Difference between Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestant

[andrewstx]

I didn’t say you portrayed them as ignorant rednecks. But George Stegmeir certainly did with this statement:

“One does not find many college graduates in either sect and that includes their Clergy -unless you consider graduating from a 2 year Bible College to be a college education.”

Setting aside the question of clergy, there are many evangelicals with undergraduate and graduate degrees in all kinds of fields. And there are many highly educated evangelical theologians. N. T. Wright, the Anglican bishop of Durham and renowned New Testament scholar, is an evangelical!

True and I am aware of that fact.

Maybe you should talk to George and not I.

I was talking only about the so called “churches of Christ” and no one else.

I am aware that many if not most Evangelicals graduate from seminaries, just not the “undenominational churches of Christ” who completely lack any seminaries and are proud of it.

 

[Cat]

True and I am aware of that fact.

Maybe you should talk to George and not I.

I was talking only about the so called “churches of Christ” and no one else.

I am aware that many if not most Evangelicals graduate from seminaries, just not the “undenominational churches of Christ” who completely lack any seminaries and are proud of it.

This is not true. My husband and I attended a “non-denominational Christian church” (same as the undenominational churches of Christ–both are Campbellite churches and part of the Restoration Movement) for several years while we were in college. They most certainly do have seminaries. Here’s a link to the university that our pastor (and his wife and all three of his daughters) attended: lincolnchristian.edu/about-us/#mission

The comments about educational ignorance on this thread are appalling. I was Evangelical Protestant for 47 years, involved with several denominations, and familiar with many more.

I never once met up with any sect, group, church, fellowship, or organization where the pastors were not schooled. Most of the churches and organizations we were involved with were led by pastors with doctorates from well-established universities and seminaries, and many had a secular undergraduate alma mater.

I know that there are pastors and teachers with no formal college education, however many of these pastors and teachers are self-taught (home-schooled, as we call it now), and they are often highly-intelligent and have an in-depth knowledge of the Scriptures and many other topics. Often these pastors are gifted not in teaching theology, but in caring for their flock in practical ways, such as visitation ministries.

Many Catholics and others on CAF have dismissed the importance of a college education and claim that kids don’t need college these days to land a good job and make a good life for themselves (see the Finances Section of CAF), so it’s not really fair to imply that “lack of a college education” equates with ignorance, and that the only people who advocate this approach are “non-denominationals, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists.”

And of course there are people who are preaching and teaching who have no education and no knowledge or wisdom. But there are also plenty of people in all churches, including Catholic, who obviously slept through their graduate-level classes (and all their other classes).

 

[andrewstx]

This is not true. My husband and I attended a “non-denominational Christian church” (same as the undenominational churches of Christ–both are Campbellite churches and part of the Restoration Movement) for several years while we were in college. They most certainly do have seminaries. Here’s a link to the university that our pastor (and his wife and all three of his daughters) attended: lincolnchristian.edu/about-us/#mission

The comments about educational ignorance on this thread are appalling. I was Evangelical Protestant for 47 years, involved with several denominations, and familiar with many more.

I never once met up with any sect, group, church, fellowship, or organization where the pastors were not schooled. Most of the churches and organizations we were involved with were led by pastors with doctorates from well-established universities and seminaries, and many had a secular undergraduate alma mater.

I know that there are pastors and teachers with no formal college education, however many of these pastors and teachers are self-taught (home-schooled, as we call it now), and they are often highly-intelligent and have an in-depth knowledge of the Scriptures and many other topics. Often these pastors are gifted not in teaching theology, but in caring for their flock in practical ways, such as visitation ministries.

Many Catholics and others on CAF have dismissed the importance of a college education and claim that kids don’t need college these days to land a good job and make a good life for themselves (see the Finances Section of CAF), so it’s not really fair to imply that “lack of a college education” equates with ignorance, and that the only people who advocate this approach are “non-denominationals, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists.”

And of course there are people who are preaching and teaching who have no education and no knowledge or wisdom. But there are also plenty of people in all churches, including Catholic, who obviously slept through their graduate-level classes (and all their other classes).

