Evangelical for a Reason

Have you noticed it? Do you feel small? Do you feel inadequate to have opinions anymore? Do you feel a heavy hand upon your head? Do you feel demeaned, disenfranchised, demoted?
That is what it is beginning to feel like to be an Evangelical.
There is a new elitism that is sweeping Christianity. Oh, it does not go by any such name. In fact, it claims to be anti-elite. Its characteristics are those which discount opinions with too many raised hands. It promotes evangelical vertigo, western fatigue, and uncertain hope. It goes by many names: emergent, post-colonialism, post-conservative, post-modern, post-fundamental, post-Christian, and the like. It promotes all things “re-.” Re-imagine, re-construct, re-think, re-form, re-(ahem) claim. It is theology 2.0.
I am not shooting myself in the foot here am I? You might think so. I am all for the re-. I am cheering the emerging church on from the sidelines. I am ready to deconstruct ignorance that produces the veneer of faith in pop evangelicalism. I fight against unnecessary controversy. I pride myself in balance. I like the word irenic.
But I do have my limits.
As of late, the theological atmosphere is beginning to stink. Disenchanted people have gone on a discovery process that has led them to some new enlightenment. They are all over the place. Duped dispensationalists, traditionalists, Calvinists, modernists, evangelicals, institutionalists, Republicans, Protestants, westerners, and fundamentalists have seen the light and become embittered and all-wise at the same time.
Have you noticed the elitism? Have you heard their dialect:
“You think like a westerner.”
“Your hope is sadly based on a naive 20th century American Evangelical theology.”
“You should spend some time in (insert any foreign country) and the haze will begin to clear.”
“If you read (insert any obscure mystic or existentialist), then you would awaken.”
“If you studied (insert any ancient Greek mythology), then you would understand that your interpretation is wrong.”
“If you studied at (insert any liberal university), then the scales will fall from your poor eyes.”
“If you read (insert a Jewish rabbi), then you would not have such a limited view.”
When did the Gnostics reignite their flame of superiority?
To all those elitists, to all those who find wisdom in one hand clapping, to all those who have been enlightened:
Slow down!
We need to be critical thinkers. We need to question assumptions. We need to recognize folk theology. We must admit our own personal bias. We need to recognize that we don’t have all the answers. Education is not a simple confirmation of prejudice. We can learn from others. All of these are true. But who are you to assume that we are so limited in our understanding? Who are you to call your discovery discovery? Do you suppose that we have not studied and traveled as broad as you? Do you assume that those of us who remain Evangelical have not taken a ride on your bus? Maybe we liked the bus, appreciated the ride, learned a lot, but we reflectively got off because we found it wanting. Is that possible?
I am an evangelical. I am not an ignorant evangelical. I am a learning evangelical. But over the last ten years, as I have studied Scripture, history, the enlightenment, and the early church, as I have traveled to other countries, engaged in gracious reflective dialogue with Evolutionists, Arminians, Egalitarians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Emergers, mystics, new-agers, the New Atheists, and those who know no labels, I have become more of a Reformed Evangelical than ever. True, I would not die for every aspect of my theology like I once would. True, I don’t think “the other side” is as ignorant as I once did. But I am more convinced based upon my studies than I ever was. Heck, I still believe in the Rapture—pretribulational! (Automatic disqualification, right?—just pat me on the head and gently say in the voice of Julie Andrews, “its okay”).
Is this allowed? Can I still be Evangelical?
Yes, Evangelicalism has problems—big problems. But the bus you are on, while fascinating and new, has big problems too. You just have not been riding it long enough to recognize this. Disenchantment is around the corner once again. The newness will wear off. You may be in for another enlightenment. You may soon discover that upgrading your theology is not as expedient as upgrading your Windows platform. Theology 2.0 may not be the way to go. Once this re-re-enlightenment occurs, returning to where you were before may not be your response, but you will see that some Evangelicals really did know what they were talking about. Some weren’t in the intellectual bondage you thought they were. They were Evangelical for a reason.
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Evangelical for a Reason
- Evangelical Manifesto - Part 2
- The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation
- What does it take to be an Evangelical?
- Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #3
Eric S. Mueller on 29 Apr 2008 at 1:27 pm #
I’m not as deep into this as you are. I do follow some theological blogs and podcasts, yours included. I certainly agree that we need some critical thinking on all sides of the discussion. While I certainly don’t believe that 19th century American fundamentalism was the pinnacle of worshiping God, I also don’t see that something new will come along. God never changes; we just keep coming up with new doctrines in an attempt to understand Him and explain that understanding to others. I am NOT in any way saying that doctrines are bad; Paul told Timothy that Scripture was profitable for doctrine, etc.
