I serve has no self-conscious fundamentalist identity, even though it’s a member of the GARBC. It’s an “evangelical” church, though many members might not know exactly what that means.

Recently, a church member asked me what an “evangelical” is, what a “fundamentalist” is, and how they’re different. This article is basically how I answered. It’s a short answer. But, I think it captures the basic distinction between the two groups.1

Fundamentalism in America began as a protest movement within conservative Christian circles in the late 19th century. Christian leaders in churches, bible colleges, seminaries and denominations began to be aware of a revisionist, unorthodox approach to the Bible and theology. There was a willingness to reevaluate the integrity of the Bible, how it was transmitted and preserved, whether Adam and Eve were real people, whether Moses really wrote the Pentateuch, whether Isaiah really wrote all of Isaiah, whether Jesus was really conceived by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, whether miracles really happened, and more. This openness to “new ideas” began in seminaries and gradually filtered down to the pulpits in local churches of many denominational stripes.

Fundamentalism was a movement that fought against that. It marshalled brilliant men; pastors, theologians and laymen, to make the case for orthodoxy. Working in very loose, often disjointed concert, men from many denominations fought this revisionist approach in the denominations, bible colleges, seminaries and churches. They fought them for several decades.

They lost. They lost big.

Throughout the mid-1920s and 1930s, some fundamentalists stayed within their now compromised denominations for various reasons. The forerunners of what became the Conservative Baptist movement stayed within the Northern Baptist convention for about two more decades. Others led their churches out of the denominations to form protest movements. The Baptist Bible Union (now the GARBC) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church are examples.

Until the 1940s, fundamentalists generally thought of themselves as “evangelicals.” The words were synonyms. They meant something like “conservative, bible-believing Christian.” It meant you believe generic Protestant orthodoxy and were probably somewhat loud about it.

So, why are the terms different, today?2

They’re different because the conservative Christian movement split in the mid-1940s through the late 1950s. It didn’t split over doctrine per se. It split over mood, over approach, over mindset. It split because two camps arose within this big tent, and each had very different approaches to Christian life and ministry. This is where conservative Christianity largely split into two camps; fundamentalist and evangelical. Roger Olson explains:3

The difference between early fundamentalism and later fundamentalism is not so much one of doctrine as of mood. The single most important distinction between them has to do with late fundamentalism’s adoption of a militant stance toward exposing the ‘heresies’ of other Christians and of a policy of separation not only from liberal Christians but also from fellow evangelicals who do not separate from liberal Christian denominations and organizations.

This “mood” is indeed different, and so is the mission. First-stage fundamentalism (Olson’s term) was a protest movement to preserve generic Protestant orthodoxy. This remains part of its core ethos even today. The overwhelming amount of literature and media designed to protect and equip the church against heresy is produced by evangelicals.

However, second-stage fundamentalism is less about combatting theological revisionism and more about separation from perceived heresies and “disobedient brethren.” Fundamentalist literature preaches avoiding perceived compromise and emphasizes personal holiness. It spends little time combatting heresy, and the movement’s influence and reach is so small that even if it did commit the resources to do so, its message likely wouldn’t reach much beyond its own constituency. Tellingly, its best scholars are often educated at evangelical institutions.

The doctrine is largely the same. The mood is different. David Beale called pre-1930 fundamentalism “non-conformist,” and post-1930 fundamentalism “separatist.”4 The ethos changed. Some agreed, and others didn’t. Thus, the split. In many cases, the heirs of first-stage fundamentalism refer to themselves as “evangelicals” today. Likewise, many second-stage fundamentalists own the “fundamentalist” label proudly. Some examples may help:

  • The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a first-stage fundamentalist denomination and is a decidedly “evangelical.” It engages the culture and pushes aggressive orthodoxy. It does not focus on separation.
  • The Conservative Baptist movement left the Northern Baptist convention in the early 1940s. It later split into various factions amidst sustained and unfortunate infighting; it was a fundamentalist/evangelical split in microcosm. The heirs of this split include, respectively, the FBFI and CBAmerica. Many readers here are well aware the FBFI is a solidly fundamentalist organization. CBAmerica is evangelical.
  • The GARBC, formerly the Baptist Bible Union left the Northern Baptist Convention in 1923. Whatever it used to be, it is a solidly evangelical association of churches today. It recently changed its purpose statement to drop legacy language from the fundamentalist/evangelical split.

The difference in mood is even clearer if you example mission or vision statements:

  • CBAmerica (evangelical): Its vision is “Gospel-centered transformational churches in every community.”
  • FBFI (fundamentalist): “FBFI’s Vision is to perpetuate the heritage of Baptist Fundamentalism complete, intact, pure, and undiluted to succeeding generations of fundamentalists.”
  • GARBC (evangelical): It’s mission is to “champion biblical truth, impact the world for Christ, perpetuate a Baptist heritage” and to “advance the association churches.”

