Original article posted here.

When John Ockenga* noted in 1947 that fundamentalism was found wanting because, “fragmentation, segregation, separation, criticism, sensoriousness, suspicion, solecism is the order of the day for fundamentalism” he was spot-on.

However, the solution that Ockenga supplied, called evangelicalism, is also found wanting because through unity they have destroyed distinctions of the church–making her ineffective.

Evangelicalism was, after all, a response against fundamentalism’s hard line stances on non-essential doctrine, moralism and harsh condemnations.  In some regards, Evangelicalism was a welcomed response that was both conservative and respectful.

What came about, though, was a watering down of theology to the lowest common denominator.  In some ways, they avoided fragmentation, segregation, separation, criticism, sensoriousness, suspicion and solecism, but they did not avoid other vital issues which caused them to be susceptible to error.

This became evident when Open Theism–a belief that God is not all-knowing–began ravaging the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS).  In attempting to understand how to handle  this obvious breach of essential doctrine, ETS was at a loss.  Their minimalist doctrine was ineffective and in the final analysis, Evangelicals had no foundation to oppose these attacks on the doctrine of God.

The minimalist view did not stay in the halls of certain evangelical organizations but crept their way into the churches.  The churches were supposed to be a place where distinct doctrine should thrive, and where theological traditions were still important.  The tide of evangelicalism swept into churches causing them to deny basic doctrine unique to their historical and theological traditions, all under the guise of being more evangelical.

This emphasized two major flaws in Evangelical Churches.  First, it individualized doctrine to an extreme.  In essence, doctrine became an individual taste rather than a corporate identity. No longer was the doctrine of the church important, but it became a suggestion for how the church operated rather than governing the church operations.

Churches of the Baptist, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Independent, and other such traditions, if they had a traditional doctrinal statement, were known for the exceptions to their doctrine.  At other times, the doctrinal statement was extremely minimalist that it was ineffective.  Like the controversy with ETS, rank heresy could easily invade with no governing authority to stop it.

As a result, the preaching became weak, and the focus was more emotional, moral, and generic.  This taught the church a tragic lesson: doctrine is not important in the church, that it only divides, and we should avoid it.  Instead of seeing the blessings of doctrine, Evangelicals only saw the negatives.

The Gospel suffered too.  Instead of having true meat in the Gospel, it became extremely minimalist and blanketed in “evangelical speak” that was not helpful for the advancement of the Gospel.  Christians began witnessing by saying, “God has a wonderful plan for your life” instead of, “We are sinners in need of a savior.”

The downgrade in theology impacted the scholarly pursuit too.  Dr. Mark Noll noted in his book, Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, “To put it most simply, the evangelical ethos is activistic, populist, pragmatic, and utilitarian.  It allows little space for broader or deeper intellectual effort because it is dominated by the urgencies of the moment” (pg 12).

This downgrade in academic pursuits, in theological traditions of their past, and in allowing for little space for “broader or deeper intellectual effort” has opened us up to even the ludicrous but also dangerous like: God is not omniscient, Jesus did not submit to God the Father, and hell does not exist.  But Evangelicalism has not stopped with the ludicrous, it is now seeing some of their scholars embrace neo-orthodox views as they slide deeper into non-Christian thought.

Granted, there seems to be a revival among scholarship and an embrace of our historical traditions especially among some segments of Baptists and Presbyterians. What seems to be the most telling is that those who are embracing this new scholarship are leery of embracing, or they outright reject the “evangelicalism” label.

The lowest common denominator approach has been harmful to Christianity and relegated doctrine as merely optional.

Secondly, the focus of evangelicalism became the parachurch organizations.  These organizations often competed with the church.  There were mission organizations who relied upon churches to raise money, but they felt the church was a lost cause and sought to build their own organization rather than the church.

Not only was Evangelicalism watering down the careful, traditional doctrine of the church, they were also teaching generations that the church is optional.

If someone involved in the Evangelical parachurch movement was directed to a church, it was most likely a church that reflected the minimalist view of the organization.

Evangelicals clearly showed the problems of fundamentalists, but in response they became weak in doctrine, focused on building organizations rather than churches, and thus became bureaucratic nightmares rather than focused on Biblical unity that celebrated our commonality and differences.  Instead of pointing people to the church and encouraging her to be built up, they pointed away from the church.

This Christianity was not the awe inspiring Christianity that once existed.  That historic Christianity saw doctrine as essential and important.  Local churches were a foundational place for doctrine to be clear and honored.  Baptists were Baptists, Presbyterians were Presbyterians, Wesleyans were Wesleyans and Episcopals were Episcopals.  Each saw the distinctions as important, but they recognized a greater unity around important doctrine.

Fundamentalists could not win America because they failed to see the fullness of grace in other theological traditions. Evangelicalism can not win America because of the same reason. Fundamentalists sought to uplift every minor doctrine and belief while Evangelicalism sought to minimize it.  Fundamentalists enjoyed a high view of the church but failed to acknowledge the work of the Universal Church.  Evangelicals recognized the Universal Church but subverted the local church.

Evangelicalism cannot win America because they cannot sustain the doctrines of God.

* In 1947, John Ockenga, the first president of the National Association of Evangelicals and Fuller Seminary, wrote an article entitled “Can Fundamentalism Win America?” where he concluded “No.”  Today’s article is asking the same of American Evangelicalism.