I think we may well be discussing different denominations. I came from the southern accapella “churches of Christ” they did not use any musical instruments at all, and thought of themselves as the only Christians in the world. The congregation I was in by force was very ultra-conservative and racist. In fact on their “campus” they had separate churches (buildings) for whites, latinoes, and blacks. No mixing of races was allowed. They were very strict fundamentalists, anything not ordered verbatim in the bible was strictly forbidden.
In fact there are different southern “churches of Christ” they deny the word Christian to the others, they differ over issues like one chalice or many shot glasses for the grape juice in their Lord’s Supper. Some have sunday school classes and others do not. Some will support church “institutions” other claim such support is “unbiblical”. There are others, but I can’t recall them right now. These different sects or subsects all deny fellowship to all the others and deny the others are even Christians.

In the world of Campbell names differ according to location. What in the south is called Independent Christian Churches is called Church of Christ in the Midwest, same church different names. And yes in the Midwest the church of Christ has music and seminaries, but the southern churches of Christ do not.

I think maybe what is familiar to you is the Midwest church of Christ, here we call them ndependent Christian churches.

From personal experience I lived in Springfield Il, and the church of Christ was very different from the southern churches of Christ.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Hello all,

I’ve been a lurker here for a while and this is a topic that I believe I can shed some light on. It will be a bit longish, and I apologize for that, but I think that a thorough overview of where these various terms came from can be helpful in understanding their modern usage.

Background: I am a former Fundamentalist. I am now an evangelical. I am not anti-catholic, but neither am I catholic. I consider you to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, without reservation or qualification, but separated brothers and sisters.

Fundamentalism is a term that has a specific origin in the modernist-fundamentalist controversies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that tore through the older, and at the time larger, protestant denominations of what we now call the mainline. Without going into too much detail, this was the era that saw the beginnings of both the higher criticism and liberal theology.

A series of essays were written and published to defend what the conservative elements within those denominations saw as the non-negotiables of the Christian faith. These essays were gathered together and published in a 12 volume collection called “The Fundamentals.” Those who subscribed to the views contained in The Fundamentals took to calling themselves Fundamentalists and, later, evangelicals (as a nod towards Martin Luther.)

From that point, up through the 1950s, the terms Fundamentalist and evangelical were interchangeable. Then came Billy Graham’s move towards working with the larger Christian community, including mainline Protestants and even (gasp!) Catholics. For the old school, hard-core Fundamentalists, this was beyond the pale. They started referring to Graham and the more socially liberal evangelicals who came after him as “neo-evangelicals.” That’s where the split in those terms came from. What we today call evangelicals are really just the neo-evangelicals of the past.

As has been pointed out before, the issue that mainly separates the two camps is the issue of separation. It’s not that evangelicals don’t believe in it (although, on the far liberal fringe of evangelicalism, that can certainly be said.). It’s that evangelicals only practice separation in the first degree. An evangelical ministry, generally, will not associate itself directly with any ministry that it does not consider faithful to the essential, non-negotiable truths of the Christian faith. The same can be said for Fundamentalist ministries. Where it gets different, however, is that Fundamentalists, generally, won’t associate with any ministries that don’t also separate themselves from other non-Fundamentalist ministries. Fundamentalism has become, in essence, a club where Fundamentalists can associate with other Fundamentalists who themselves only associate with other Fundamentalists. Associate yourself with one non-Fundamentalist ministry and the whole club will disassociate themselves from you.

An example: My church’s youth group often has combined worship services with the youth group of the local United Methodist church because, while some UMC churches have gone off the deep end, this one hasn’t. A Fundamentalist would never do that. All it takes is for one church to step out of line and for the denomination to refuse to discipline that church, and the Fundamentalists will write off the whole denomination.

There is also a growing difference between the two regarding the Catholic Church. Fundamentalism is extremely, rabidly, anti-Catholic. It is commonly held and still preached on a regular basis in nearly every Fundamentalist church that the Pope is the anti-christ and that true Christians can have nothing to do with Catholics. Evangelicals, especially since the days of Chuck Colson and Richard John Neuhaus’s ground breaking paper, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” have largely moved past that. You still hear some anti-catholicism floating around, but it’s rarely mentioned from the pulpit. The general tenor is, “There are some things we agree on. There are some things we disagree on. We agree, mostly, on the basics. We agree, mostly, on the main political issues. Let’s just move on and work together to protect life.”