I’m not a fan of rallying around certain doctrines. I am very comfortable with Calvinism, but because my church tends to be Arminian, whether most members understand it or not, I try to keep quiet. I, like you, still hold to a pre-trib Rapture, but I can probably count the number of people I could discuss that with on one hand.
Alyssa B-D on 29 Apr 2008 at 1:32 pm #
I think you’re doing a lot of great things to combat the sort of cynical attitude you discuss here. DIalogue is all we can do. Thank you.
Mitch on 29 Apr 2008 at 1:50 pm #
I’ll be honest. I don’t know what “evangelical” means. So I was completely lost with this post. Sorry. I’ll catch the next one.
Stephen on 29 Apr 2008 at 1:53 pm #
I find myself fighting this same battle almost daily with the friends I graduated from college with. When I recently posted a blog openly critical of some of the teachings of Rob Bell, I was scared for my life. Fortunately for me, most of my “emergent” friends really do take this love and grace thing seriously enough to engage in friendly debate with me, but I know many who wouldn’t be so kind.
Why does everything about Western thinking and the past oh…1,000 years of Christendom have to be considered “ignorant,” and “wrong?”
Jugulum on 29 Apr 2008 at 2:14 pm #
Amen, brother. Amen.
P.S. Pretrib rapture? Really? If you studied more, then the scales would fall from your poor eyes.
minnowspeaks on 29 Apr 2008 at 3:10 pm #
Funny CMP–I feel similarly only in reverse I guess. I suggest a thought that is not completely backed up with 2000 years of historical agreement and the firing squad begins to line up. I had not heard any of the elitist dialect you described.
BTW–What is meant by the phrase “one hand clapping”? I’ve run into it in another place but didn’t feel free/safe to ask.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 29 Apr 2008 at 4:05 pm #
Minnow - How many thoughts have been backed up with 2000 years of unquestioned historical agreement? Justification by grace alone through faith alone is close, but even there. I think the point is the same in many ways: just as you can’t say it’s right because people have been saying it for X years, you can’t say it’s wrong for the same reason. Personally, I think the biggest thing is the incredible arrogance it takes to say that, though many of them may have disagreed with each other, the one thing we know about people of the last 2000 years is that they were all WRONG.
“One hand clapping” refers to a famous Buddhist “Koan” (or riddle without an answer). The common answer to the full Koan (”What is the sound of one hand clapping?”) is “muuu”. Which is a non-answer. It’s a Buddhist thing - if you had traveled to the far East or Costa Rica you’d understand. (That’s a joke - nobody understands Koans, and that’s the point. I say this as a former wanna-be-Buddhist who had fascinating apologetic discussions with my Buddhist Spanish tutor in Costa Rica.)
Susan on 29 Apr 2008 at 4:05 pm #
I’m leary of anything new which springs up from critisism and cynisism. Maybe a lot of this takes root in the ‘pride of youth’. Those who are young are those most likely to reject the status quo, which they associate with their parents, or ailing society, and assume that the new way is the better way (theology included).
geoff on 29 Apr 2008 at 4:25 pm #
i liked your post. it was good. i get to thinking like that but i dont have the right kind of education to make it sound that good.
kolabok21 on 29 Apr 2008 at 5:34 pm #
Thats why you use a back-up disc, so if you don’t like the new upgrade, you can purge it and re-install the old!!!
Jugulum on 29 Apr 2008 at 5:52 pm #
Sure, but when you’re using a Beta version, it’s at your own risk!
Alden on 29 Apr 2008 at 6:15 pm #
“The sound of one hand clapping” is also sometimes used to refer to listening to only one side of an issue. It must have something to do with Hegel…
btw, CMP, I love the little graphic…
There seems to be a lot of what I call “evangelical angst” happening in all corners; this causes some to turn emergent, and others to turn Roman Catholic or Anglican. I wonder if some of it is due to the explosion of information available on the net; people are now exposed to other views much more than even 10 years ago. As a result, assumptions - and presumptions - are challenged.
It makes me glad I was raised Lutheran. I always have my “backup disk” ready…
Jason J on 29 Apr 2008 at 7:31 pm #
What a perfect blog. I’ve been feeling that way as of late. I’m currently in seminary working on my Th.M and I was just thinking that my feelings were related to the challenge of seminary.
I no longer fee alone, lol.
Thanks CMP.
