The historical origins
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism emerged in early 20th-century America as a reaction to theological liberalism — the influence of historical-critical biblical scholarship, Darwinian evolution, and progressive theology in mainline Protestant denominations. Between 1910 and 1915, a series of essays called "The Fundamentals" was published by conservative scholars, defending what they saw as the non-negotiable foundations of Christian faith: the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, the substitutionary atonement, and the literal Second Coming.
By the 1920s, fundamentalism had become a broad cultural and ecclesiastical movement — defined not just by these doctrinal commitments but by a combative separatism: the willingness to break fellowship with any church, denomination, or individual that did not share these convictions. The Scopes Trial of 1925 — in which fundamentalists fought (and lost the cultural battle) to ban the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools — marked the beginning of fundamentalism's association with anti-intellectual cultural reaction.
Evangelicalism
Modern evangelicalism emerged in the 1940s as a deliberate reformulation of Protestant conservatism that wanted to maintain fundamentalism's theological core while abandoning its cultural separatism and anti-intellectualism. The founding of the National Association of Evangelicals (1942), Fuller Theological Seminary (1947), and Christianity Today magazine (1956) by Billy Graham and Carl F.H. Henry represented the self-conscious effort to re-engage culture, academia, and ecumenical conversation without compromising essential doctrine.
Evangelicalism is defined by four hallmarks identified by historian David Bebbington (the "Bebbington Quadrilateral"):
- Biblicism — the high authority of the Bible for faith and practice
- Crucicentrism — the centrality of Christ's atoning death on the cross
- Conversionism — the necessity of personal, conscious conversion
- Activism — the imperative of evangelism and social engagement
Key differences
Separation vs. engagement
The most significant practical difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is the question of cultural and ecclesiastical separation. Fundamentalists historically have practiced "secondary separation" — refusing fellowship not only with theological liberals but with any Christians who maintain fellowship with liberals. This separatism has produced ever-smaller and more isolated ecclesiastical circles.
Evangelicals, by contrast, have pursued cultural engagement — establishing universities, publishing houses, media organizations, and political organizations to influence culture rather than retreat from it. Billy Graham's willingness to share crusade platforms with Catholics and mainline Protestants was anathema to fundamentalists; Graham's position defined the evangelical approach.
Intellectual engagement
Classic fundamentalism was often suspicious of higher education, scholarship, and intellectual engagement — seeing the academy as the source of the liberal theology it opposed. Modern evangelicalism has invested heavily in scholarship: evangelical universities (Wheaton, Biola, Baylor), seminaries (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Gordon-Conwell, Covenant), and scholarly journals represent a different posture toward the life of the mind.
Tone and culture
Fundamentalism in its classic form was characterized by militancy — a fighting, combative tone toward both theological enemies and cultural accommodation. Evangelicalism, at its best, has sought to be winsome, accessible, and culturally literate. This is partly why evangelical megachurches with contemporary music and culturally relevant preaching look so different from the typical fundamentalist church with its King James Bible and strict dress codes.
The blurring of boundaries today
In popular usage, "fundamentalist" is often applied to any conservative Christian — especially by secular media. This use is historically inaccurate but culturally embedded. Many people who call themselves evangelical would be labeled fundamentalist by journalists.
Conversely, there are self-described evangelicals who in practice function more like fundamentalists — doctrinally rigid, culturally separatist, and dismissive of intellectual engagement. The labels have become somewhat fluid.
The key distinction that still holds: fundamentalism is a posture of separation and combat; evangelicalism is a posture of engagement and mission. Both hold similar core doctrines; they differ primarily in how they relate to the surrounding culture and to other Christians with whom they disagree.
Frequently asked questions
Are Southern Baptists evangelical or fundamentalist?
Southern Baptists are evangelical by the standard definition — they hold the four Bebbington marks and have maintained engagement with broader evangelical institutions. However, the SBC's conservative resurgence in the 1980s–90s brought the denomination closer to fundamentalist positions on inerrancy and separation, and some SBC leaders explicitly identify with fundamentalism. Most Southern Baptists today would call themselves conservative evangelicals.
Is "fundamentalist" an insult?
In common secular usage, it often functions as one — applied broadly to any religiously conservative person. In its technical, historical sense, it describes a specific early 20th-century movement and its descendants. Some self-identified fundamentalists wear the label proudly; many conservative Christians who share their doctrinal views prefer "evangelical" or "orthodox" because of the cultural associations fundamentalism has accumulated. Context always matters when the word is used.