"The most important aspect of Christianity is not the work we do, but the relationship we maintain and the surrounding influence and qualities produced by that relationship. That is all God asks us to give our attention to, and it is the one thing that is continually under attack.
"
- Oswald Chambers, My Utmost For His Highest
Thursday, July 3, 2003
I found it somehow appropriate that, while the whole little Catholicism and Protestantism discussion was going on (irenically here; polemically elsewhere), I happened to be reading The Legacy of Sovereign Joy, in which John Piper traces the roots of the evangelical concept of prevailing grace to the lives and theology of three men: Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.
Finishing that book and seeking material in a similar vein, I have started John Stott's Evangelical Truth and R.C. Sproul's Getting the Gospel Right, both of which attempt to encourage evangelical unity by reiterating evangelical distinctives.
What I have found fascinating is the points of difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists systematized in a way I've never seen before. I have never liked the label "fundamentalist," and I don't appreciate it when it is applied to me. But this has normally been because of its negative connotation. I always thought that fundamentalism, as originally conceived, was pretty right-on.
But it seems that Christian sociologists and historians are now asserting that true fundamentalists are actually fulfilling the fundamentalist stereotype, so much so that the "evangelical" must not be thought of as merely a nicer and newer replacement word, but as a whole other subspecies of Protestant.
Stott lists 10 distinctions between evangelicals and fundamentalists, by his own admission focusing on the "negative" (yet obvious) tendencies of fundamentalists:
1. Human thought. Fundamentalists in general distrust scholarship and can be very anti-intellectual. Evangelicals on the other hand, believe all truth is God's truth, that our minds are God-given, and that we insult God when we fail to think and use logic (or science when it is appropriate).
2. The nature of the Bible. Fundamentalists adhere to a literalism so broad, even they are doomed to violate it. (Stott points out: "Not even the most extreme fundamentalist believes God has feathers" (Ps.91:4).") Evangelicals, however, while believing that whatever the Bible affirms is true, add that some of what it affirms is figuratively or poetically (rather than always literally) true and is meant to be interpreted thus.)
3. Biblical inspiration. Fundamentalists belief in this regard tend to view the inspiration of Scripture as having occurred in a somewhat mechanical process (Stott points out, much like Muslims see Muhammad taking dictation from Gabriel) in which the human authors were fairly passive. Evangelicals emphasize, however, that the divine Author spoke through human authors while they were in full possession of their faculties.
4. Biblical interpretation. Stott writes, "Fundamentalists seem to suppose that they can apply the text directly to themselves as if it had been written primarily for them. They then ignore the cultural chasm which yawns between the biblical world and the contemporary world." Evangelicals insist on interpretation before application and strive not to let the latter inform the former. Evangelicals struggle more with cultural contextualization than do fundamentalists.
5. The ecumenical movement. While Stott affirms that there is ample justification for suspicion in the ecumenical movement, he senses an undue paranoia in fundamentalism. He cites fundamentalist lack of critical thinking and abundance of inflammatory rhetoric. Evangelicals, while generally cautious about the liberal tendency in the ecumenical movement, prefer to affirm what is good and reject what is not on a more case-by-case basis.
6. The church. Fundamentalists tend to hold to separatism and to community withdrawal. They can be isolationist, believing "being not of the world" involves to whatever extent possible "not being in it." They promote schisms between themselves and those who are not as dogmatic about non-essentials in doctrinal matters. Most evangelicals, while affirming the truth in seeking doctrinal and ethical purity in the church, believe that perfect purity cannot be attained in this world. Stott adds, "The balance between discipline and tolerance is not easy to find."
7. The world. Stott writes, "Fundamentalists have tended sometimes to assimilate the world's values and standards uncritically (e.g., in the prosperity gospel) and at other times to stand aloof from it, fearing contamination. By no means all evangelicals escape the charge of worldliness. Nevertheless, at least in theory they seek to heed the biblical injunction not to conform to this world and are also anxious to respond to the call of Jesus to penetrate it like salt and light in order to hinder its decay and illuminate its darkness." Evangelicals, I might add, also view changing the culture from within as more valid, more Scriptural, and more effective than shouting at it from the outside.
8. Race. Stott here points out that, while racism and bigotry is not foreign among evangelicals, fundamentalists -- especially in the United States and South Africa -- cling to the myth of white supremacy and defend racial segregation.