Bebbington (in “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain”) notes four distinct characteristics of what he calls, “Evangelicalism” (as opposed to “evangelicalism” which is more ill-defined):

1 - The central importance of a personal conversion experience
2 - A high view of scripture.
3 - An emphasis on the crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice.
4 - A belief in being actively engaged with the prevailing culture.

That definition has been extremely influential both within and without evangelicalism. A Fundamentalist would have no problem signing off on the first three, but the fourth point would have to be replaced with “A belief in strict separation from the prevailing culture.”

 

[Darryl_B]

I had never heard of fundamentalist until two months ago, nor met one (still haven’t). They are a United States of America phenomena. But there are many things that are uniquely United States of America. Mormons, Jehovahs Witness’, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists and the list goes on and on, including evangelical and pentecostal. I am still trying to figure out why the USA is the breeding ground of isms, and why they would much rather produce more isms rather than come home.

 

[ltwin]

I had never heard of fundamentalist until two months ago, nor met one (still haven’t). They are a United States of America phenomena. But there are many things that are uniquely United States of America. Mormons, Jehovahs Witness’, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists and the list goes on and on, including evangelical and pentecostal. I am still trying to figure out why the USA is the breeding ground of isms, and why they would much rather produce more isms rather than come home.

Evangelicals and Pentecostals are not an “American” phenomenon. In fact, many of the groups you mentioned are in more places than the United States. They may have started in the United States (and when it comes to evangelical and Pentecostals, there clearly is not just a US origin, see Methodism and the Welsh Revival).

That would be like saying the Catholic Church is a “European phenomenon” or the Anglican Communion is an “English phenomenon” or Presbyterianism is a “Scottish phenomenon.” You could say that based on origins, but you’d have to discount all the members of that religion outside of the area of origin.

 

[Cat]

I had never heard of fundamentalist until two months ago, nor met one (still haven’t). They are a United States of America phenomena. But there are many things that are uniquely United States of America. Mormons, Jehovahs Witness’, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists and the list goes on and on, including evangelical and pentecostal. I am still trying to figure out why the USA is the breeding ground of isms, and why they would much rather produce more isms rather than come home.

Stop trying to figure it out. The reason there are so many religions in the U.S, is because, praise God, the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. At least until now. We’ll see if the country will continues to be free.

If I were you, I would be careful about disparaging the U.S. over religion. We’re all very proud of our freedoms in this country, and pray that they will continue.

And there are plenty of countries where Christians have not returned to Catholicism.

Also, remember that in many other countries, especially in Europe and the United Kingdom, church attendance in Christian churches is so abysmally low that it’s difficult to tabulate

And in many other countries outside of Europe, there are tens of thousands of cults, “gods,” and religions, including many sects that idolatrous or “occult” or even Satanic. Even though you won’t find an American Fundamentalist sect in most countries outside the U.S., all countries have their own brand and sects of “religious fundamentalism” involving separatism from other religions and people.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Stop trying to figure it out. The reason there are so many religions in the U.S, is because, praise God, the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. At least until now. We’ll see if the country will continues to be free.

Right. Starting with the founding of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, the “new” idea of religious liberty spread to be something which we now enjoy, thank God, but also take for granted.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I had never heard of fundamentalist until two months ago, nor met one (still haven’t). They are a United States of America phenomena. But there are many things that are uniquely United States of America. Mormons, Jehovahs Witness’, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists and the list goes on and on, including evangelical and pentecostal. I am still trying to figure out why the USA is the breeding ground of isms, and why they would much rather produce more isms rather than come home.

Ultimately it’s because the original settlers (pilgrims) were escaping religious persecution and setting up there own religious communities. Even before the constitution America was seen as a place to go and do your own thing. It’s the American Way to find your own way, figure things out, and be your own authority. This is generally a good thing until it comes to religion. Then it is a belief that feeds the individualism of sola scriptura and sola Fide, while vehemently rejecting any authority whether its from the state or a church. In the 1800s there was a Great Awakening where people became more aware of religion and preachers came out of the woodwork holding tent revivals, many of them later creating there own churches and denominations.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

As an ex-Evangelical Protestant and a current Catholic, I wouldn’t recommend holding onto this attitude, let alone stating it in public.

