One of the most common misconceptions I encounter—especially outside the church—is the assumption that “fundamentalist” and “evangelical” mean the same thing. Sometimes they’re used interchangeably in media or conversation, and sometimes even Christians themselves aren’t sure how to draw the distinction. But while there is some historical overlap, fundamentalism and evangelicalism are not the same. Understanding the difference helps clarify how diverse the Christian landscape really is.
A Shared Beginning
Both movements trace their roots to a common concern: the authority of Scripture in the face of modern skepticism. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, higher criticism, liberal theology, and Darwinian evolution began to reshape the academic and theological world. In response, a group of conservative Protestant leaders began emphasizing a set of non-negotiable doctrines—what they called “the fundamentals.” These included the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
This movement became known as fundamentalism, and it initially included many who would later identify as evangelicals. But over time, differences in tone, engagement, and methodology caused the two paths to diverge.
Enter Evangelicalism
By the mid-20th century, a new generation of conservative Christians emerged who agreed with fundamentalists on doctrine but disagreed with their separatist stance and cultural withdrawal. These Christians identified themselves as evangelicals. They believed in the authority of the Bible and the necessity of personal conversion but also in the importance of engaging the wider culture, participating in scholarship, and working across denominational lines.
Evangelicals launched seminaries, publications, and ministries that sought to be biblically faithful and intellectually credible. They didn’t reject the insights of modern thought out of hand; instead, they sought to engage and respond thoughtfully, holding fast to the gospel while participating in broader conversations.
Different Approaches to the Bible
One of the most significant differences between fundamentalists and evangelicals lies in how they approach the study of Scripture—particularly when it comes to the use of critical scholarship and interpretive methods.
- Fundamentalists tend to emphasize a strictly literal reading of Scripture. They often resist the use of literary and historical criticism, viewing it as a slippery slope toward liberal theology and unbelief. The Bible is typically read as a straightforward, factual account across all genres, with little attention given to literary forms, cultural context, or ancient Near Eastern backgrounds. For many fundamentalists, any acknowledgment of textual development, ambiguity, or complexity is seen as a threat to inerrancy or divine authority. As a result, fundamentalist communities have often rejected mainstream biblical scholarship, remaining deeply suspicious of academic tools and methods.
- Evangelicals, while still affirming the authority and inspiration of Scripture, are more open to certain forms of critical scholarship—especially those that help illuminate the text rather than undermine it. For example, evangelicals have embraced the field of textual criticism, which carefully analyzes manuscript variants in order to reconstruct the most reliable form of the biblical text. Far from seeing this as a threat, evangelicals understand it as a way of honoring the Bible’s transmission history and recognizing how God has preserved his Word across centuries.
Evangelicals also acknowledge the complex realities of text transmission, understanding that the Scriptures we have today came to us through a providential process that included scribes, copyists, communities of faith, and various manuscript traditions. Importantly, evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit not only inspired the original writings of Scripture, but also superintended its preservation and faithful transmission throughout history. This theological conviction allows evangelicals to deal honestly with the historical and textual realities of the Bible, without descending into skepticism or relativism.
At the same time, evangelicals do not embrace the demythologizing tendencies that characterize much of the higher critical enterprise. Many forms of higher criticism—especially in the tradition of Rudolf Bultmann—seek to separate the “mythological” or “supernatural” elements of the Bible from its supposedly “authentic” existential message. Evangelicals reject this approach outright. They affirm that Scripture is not merely a human product dressed in religious garb, but a divinely inspired revelation that includes real miracles, divine intervention, prophecy, and redemptive history—all of which are essential, not optional.
In other words, evangelicals strive to balance intellectual integrity with theological fidelity. They seek to learn from the tools of critical scholarship without allowing those tools to set the agenda for how Scripture is ultimately interpreted or valued. Evangelical biblical interpretation takes seriously the role of genre, context, metaphor, and audience, but does so with a deep trust that God has spoken—and continues to speak—through his written Word.
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
One of the most well-known critiques of modern conservative Christianity comes from within evangelicalism itself. Historian Mark Noll, in his influential book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994), famously wrote: “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Noll wasn’t saying evangelicals are unintelligent—he was lamenting the fact that large swaths of American evangelicalism (especially in its fundamentalist expressions) had become suspicious of intellectual life, academic scholarship, and cultural engagement.
This anti-intellectual posture was deeply shaped by the legacy of fundamentalism. As modernist theology and secular ideologies grew stronger in the 19th and 20th centuries, many Christians retreated from the academy and began to build parallel institutions—often out of self-preservation, but sometimes at the cost of thoughtful, rigorous engagement with the world. The result was a stream of Christianity that often saw deep thinking, historical inquiry, or literary nuance as threats to faith rather than tools for discipleship.
Evangelicals, especially in the second half of the 20th century, have tried to correct this. Thinkers like Noll, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and others have championed a robust Christian intellectual life rooted in the authority of Scripture but open to philosophy, science, history, and the arts. Their work has sought to reclaim the life of the mind as a vital part of Christian faithfulness.
In many ways, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind was a call to evangelicals to move beyond the intellectual habits inherited from fundamentalism—and to pursue scholarship, beauty, and wisdom not in spite of their faith, but because of it.
A Final Reflection
Many laypeople are unaware of the historical and theological currents that have shaped the differences between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Yet these dynamics run deep beneath the surface of the modern church. They are part and parcel of the theological education that pastors, ministers, and seminary-trained leaders receive—education that profoundly shapes preaching, teaching, and discipleship in local congregations.
To serve as clergy is to be a serious student of Scripture. But this isn’t limited to knowing Greek and Hebrew or quoting Bible verses fluently. It involves understanding how theology shapes one’s worldview, and how worldview, in turn, shapes the way we approach the Bible. It means wrestling honestly with historical questions, literary forms, and interpretive traditions—not to weaken our faith, but to root it more deeply in truth and clarity.
Recognizing the distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism helps us appreciate the diversity within the church and invites us to pursue a thoughtful, faithful, and courageous way of reading and living the Word of God. We don’t have to choose between intellectual honesty and spiritual conviction—we can hold both together, trusting that the same Spirit who inspired the Word is still guiding the church into all truth.