Michael J. Phillips on 29 Apr 2008 at 7:52 pm #
Wow CMP,
Way to loose the irenic in you. I do agree with you.
When you get to the end, will you ever find an answer, or is it always a new question? Will you ever find a foundation to build upon, or will you forever be tearing down. This search must lead somewhere other than circles.
Amen, brother
MJP
djohn on 29 Apr 2008 at 8:15 pm #
You’ve heard of all the other {insert radio shows} I vote CMP to start his own syndicated talk show
Jim H. on 29 Apr 2008 at 9:22 pm #
Very well said, as this post describes my journey to a tee. While working in Washington DC, I found myself defending my Calvinism against some excellent Catholic apologists, who pride themselves on converting evangelicals.
I began attending orthodox Catholic masses, read Merton, Flanner O’Connor and other RC luminaries, and even took it so far to meet with a Priest for some discussion.
In the past year, I ended a flirtation with Eastern Orthodoxy, and have come around to now feeling strengthened in my Reformed Evangelicalism.
Indeed, I still appreciate much of what I learned about Church history and the doctrine of the church as a whole, but the plain truth is that the vast majority of RC’s and EO’S have mangled and added to the gospel greviously.
Placing tradition alongside scripture is a slippery slope of confusion that never ends, thus I rarely saw the fruit of the spirt being demonstrated amongst the rank and file of either RC’s or EO’s.
I observed a tendency amongst evangelical converts to quickly embrace the mystical elements, totally unsupported by scripture, while citing what some “father” wrote as justification for their belief.
Sneering at evangelicals is rampant amongst converts, but the fact is that when it comes to loving our neighbors in word and deed, I’ve seen more evangelicals in third world countries in the past six years than I’ve seen RC’s or EO’s in their own countries!
As DL Moody once quipped, “I like the way I’m doing it better than the way you’re not!”
Chris on 29 Apr 2008 at 11:00 pm #
“but the plain truth is that the vast majority of RC’s and EO’S have mangled and added to the gospel greviously.”
So a large minority have not mangled the gospel? Tell us more.
Alden on 30 Apr 2008 at 12:28 am #
“but the plain truth is that the vast majority of RC’s and EO’S have mangled and added to the gospel greviously.”
Jim H, that’s quite a charge.
JoanieD on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:56 am #
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/04/two-cheers-for-resurgence-of-calvinism.html
Guest post by Thomas McCall, assistant professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He praises many things that he sees going on by his evangelical Calvinist friends but also has some suggestions for them.
Joanie D.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:10 am #
“but the plain truth is that the vast majority of RC’s and EO’S have mangled and added to the gospel greviously.”
Unfortunately, the vast majority of “evangelicals” have also mangled and added to (or more commonly, subtracted from) the gospel greviously. I say this as a former RC and now reformed evangelical.
Ruben on 30 Apr 2008 at 2:44 pm #
What I find lacking in evangelical circles is an emphasis on the Gospels and on the life of Christ. The emphasis on “sola scriptura” and right theology is good and true but it has become like an idol in that it replaces a real knowledge and devotion to Christ (as He was when He walked among us).
I think people want to live and breathe their faith, thinking about it and studying it is not enough anymore. I’m hoping that evangeliclas learn from and adapt to these changes, seeing the trends as a call for reform.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 30 Apr 2008 at 4:13 pm #
Ruben - I don’t have an issue with paying attention to the Gospels. However, it seems to me a bigger problem in the church today is the attitude underlying the so-called “Red-Letter Christians” - that Christ’s words and actions should be considered above any other part of Scripture. Christ’s actions while here on earth were important, no doubt: but to look primarily at the human Jesus is to ignore the major part of What and Who Jesus is.
I wrote an article on “Red-Letter Christians” in general and Tony Campolo in particular here that might be of interest to some:
http://cajoneador.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-you-red-letter-christian.html
Ruben on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:53 pm #
I see Christ as being the culmination of Scripture, the ultimate Word of God Himself. And Gary is right that we have to see Him in all totality.
britphil on 01 May 2008 at 6:55 am #
Well my American friends.. you have had a couple of Britphil-free days, (nest couple f fdays in months I hear you cry) but it’s time to re-enter the fray!
Michael… Can I begin by saying I very much hear what you say, but if I may can I posit that it might be a particularly American problem. Also should the title to the post have read “Reformed Evangelcial for a Reason” Permit me to posit a suggestion if I may.