I have no shame in pointing to the lunacy of some evangelicals and fundamentalists. Though there are some good evangelicals out there who do not represent that mild crazy segment out there I will gladly admit. But fundamentalists are the true oddjobs with their denial of basic human reason, basic church history and Biblical understanding I cannot call them anything other than extremely crazy.

 

[fallow_spirit]

I don’t know about about evangelicals but I go to one of the fundamentalist Bible churches and we are very hardcore on things like the solas extreme biblical literalism, creationism etc. So hardcore that sometimes I feel like if a person doesn’t fall in line with these things (like myself) then you’re looked at with suspicion or as less of a Christian. I always imagined evangelicals as more open and not as hardcore as the fundamentalists. They both seem to hold to the same basic theology but evangelicals just don’t seem to be as strict about it.

As far as history, I can’t speak for anyone else or their church, but our church seems to have a very good grasp of the history of American Protestant Christianity, but once you move away from the USA and say the 1600’s things quickly start to become fuzzy (until you get back to apostolic times that is). In fact our pastor often laments that modern day churches have turned away from traditional Christian worship and no longer use traditional hymns. but of course by ‘traditional’ he doesn’t mean anything ancient but songs from American hymnals that were used in the 1800’s.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t know about about evangelicals but I go to one of the fundamentalist Bible churches and we are very hardcore on things like the solas extreme biblical literalism, creationism etc. So hardcore that sometimes I feel like if a person doesn’t fall in line with these things (like myself) then you’re looked at with suspicion or as less of a Christian. I always imagined evangelicals as more open and not as hardcore as the fundamentalists. They both seem to hold to the same basic theology but evangelicals just don’t seem to be as strict about it.

As far as history, I can’t speak for anyone else or their church, but our church seems to have a very good grasp of the history of American Protestant Christianity, but once you move away from the USA and say the 1600’s things quickly start to become fuzzy (until you get back to apostolic times that is). In fact our pastor often laments that modern day churches have turned away from traditional Christian worship and no longer use traditional hymns. but of course by ‘traditional’ he doesn’t mean anything ancient but songs from American hymnals that were used in the 1800’s.

Just my 2 cents

Well said, as a Fundamentalist/Evangelical convert I know right where you are coming from, especially regarding church tradition being 1800s on! Welcome to the forums!

 

[JustaServant]

I was always under the impression that a fundamentalist and an evangelical were the same thing. Now I realized I’m wrong. Apparently, both identify as Born Again Christian as I’m aware of. Can someone please help me understand?

Thanks
-Riley

The fundamentalist movement began in the early part of the 20th century as a reaction against the growing liberalism in mainline denominations. The early fundamentalist conferances included almost every Protestant denomination.
Fundamentalism exists in the fog of a false history (which is why they discourage educated inquiry) and ‘separation’. They believe they are ‘Bible based’ and all other denominations reject the Bible and salvation.
The CC, they believe is ‘anti-Bible’. When one looks at the world from this point of view, it is difficult to break through it. ‘Separation’ keeps them from a wider world and in fear. They are convinced of their rightness and your wrongness and they will do whatever they can to break your will.

There are three basic types of fundamentalist baptists:

1. The Jerry Falwel, Liberty University variety.
I attended LU and can safely say they are the most reasonable kind (that may shock some people). They would fit into the " ‘New Evangelicals’ Billy Graham, Charles Colson, James Dobson" types you mention. Hard-core fundamentalists do not consider them to be fundamentalists (for a variety of reasons I will not bore you with explaining, not the least of which is that they (GASP) use modern english versions of the Bible.

2. The Bob Jones University variety.
They range from Calvinist to Arminian in theology. They tend to be more intellectual, but very elitist and racist. Their numbers are dwindling however, Two pastors I sat under were from BJU.

3. The Hyles-Anderson College, KJV-only variety.
These are the wide-eyed fanatics. These are the haters. Very anti-intellectual, cultic, abrasive, paranoid…I could go on, but you get the picture. The third group I have encountered, even preached in a few of their churches, but I avoided them.