9. Christian mission. Fundamentalists seem to equate mission/evangelism with merely preaching the gospel. Evangelicals, in an effort to live out the merging of faith and works, affirm social responsibility.
10. Christian hope. Fundamentalists tend to dogmatize eschatology, particularly their understanding of it, which often refers solely to the future. (Which, I could point out, usually in their views refers to the present -- as in, "We are definitely living in the last days," a cry Christians have heard for the last 1000 years.) Stott writes, "[Fundamentalists] often go into considerable detail about the fulfillment of prophecy, divide history into rigid dispensations and also espouse a Christian Zionism that ignores the grave injustices done to the Palestinians. Evangelicals, however, while affirming with eager anticipation the personal . . . and triumphant return of our Lord Jesus Christ, prefer to remain [generally] agnostic about the details on which even firmly biblical Christians have differing viewpoints."
By Stott's own admission, these are "tendencies" and aren't intended to represent all fundamentalists (or evangelicals). In fact, very often semantics get in the way. So there are plenty of evangelicals who still prefer the term fundamentalist, just as there are plenty of fundamentalists who like the new-fangled term evangelical. So disregard the terminology for a second and just consider the tendencies. Odds are, you understand the difference and can even bring to mind Christian brothers and sisters who fit in to each.
I do think Stott overstates some of the distinctions. Race, in particular, strikes me as true, but not prevailing. In other words, I think the number of people who are really fundamentalists who subscribe to some sort of organized racist ideology is lower than he probably thinks. (Although his general point, that prejudice persists in all stripes of Christianity, is undoubtedly true.)
[Hate to kick the "When Grace Tarries" blog off the main page, but oh well. Check out the left nav bar for added comments, as it is very much "a living document." Pregnancy updates will be added there until the blessed event finally occurs.]
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/337.
Comments on "Evangelicalism Versus Fundamentalism":
2. jen
- 07/03/2003 4:16 pm CDT
Excellent, excellent. *nodding in agreement*
It's hard to quantify the difference sometimes - especially when defending the Christian faith to an unbeliever who raises the red flag of fundamentalism as a barrier. This post is a great tool I think I can use now. Thanks!
On a more personal note, I used to be on the more fundy end of the spectrum. Growing up Southern Baptist and sort of sheltered in a Baptist college made that pretty easy. I'm happy to say that my years with Young Life "softened" me to the evangelical end where I am today.
And I can think of several people who are pretty fundy, I make it my mission to challenge their thinking when I can. 
3. Jared
- 07/03/2003 4:24 pm CDT
Bill, you're right -- they really are important and educational. Going further into the book (and Sproul's, whose book I am not as far into as Stott's -- just started them both today), I am "seeing again for the first time" the supremacy of the Word Incarnate as revealed in the Word in Canon.
Stott finds it helpful to distill evangelical truth into a trinitarian model:
Father - grace
Word - faith
Spirit - works
I usually read one fiction and one non-fiction at a time. Since Stott's and Sproul's books are relatively short and about the same subject, I'm considering them both my one non-fiction. I finished Auster's Invention of Solitude (which wasn't really fiction; more like a fiction approach to autobiography), so since everyone is dying to know my current fiction selection is Charles Dickens's "Great Expectations." B/c it stood out to me as I perused my shelves (the pregnancy and what-not in my mind) and b/c I don't read enough of the (fiction) classics.
What was Lewis's dictum? Something like, for every new book you read, read three old ones.
I know I butchered that quote.
4. Jared
- 07/03/2003 4:38 pm CDT
Jen, I hate it when someone I'm discussing/debating with yanks out the ol' "fundy" label. First, it doesn't apply to me. Second, they mean it in a derogatory sense and like it is some sort of trump card that puts me in my place. "Wow, I really am an idiot. Can't respond to you now."
These folks usually presuppose that because I am not a member of one of the big "traditional" denominations (Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian), I MUST be "one of those fundamentalist" people. Yeah, excuse me while I move my God Hates Fags picket sign. Sheesh.
I have seen Catholics do this, too (though have never had one do it to me), assuming I guess that anyone who is not a Catholic and considers themselves "born again" is a fundy.
I think that Mark dude who was discussing homosexuality with us in the "Time to Face Facts" blog used the fundy label on me, too.
These people don't like to be labeled -- liberal, radical, Mariolatry, etc -- so I wish they wouldn't do it to us.
