Both of these “movements” or branches of Christian belief are rather modern and both distinguish themselves from mainstream Christianity. There has been a plethora of adds from the Fundamentalist point of view on mainstream media lately so I shall begin with it. The Fundamentalist movement began around the turn of the 20th century as an effort to counteract the rise of what is called the “Liberalist” interpretation of Christian faith which had arisen in modern times and had become the dominant interpretation of mainline Christian denominations, especially among English speaking believers.
Fundamentalism got its name from the title of a series of books called The Fundamentals sponsored by several very conservative Christian business men around 1900 and aimed to counteract the rise of the liberal interpretation of Christian faith called “Modernism.” These books focused on the truth of such traditional doctrines as the Verbal Inspiration of the Scripture, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the belief that Jesus’ death guaranteed salvation for those who believe in him.
The Modernist movement, which by then had come to represent the Christian Church in America, offered a more rationalistic and scientific account of the events described in the Bible and traditional doctrinal creeds. The Evangelical movement arose around 1950 in an attempt to establish an interpretive option to both Fundamentalism and Modernism. The key differences between it and Fundamentalism centered around the nature of the inspiration of the Bible and how Jesus’ death and teachings are to be understood.
While Fundamentalists insist that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and without error, Evangelicals acknowledge a more flexible approach, especially when it comes to scientific issues. Also, Fundamentalists insist on viewing Christian faith and salvation as directly dependent on Jesus’ death and resurrection, whereas Evangelicals tend to take a broader, richer view of these issues. They view the salvation provided by Jesus’ death and resurrection focusing on ethical and cultural terms.
The viewpoints in and behind the various “Christian commercials” referred to above are strictly from the Fundamentalist point of view. No effort is made to establish either the verbal authority of the scripture quoted or the particular view of salvation through Jesus therein emphasized. It is assumed that the Bible speaks the inerrant truth and that Jesus was and is the exclusive divine mediator between God and humans. Indeed, the Bible is quoted as if spoken directly by God, and Jesus’ death is said to have closed the deal for human salvation.
In my view, the chief difficulties with the Fundamentalist view pertain to the total exclusivity of its interpretation of both the scripture and Jesus’ death. The simple fact is that there is no one set of ancient manuscripts upon which to base the Bible itself. Rather, there are literally hundreds of manuscripts of the Bible, and they often contain serious differences. This is not to say that we cannot make out what the main teachings are, but it is to say that no claims can be made for an exclusivist interpretation of even some of its main teachings.
In addition, by and large the Fundamentalist understanding of Jesus’ life and teachings is far too simplistic to account for the depth and diversity of what the scripture clearly says. There are many factual discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, and some of the traditional interpretations of Jesus’ death and resurrection are quite confusing. Each of the Gospels has a different account of how things went at the end of his life.
The Evangelical point of view generally takes such issues into account, whereas the Fundamentalist perspective does not. Presenting the Christian Gospel cannot be a matter of simply saying “Here’s the truth.” A strong Christian faith takes crucial and relevant issues and criticism into consideration and a weak one does not.
In this regard Evangelicals have more in common with a classic liberal point of view than with the Fundamentalist point of view. That is to say, they regard the role of human reason and open discussion as crucial to the determination of what the scriptures, and thus what Christianity, actually stands for.