All three Falwell, Jones, and Hyles are gone now. But their legacy continues. All three are little islands to themselves. They put up walls so no opposite POV comes in.
Defeating the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist sect (cult would be a better word) can only be done on an individual basis, and only when the Holy Spirit directs the path for the individual.
Fortuntely, IFBs are a dying breed. The number of people in thier churches rarely are in the triple digets. Most are a small handful of people.
The reason why is obvious: thier doctrine of separation. They separate, not just from all those ‘apostate denominations’, but from each other as well. This is where the word “evangelical” comes in. There is no denomination called “evangelical”, like "fundamentalist:, its a descrption. They are made up of many denominations and are considered “liberal” to hard-core fundamentalists. They “separate” from them in thier endless pursuit of purity.
When one is born of division, all that can be produced is more division. Fundamentalists will continue to ‘separate’ and divide until they are no more.

 

[fallow_spirit]

Well said, as a Fundamentalist/Evangelical convert I know right where you are coming from, especially regarding church tradition being 1800s on! Welcome to the forums!

Thanks

 

[fallow_spirit]

The fundamentalist movement began in the early part of the 20th century as a reaction against the growing liberalism in mainline denominations. The early fundamentalist conferances included almost every Protestant denomination.
Fundamentalism exists in the fog of a false history (which is why they discourage educated inquiry) and ‘separation’. They believe they are ‘Bible based’ and all other denominations reject the Bible and salvation.
The CC, they believe is ‘anti-Bible’. When one looks at the world from this point of view, it is difficult to break through it. ‘Separation’ keeps them from a wider world and in fear. They are convinced of their rightness and your wrongness and they will do whatever they can to break your will.

There are three basic types of fundamentalist baptists:

1. The Jerry Falwel, Liberty University variety.
I attended LU and can safely say they are the most reasonable kind (that may shock some people). They would fit into the " ‘New Evangelicals’ Billy Graham, Charles Colson, James Dobson" types you mention. Hard-core fundamentalists do not consider them to be fundamentalists (for a variety of reasons I will not bore you with explaining, not the least of which is that they (GASP) use modern english versions of the Bible.

2. The Bob Jones University variety.
They range from Calvinist to Arminian in theology. They tend to be more intellectual, but very elitist and racist. Their numbers are dwindling however, Two pastors I sat under were from BJU.

3. The Hyles-Anderson College, KJV-only variety.
These are the wide-eyed fanatics. These are the haters. Very anti-intellectual, cultic, abrasive, paranoid…I could go on, but you get the picture. The third group I have encountered, even preached in a few of their churches, but I avoided them.

All three Falwell, Jones, and Hyles are gone now. But their legacy continues. All three are little islands to themselves. They put up walls so no opposite POV comes in.
Defeating the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist sect (cult would be a better word) can only be done on an individual basis, and only when the Holy Spirit directs the path for the individual.
Fortuntely, IFBs are a dying breed. The number of people in thier churches rarely are in the triple digets. Most are a small handful of people.
The reason why is obvious: thier doctrine of separation. They separate, not just from all those ‘apostate denominations’, but from each other as well. This is where the word “evangelical” comes in. There is no denomination called “evangelical”, like "fundamentalist:, its a descrption. They are made up of many denominations and are considered “liberal” to hard-core fundamentalists. They “separate” from them in thier endless pursuit of purity.
When one is born of division, all that can be produced is more division. Fundamentalists will continue to ‘separate’ and divide until they are no more.

Good overview, I would say that the people at my church are somewhere between the Falwell and Bob Jones variety, leaning towards Bob Jones. One reason I’ve yet to tell anyone about wanting to become Catholic eventually is because I home-schooled for a year last year (it was an experiment) and was surrounded by a bunch of hardcore Bob Jones type, fundamentalist students and teachers. That was when I came to my conclusion about Catholicism and I had enough sense to know that if I said anything it would be a living hell, especially from my ‘worldview’ teacher, who liked to make passes at the Catholic Church regularly (the curriculum did actually). I can only imagine what he would have done if he knew what my true beliefs were.