I grew up in the Southern Baptist tradition, as well. And while there were always fundy elements present, I was lucky -- or shall I say blessed? -- enough that the churches in general practiced Christian liberty very well. I mean, I hear horror stories from SBC defectors about how they couldn't play cards or go to movies or wear makeup (the girls, that is), or how their preachers just thundered on fire and brimstone, etc. I never had any of those experiences. Plus, I had/have great parents who didn't instill ignorance and intolerance in me.
While I don't consider myself Southern Baptist today (I haven't been a member of an SBC church in almost 10 years), and while I continue to be troubled by the denomination's gradual circling of the wagons (firing missionaries, ammending the statement of faith every few years, ostracizing so-called "moderates," etc), I have a lot of affection for the SBC's tradition. After all these years of non-denominationalism, I still like how the (original) Baptist Faith and Message was broad enough to be inclusive, yet just narrow enough to hit on the essentials. You can be a Calvinist Southern Baptist or an Arminian Southern Baptist; you can be a charismatic Southern Baptist or a cessationist Southern Baptist; you can be a premillennialist Southern Baptist or an amillennialist Southern Baptist (or anything in between); you can be an old-timey traditional music Southern Baptist or a drums-in-church rock-and-roll Southern Baptist. This is not the case in many, many denominations and traditions which define themselves often on non-essentials -- free will, charismata, etc.
5. R. Alex
- 07/03/2003 6:25 pm CDT
The question I have (and I'll ask it on Thinkings, too), is that if this is the difference between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, what is the distinction between Evangelicals and Mainline (often Methodist or other "moderate" denominations) Christians that are ordinarily not considered such? Is it a matter of degree?
6. Jared
- 07/03/2003 7:17 pm CDT
Pretty much all the mainline denominations would fall into the evangelical camp, including mainline Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. It is broad enough to "tolerate" conservatives, moderates, and (some sorts of) liberals. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is exclusively "conservative," but I put that word in quotes because it is erroneous to suggest that by contrast evangelicalism is not conservative.
In fact, the default for evangelicalism is a conservative theology and a moderate sociology. A few liberals would consider themselves evangelical, but by and large evangelical spokesmen (of all denominations and traditions) do not consider theological or even social liberals to be tried-and-true evangelicals. So in that sense, the Methodist, Presybterian, Lutheran, and (a few) Baptist denominations/traditions who, for instance, ordain homosexual clergy or perform homosexual marriages would be considered too liberal to be real (or maybe "orthodox") evangelicals.
The term evangelical is broad enough to include Protestants of all stripes, but is narrow enough theologically to weed out the ones who do not affirm the classic essentials of the Christian faith -- authority of Scripture, virgin birth of Jesus, the Incarnation, the classical view of the Trinity, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, etc.
But where fundamentalism can be typified by extreme sectarianism on behalf of non-essential views -- charismata, narrow definitions of Christian liberty, Calvinism or Arminianism, etc -- evangelicalism is inclusive enough to grant "liberty in non-essentials.";"0
7. LilacRose
- 07/06/2003 5:25 pm CDT
It seems any theologically conservative Christian can get the "fundie" label slapped on them these days. Thinkling Jared makes it...
8. Dead Man Blogging
- 07/09/2003 9:06 am CDT
As a self-titled fundamentalist, I want to present my own side of 10 distinctions between fundamentalists and evangelicals as presented on Thinklings.org. Please note that I'm using "evangelicals" and "fundamentalists" in the way that those terms ...
9. alison
- 07/09/2003 12:30 pm CDT
Thanks so much for this article. It really clarified a lot of stuff for me. I can't wait to read the books.
10. Vessel of Honour
- 07/09/2003 1:11 pm CDT
I'm a little late to this party, but I thought Jared's entry on Fundamentalism vs. Evangelicalism was worth reflecting on. Jared just had a baby daughter by the way, so a hearty congrats to him and his family. Of course...
12. Jared
- 07/09/2003 5:36 pm CDT
Yeah, I saw them. See my parody of nobody in particular. ;-)
Actually, it was funny that Mac weighed in, since I had been composing my parody in my head all day after seeing a previous trackback. (Btw, that person seems to misunderstand several of the points, particularly the bit about contextual interpretation.) When I got ready to post my parody, I saw that Mac had referred to us, as well. I took that as confirmation that my humorous contribution was warranted.
