Arrrgh. A textbook author hit my pedant button, hard enough that I snarled out loud. Fortunately, it was during my work period, so there were no witnesses.
Evangelical and fundamentalist are not synonyms. No, no, they are not, no, stop that, N. O. Evangelical Christians can follow the ideas put forth in The Fundamentals, but they don’t have to. And those who agree with the aforementioned ideas do not have to belong to the Protestant denominations frequently lumped as “Evangelical.”
Some background might be in order. When I was in grad school, I took a required class on religion in the United States. It was . . . Well, it was valuable, but not a good class for reasons I’d prefer not to get into. But one thing the professor hammered into us was that you cannot call anyone who practiced the Christian (or other) religions prior to the 1920s “fundamentalist.” When you “do” religious history, Fundamentalist means a Protestant Christian who subscribes to the ideas and teachings put forth in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth originally published as nine essays between 1910 and 1915, then collected in one volume and reissued in 1917. This became the touchstone, along with the Bible, for a certain group of Protestants.
The goal of The Fundamentals was to provide educated laymen, ministers, and theology instructors with the material needed to refute the new text-critical analysis of the Bible that began in Germany. At the time, several tensions were pulling at the Protestant denominations in the US (and elsewhere), and the text-critical/ source-critical approach to theology was only one of them. Today, most Protestants accept some source-critical study and acknowledge that in some ways, the Scriptures are part of the culture of their time, while they also contain eternal truths and teachings of great moral and spiritual value.
When The Fundamentals were compiled, however, Spencerian Darwinism (along with other mis-understandings of Darwin), the Social Gospel, “muscular Christianity,” source-critical theology, and other movements seemed to be threatening the foundations of Protestantism. Thus The Fundamentals. Whether or not you accepted their arguments determined if you were a Fundamentalist.
So, what about “Evangelicals?” Once you get past “mostly Protestant, Christian,” it is about as easy to define as it is to nail Jello™ to a tree. Technically, any Christian who tells other people (or better yet, shows them) about the teachings of the Gospels is an Evangelical. No, that’s not how the media and pundits define it. The media often include political activism, in the sense that “Evangelicals” tend to vote certain ways on certain issues. If a denomination, say, supports gay-marriage, abortion on demand, and open-borders, they are not by media definitions “Evangelical.” Even if they have a very active mission program and social outreach.
Depending on who you are describing, Evangelicals as understood in the popular sense include socially conservative Protestant denominations such as: Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, African Methodist Episcopal and AME of Zion (AMEZ), Free Baptists, Disciples of Christ, most Pentecostal denominations, possibly the Presbyterian Church of America (PC-A), Cumberland Presbyterian churches, and some Methodist Churches. Generally, Presbyterian-USA, Episcopalian, United Methodist, and Congregationalists are not “Evangelical.” What about the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints? *wags hand* Popular usage keeps them apart from all other Protestant denominations for cultural and theological reasons. If you lean on the literal definition of “evangelical,” however, they are more Evangelical than pretty much everyone else.
Note that most, probably all of the above aside from some Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, and Baptist-based sub-groups, would disagree with at least parts of The Fundamentals, and in some cases with the majority of it.
So Fundamentalists can certainly be Evangelicals. Most “Evangelicals,” however, are not Fundamentalists.