 

[JustaServant]

Good overview, I would say that the people at my church are somewhere between the Falwell and Bob Jones variety, leaning towards Bob Jones. One reason I’ve yet to tell anyone about wanting to become Catholic eventually is because I home-schooled for a year last year (it was an experiment) and was surrounded by a bunch of hardcore Bob Jones type, fundamentalist students and teachers. That was when I came to my conclusion about Catholicism and I had enough sense to know that if I said anything it would be a living hell, especially from my ‘worldview’ teacher, who liked to make passes at the Catholic Church regularly (the curriculum did actually). I can only imagine what he would have done if he knew what my true beliefs were.

I am so sorry you had to experience that. When one walks away from that kind of cultish fundamentalism it can be jarring to see that side of a person you thought you knew. I was once part of that myself.
Five years ago I wrote a blogpost that I hope helps. It’s based on a dream I had:

’Rome Phobia’

Phobia is an excessive and irrational fear that is usually based on some trauma in the past. Because of that trauma, anytime the person meets anything or anybody that is remotely associated with that trauma, there is an immediate knee-jerk response. The thing or person is out of proportion to the reality that it is. They are terrified of it and flee from it just at the mention of the name.
Many fundamentalists have ’Rome phobia’. Anything that remotely smells of Catholic, no matter how minute, they go berserk. The reactions of people who, at first talk of Christ and being a Christian, suddenly transform into something ugly and horrible.
Love becomes hate, peace becomes war, families are torn apart in revolt, joy becomes misery, mercy is replace by venom.
ANY enemy of Catholics becomes their friend. A root of bitterness is born that becomes a stench in the nostrils of God.
Watching people react to anything Catholic, the word Christian is the last word you would use to describe it.
Many times it is passed down from generation to generation. They have no clue as to WHY they hate Catholics….they just do.
Their identity is found in what they are against, not what they are for.
The history of the Catholic Church is re-written to show what a monster she is. Even her future is determined by ‘Bible prophecy’ which destines the monster to Hell. So there is no way out for the Catholic Church.
Born a monster, die a monster.
We teach our children to fear this ugly monster who will devour us on a whim. When asked about her they say, ‘she’s a horrible monster disfigured at birth and is destined for Hell and damnation.
When anyone DARES to face that phobia, remove the mask that has been put over her, he discovers that the Catholic Church is not the evil institution responsible for every evil imaginable.
But she is instead the most beautiful Lady Christ purchased, fear is replaced by love. She captures the heart and you fall in love with her.
Perfect love casts out fear.

 

[fallow_spirit]

I am so sorry you had to experience that. When one walks away from that kind of cultish fundamentalism it can be jarring to see that side of a person you thought you knew. I was once part of that myself.
Five years ago I wrote a blogpost that I hope helps. It’s based on a dream I had:

’Rome Phobia’

Phobia is an excessive and irrational fear that is usually based on some trauma in the past. Because of that trauma, anytime the person meets anything or anybody that is remotely associated with that trauma, there is an immediate knee-jerk response. The thing or person is out of proportion to the reality that it is. They are terrified of it and flee from it just at the mention of the name.
Many fundamentalists have ’Rome phobia’. Anything that remotely smells of Catholic, no matter how minute, they go berserk. The reactions of people who, at first talk of Christ and being a Christian, suddenly transform into something ugly and horrible.
Love becomes hate, peace becomes war, families are torn apart in revolt, joy becomes misery, mercy is replace by venom.
ANY enemy of Catholics becomes their friend. A root of bitterness is born that becomes a stench in the nostrils of God.
Watching people react to anything Catholic, the word Christian is the last word you would use to describe it.
Many times it is passed down from generation to generation. They have no clue as to WHY they hate Catholics….they just do.
Their identity is found in what they are against, not what they are for.
The history of the Catholic Church is re-written to show what a monster she is. Even her future is determined by ‘Bible prophecy’ which destines the monster to Hell. So there is no way out for the Catholic Church.
Born a monster, die a monster.
We teach our children to fear this ugly monster who will devour us on a whim. When asked about her they say, ‘she’s a horrible monster disfigured at birth and is destined for Hell and damnation.
When anyone DARES to face that phobia, remove the mask that has been put over her, he discovers that the Catholic Church is not the evil institution responsible for every evil imaginable.
But she is instead the most beautiful Lady Christ purchased, fear is replaced by love. She captures the heart and you fall in love with her.
Perfect love casts out fear.