I should mention, though, that Mac's post was more thoughtful and interesting than I expected. He too seems to misunderstand some of the points -- evangelicals typified by charismatics and fundies typified by SOUTHERN Baptists? huh? -- but his take was surprisingly non-reactionary.
13. tray
- 07/09/2003 6:25 pm CDT
thanks! useful post. :-) this is why i don't read books... my attention span can't handle much more than someone's blog about a book. it's like cliff notes... blog style *grin*
14. Jared
- 07/09/2003 6:51 pm CDT
I appreciate the positive comments.
But I want to point out to those interested in Stott's book (and those who are decrying it) based on this excerpt, that the book is NOT about fundamentalism versus evangelicalism. This is just a brief excursus from an introductory chapter that I found interesting and wanted to post to elaborate on my own feelings and perspectives.
Stott's book EVANGELICAL TRUTH is an attempt at unifying all evangelicals (including fundamentalists, who would fall under the broad evangelical umbrella) by reiterating the fundamental evangelical truths.
Here they are, straight from the pages of the book:
Stott expounds on a six-fold list first introduced by J.I. Packer. The main points are Packer's; the parenthetical elaborations are Stott's.
The first three are reflections of Trinitarian reality -- the Declarative Word of God, the Word-Made-Flesh of God, the Work of God.
1. The supremacy of Holy Scripture (because of its unique inspiration)
2. The majesty of Jesus Christ (the God-man who died as a sacrifice for sin)
3. The lordship of the Holy Spirit (who exercises a variety of vital ministries)
The next three are further sub-sets, elaborations that correspond to the first three -- #4 to #1, #5 to #2, and #6 to #3.
4. The necessity of conversion (a direct encounter with God effected by God alone)
5. The priority of evangelism (witness being an expression of worship)
6. The importance of fellowship (the church being essentially a living community of believers).
Hope this helps, as this is really what the book is about. Sproul's book, by the way, does not refer to fundamentalism much (so far, anyway). In fact, Sproul is reiterating evangelical distinctives in part to distinguish evangelicals from Roman Catholics. Sproul is more explicitly anti-ecumenical than Stott (although, as some critics of my blog seem to have missed, Stott says that the ecumenical movement justifies suspicion).
What I want most of all is for the criticism to be leveled at me and not Stott. I am not representing him (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting him). I am merely using an excerpt from his book to demonstrate my own views.
This is from a passage preceding the 10 fundy vs. evangy points passage:
"The difficulty in establishing what these points are is due to the fact that fundamentalism has never clearly defined itself over against evangelicalism or published a broadly accepted doctrinal basis [Jared's note: He's well aware of the original series of THE FUNDAMENTALS, from which fundies derive their name]. In seeking now to do the opposite, namely to distinguish evangelicalism from fundamentalism, I shall no doubt be guilty of generalizing and caricaturing. But I ask my readers to bear in mind that what I am attempting to portray below is not identifiable individuals or groups but certain contrasting tendencies. I fully recognize that my portrait of fundamentalism may fit an old-style American version but not some of our contemporaries who retain the label while rejecting some of the substance. Similarly, my portrait of evangelicalism is idealized, for alas! some contemporary evangelicals claim the name but do not live up to the ideal.";"0
15. Robert Williams
- 07/10/2003 7:14 am CDT
Which is to say, Stott is not concerned with accuracy or fairness. He generally uses negative generalizations and caricatures of fundamentalists. But if you challenge the generalization, either (1) he didn't mean you, or (2) you're holding onto the label but rejecting the old-style version of fundamentalism,, or (3) you misunderstood him. If you challenge his almost entirely positive characterization of evangelicals, well, that's because they aren't TRUE evangelicals.
This is just unfair, and by definition, irrefutable. It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
If you want to criticize fundamentalists and compare them to evangelicals, that is fine with me as long as you strive for accuracy and fairness. I don't think this post does.
16. Robert Williams
- 07/10/2003 8:15 am CDT
I should also add that my response was (intentionally) inaccurate and used caricaturized generalizations in a retaliatory way.
Did you (evangelicals) like being caricaturized and generalized? Did you like me using only the worst characteristics of the most liberal evangelicals to describe all evangelicals? Did you think it was fair for me to use only the most positive characteristics of fundamentalists to paint that "us vs. them" portrait?