So, what is the difference between “fundamentalism” and “evangelicalism,” today? We can draw these general observations:

  • Fundamentalism, at its best, is generally concerned with personal holiness and local church purity in practice and doctrine. The content of this holiness and church purity will vary according to the particular flavor of the movement to which the group or church belongs. Its doctrinal emphases are often framed through a prism of separation from compromise and combined with a remnant mindset. Its rhetorical foe is often not theological revisionism, but evangelicalism – those who are believed to have “compromised.” The movement’s essence, according to Beale, is “unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures.”5
  • Evangelicalism, at its best, is concerned with evangelizing the world and preserving generic Protestant orthodoxy. Its scholars produce mass amounts of literature and media to equip the church to navigate a complex and changing world. Its name is synonymous with “conservative Christian.” Roger Olson explained, “[t]he genius of evangelicalism is its combination of orthodox Protestantism, conservative revivalism, and transdenominational ecumenism.”6

Or, to generalize further:

  • Fundamentalism is about purity and holiness. It wants you to obey the Bible, and it wants you to stay away from folks who allegedly don’t.
  • Evangelicalism is about the Gospel and protecting the faith from those who want to re-define it.

Many conservative Christian groups in America today are heirs of the fundamentalist-evangelical tradition. Most of these took a side during or after the big split. Where you find yourself is not so much a matter of doctrine, but of mood, approach and emphasis. Both movements try to do good things, necessary things, biblical things. Evangelicalism today takes many forms. Fundamentalism is dying as a movement, but its ethos may well live on.

J.C. Ryle gave his summary of the “evangelical religion” a long time ago, in a different context. He had five headings:7


This encapsulates the Christian faith and message so well. It doesn’t distort a good thing out of proportion by framing the Gospel and the Christian life through a prism of separation from error, real or imagined. It’s a balanced expression of divine truth. I admire that old Anglican, and that admiration forces me to align myself with “evangelicalism” today.


1 This is not a comprehensive history of either movement, and it doesn’t pretend to be. It doesn’t malign Billy Graham. It doesn’t mention Billy Graham. It’s a very brief, 500 mph drive-by discussion to orient a reader to the general “lay of the land” who knows nothing about this chapter in American religious history. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. To those that don’t, well … what else do you expect from a “convergent!?”

2 Roger Olson lists seven different ways the term “evangelical” is used in contemporary culture (Pocket History of Evangelical Theology [Downers Grove: IVP, 2007] 7-14). The etymology is fascinating and instructive.

3 Ibid, Pocket History, 84-85.

4 David Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1950 (Greenville: Unusual Publications, 1986), 5.

5 Ibid, 1.

6 Olson, Pocket History, 15.

7 J.C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman, 10th ed. (London: William Hunt, 1885), 3-7.

4 thoughts on “Fundys, Evangelicals and the Eye of a Needle …

  1. Tyler, I think you basically have it right, except that you imply that fundamentalism was the driver behind the evangelical/fundamentalist split. It was quite clearly the other way around, and it wasn’t because the fundamentalists were somehow more concerned with purity/separation than ever before. It was because the evangelicals deliberately began building bridges with the liberals they formerly eschewed.

    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

    1. I tried to stay on the fence about who left who. I think both mindsets existed uneasily for a while, until they couldn’t any longer. Massee, for example, was clearly more moderate than the folks who eventually left the NBC first. It was Massee’s successors within the NBC who eventually left and formed the Conservative Baptist mobvement in the early 1940s.

      Graham was obviously one big catalyst behind the ultimate break. But, I think he was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. He was the lightening rod that exposed the difference in mood, ethos and approach that had existed uneasily within the evangelical/fundamentalist camp for a while.

      It would be interesting to chart how ethos has shifted. The GARBC left the the NBC first, and what became the Conservative Baptist movement stayed behind. This implies the GARBC was more separatist and the CBs were more moderate. But, the mood has clearly flipped. The old hard-core CBA groups are now more separatist than the GARBC!

      From an outsider’s perspective, it seems like one could tentatively classify CBAmerica (the old “soft-core” CBA group) into the same general orbit as GARBC – but I’m not sure. Likely the same with the IFCA.

      But, the separatist reveral of the GARBC and the hard-core CBA groups is interesting, to me.

      1. Tyler, I’m not referring to the splits in the Baptists. Various individuals left the NBC at various times. Takes time for some to come to grips with the need to split.

        What I am referring to is the evangelica/fundamentalist split. The way you describe it seems to assign the blame to the fundamentalists, but they didn’t actually go anywhere. A group of younger leaders came up who thought the older fundamentalists were all too harsh, that they could do better by having a more open attitude towards liberals, and so they took most of the conservative coalition of evangelicalism in their direction, with largely disastrous results overall.

        As for the Baptist groups, I think you don’t have a good grasp on where they all are or where they have been. The CBA would be quite a bit further left than GARBC, I think. And I think the GARBC is less “evangelical” than you assume, though I realize you are involved with them and might know better. Nevertheless, my impression is that there are still fairly strong separatist elements in the GARBC, and some states more so than others.

        Don Johnson
        Jer 33.3

      2. I think the GARBC varies by state, but their national ethos has llittle to do with seperation – see their new purpose statement. I suspect CBAmerica is a bit more left, but generally in the same orbit. But, I’m not sure. I have a pastor friend who is involved with them and likes them.

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s