Thanks for your support, nice post . I read your conversion story that was copy/paste on that fundamentalist forum. Luckily my current situation isn’t nearly as bad as what it looks like you went through. I don’t have a lot of extreme KJV only, whore of Babylon people around me. Most of those people close to me are a lot more reasonable though they obviously still have some of the stereotypical ‘Catholics worship statues’ views. Although there are a few people that sort of worry me. One is my best friend, she is nice and everything but she greatly influenced by a friend of her family (whose also a friend of ours) that takes a Jack Chick type view of Catholics. My friend and I have had a few very heated conversations about whether Catholics were Christians (I’ve always believed that they were) and I am very worried about how strained our friendship will become when the truth about my beliefs gets out. Another is of course that family friend of hers, since she is also very close to our family, that ‘worldview’ teacher from last year whose sort of a hyper-calvinist type person, and finally my Dad’s brother’s family that’s in Russia to ‘evangelize’ the Orthodox population (who I am sure they consider to basically be Catholic just without a Pope). Sorry I ramble a lot, in truth I am very blessed in a lot of ways. I have practicing Catholic grandparents that live close by, and that I go to Mass with when I am staying at their house on the weekend. I also might (big might) spend most of the summer with them next year at another house they have out of state. And finally I am lucky enough to have a parish in walking distance from our house in case I run into the ‘you can go to Mass but we won’t take you’ attitude from my parents.

 

[jmcdzzz]

I was Evangelical Protestant for 47 years before converting to Catholicism.

Everything in this post is a generalization, and there are most certainly exceptions to what I am saying in this post.

…

Really great post Cat. I couldn’t have put it nearly so succinctly. I myself was a Baptist for 27 years and can verify that what is say is right on the money.

One other difference you do not mention is that Fundamentalists tend to be Calvinists. Many of them 5-pointers. Evangelicals, although they are often Calvinists too, are likely to be 3-4 pointers, or less.

 

[jmcdzzz]

…

But Fundamentalists also generally reject movements or organizations that are not ecumenical, but simply attempt to accomplish the spread of the Christian Gospel and bring about good in society. Examples would be organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ, the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, or any Pro-Life group that does not have its origin in one of the Fundamentalist church denominations.

Pro-life movements are particularly troublesome for Fundamentalist Protestants. Fundamentalist Christians are strongly pro-life, but generally do not tend to get involved in pro-life movements, as these movements generally bring Catholic and Protestant Christians together. This would even include movements like the Pregnancy Care Centers, which, in spite of their good work, do usually include Catholics, mainline Protestants, other types of Protestants, and occasionally Orthodox Christians, on their paid and volunteer staff.

I don’t know if it’s like this everywhere, but definitely in West Michigan. Very few Fundamentalists work closely with Right to Life. They would sooner partner with Baptists for Life. Baptists for life was started specifically so that Fundamentalists-especially Baptist can have a voice without having to associate with Catholics as this would be seen as compromisingly ecumenical.

 

[jmcdzzz]

I am so sorry you had to experience that. When one walks away from that kind of cultish fundamentalism it can be jarring to see that side of a person you thought you knew. I was once part of that myself.
Five years ago I wrote a blogpost that I hope helps. It’s based on a dream I had:

’Rome Phobia’

Phobia is an excessive and irrational fear that is usually based on some trauma in the past. Because of that trauma, anytime the person meets anything or anybody that is remotely associated with that trauma, there is an immediate knee-jerk response. The thing or person is out of proportion to the reality that it is. They are terrified of it and flee from it just at the mention of the name.
Many fundamentalists have ’Rome phobia’. Anything that remotely smells of Catholic, no matter how minute, they go berserk. The reactions of people who, at first talk of Christ and being a Christian, suddenly transform into something ugly and horrible.

You got it. At my previous Baptist churches, even something like making the Sign of the Cross or lighting candles while praying are rejected as being too Catholic. They won’t end a prayer with “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” but they will end every single prayer with “in Jesus’ name”. Except the Lord’s Prayer which is rarely ever said. Instead it was to be used as a prayer “template,” because if you said it too often, it would be considered vain repetition.