We didn't like it either.
I don't think all evangelicals are a bunch of liberals who interpret away the Bible, embrace the world, and like women preachers. I go to an evangelical church! My Christian friends are almost universally evangelicals! I only have a few friends who are more fundamentalist.
I know that evangelicals and fundamentalists don't fit my caricaturized generalization. I know that fundamentalists tend to be too isolationist and too judgmental, and I know that evangelicals tend to be too worldly. But I would never initiate a round of evangelical-bashing, because I know it is inaccurate and hurtful.
In retrospect, I should have focused more on an accurate portrayal of evangelicals and fundamentalists, rather than fighting fire with fire. I apologize for that to anyone who was hurt by my retaliatory caricaturization of evangelicals.
17. Jared
- 07/10/2003 9:06 am CDT
Nah, I didn't take offense, because I knew you weren't referring to me. 
I'm not sure how much more irenic you can get than by saying a) I admit I'm generalizing, b) this refers to tendencies, not every single individual, and c) if this doesn't resemble you then it doesn't refer to you.
But I guess if you just have to take offense, have at it.
The reason I know these tendencies (or stereotypes or caricatures or whatever) are true is because I've met these folks, I've seen these folks, I've waited on these folks in a Christian bookstore. They call themselves fundamentalists. So who are the true fundamentalists?
I actually have always considered myself a fundy in the classical sense of the label (the ACTUAL fundamentals, minus the dispensationalism thing), but I don't use the term because of the negative connotation it now has and the way I've seen self-described fundamentalists become more dogmatic and legalistic about non-fundamentals.
One significant difference, perhaps, is that the folks who fit these tendencies actually call themselves fundamentalists, while the "liberal" Protestants don't always call themselves evangelicals (usually because they think the term evangelical is just a nicer/newer synonym for fundamentalist).
18. alison
- 07/10/2003 9:46 am CDT
Jared, I'm not sure what Robert was reading. There was absolutely nothing offensive or one-sided about your article, unless someone is really defensive. It was more like explaining the difference between apples and oranges. (It just so happens I like apples better because pulp makes me gag, but that's a different story.)
19. Jared
- 07/10/2003 9:54 am CDT
Alison, I don't get it either. But I have a newborn in the house and just don't have the interest (or the energy, really) to keep responding point-by-point.
He says to-may-to, I'll say to-mah-to.
20. Robert Williams
- 07/10/2003 10:20 am CDT
I'm not sure what Robert was reading. There was absolutely nothing offensive or one-sided about your article, unless someone is really defensive.
This is what I was reading and responding to:
>>Fundamentalists...can be very anti-intellectual
>>Fundamentalists adhere to a literalism so broad, even they are doomed to violate it.
>>Fundamentalists belief ... much like Muslims ...
>>Fundamentalists seem to suppose that they can apply the text directly to themselves as if it had been written primarily for them. They then ignore the cultural chasm which yawns between the biblical world and the contemporary world.
>>an undue paranoia in fundamentalism. He cites fundamentalist lack of critical thinking
>>more effective than shouting at it from the outside
>>fundamentalists ... cling to the myth of white supremacy and defend racial segregation.
>>Fundamentalists ... merely preaching the gospel
Stott himself admitted "I shall no doubt be guilty of generalizing and caricaturing [fundamentalists]" and "my portrait of evangelicalism is idealized".
From dictionary.com: "car·i·ca·tur·ing: To represent or imitate in an exaggerated, distorted manner";"0
22. Dead Man Blogging
- 07/10/2003 12:20 pm CDT
Fundamentalists and evangelicals don't agree, or even understand one another, because we are using radically different metaphors to understand how Christians relate to the world. I'll attempt to identify those metaphors, demonstrate how they play ou...
23. Jared
- 07/10/2003 1:06 pm CDT
Bill, I took exception to that also (as I clearly stated). At least, I don't think the numbers are large enough to warrant the mention. But you do have to acknowledge that the (so-called) "Christian" racist organizations have been historically fundamentalist (even if by their own description). I think of Bob Jones University's racial dating regulations, the fundy element in the racist Christian Identity Movement, the Southern churches who for many years preached segregation (or, even earlier, slavery). So it's not an entirely baseless claim.
Jared
Great post! I too thought that his point about race was too broad, but I agree with just about everything else said here. I think these distinctions are important and educational.