It appears to me that in USA for many years in “modern America” the Reformed Evangelicals have held ascendancy and have enjoyed their dominant position. What I think may be happening is that you are not feeling too comfortable with how those holding a different theological stance may have felt for many years
Many emerging evangelicals have for years felt marginalised ahnd uncomfortable but have stuck with exising denominations knowing that if they said what they really believed they would not be too popular! For us here in the UK, the battlelines have been drawn slightly differently. From mid 1
1970s liberal theology wqas in the ascendancy and evangelicals here felt like you do now.
The tide was reversed somewhat in the mid 1990s but I would also state that if Reformed Evangelicals are wishing fro a word which has gone to suddenly return I think is misplaced optimism. I guess if a a modern evangelical mindset trying to makes sense and relate to a post modern or even, dare I say it, a post Christian world will a;lways feel uncomfortable.
The other concern I have is why should we evangelcials expect to feel comfortable? Here I agai I would like to posit that for many years maybe American Christainity has been too respectable, attempting more to conform to and embrace the principles of the “American Dream” than the real and radical teachings of Jesus Christ. At the forefront of this often have been Reformed Evangelicals.
Also, is what is really being said or argued here that Refromed Calvinsit Evangelcial;ism is the onlt stance that can be properly adopted for you to be considered a true evangelical.
“Very well said, as this post describes my journey to a tee. While working in Washington DC, I found myself defending my Calvinism against some excellent Catholic apologists, who pride themselves on converting evangelicals. ”
Why the need to ‘defend’ Calvinism per se. Argue for your beliefs by all means but Calthere is almost an assumed belief that Calvinist evangelcialism cannot be critiqued (oh yes it can and yest it must)or is above reproach. (oh no it isn’t!) . I have a slight problem with this ‘defensive’.stance .if the gospek is true it is robiust enough to stand up to any scrutiny…it needs proclaiming and living out far more than it does “defending” Sometimes I think we fall into the mistake that God somehow is deficient in some regard to need us to defend him..surely Almighty God is more than capable of defending himself!nding himself!
“I think people want to live and breathe their faith, thinking about it and studying it is not enough anymore. I’m hoping that evangeliclas learn from and adapt to these changes, seeing the trends as a call for reform.”
Ruben…I’m right there alongside you mate. There are many students of the word who live it out brilliantly, but equally there are many where the academic exercise of pursuing the knowledge of Christian truth is given far more precedence than than the application ofd it in everyday life.
“I find myself fighting this same battle almost daily with the friends I graduated from college with. When I recently posted a blog openly critical of some of the teachings of Rob Bell, I was scared for my life. Fortunately for me, most of my “emergent” friends really do take this love and grace thing seriously enough to engage in friendly debate with me, but I know many who wouldn’t be so kind.
Stephen.. I agree with you but it must be said that this cuts both ways. I recently came across a far more pro-Calvinist website than this one who posted a hugely negative book review of “Velvet Elvis” I hby Rob Bell. I had no problem with that in itself until I read the review which was a thinly veiled excuse to assassinate Rob Bell’s cgaracter, question his faith and undermine, if not destroy, his credibility and his ministry. I posted a mesage in support of both Rob Bell and Velvet Elvis and like you was scared for my life as I did so - and I was right to be because the replies ranged from patroniosing and condescending (which I can talke as part and parecel off blogging) to highly accusatory. My own stabnce on this si that Refromed Evangelicals have felt it is their place to spend so much time criticising the views and theology of others that they feel that their own positions are above question.
minnowspeaks on 01 May 2008 at 7:18 am #
Britphil said: “…for many years maybe American Christainity has been too respectable, attempting more to conform to and embrace the principles of the “American Dream” than the real and radical teachings of Jesus Christ.” And also: “…Calthere is almost an assumed belief that Calvinist evangelcialism cannot be critiqued (oh yes it can and yes it must) or is above reproach. (oh no it isn’t!) . I have a slight problem with this ‘defensive’ stance If the gospel is true it is robust enough to stand up to any scrutiny…it needs proclaiming and living out far more than it does defending.”
Amen Brother!
JFrances on 01 May 2008 at 11:43 am #
Jim H: “Placing tradition alongside scripture is a slippery slope of confusion that never ends, thus I rarely saw the fruit of the spirt being demonstrated amongst the rank and file of either RC’s or EO’s.”
I appreciate your need to defend your embrace of Calvinism as your faith tradition. However, it is prudent, I think, to point out that in many ways Calvinism also has a quite distinguished history of “placing tradition alongside scripture.” This is often referred to as interpretive tradition. You may not even realize the influence interpretive tradition has on Calvinism, however, it is hard to deny. The very Scriptures you may see as so obvious and the doctrines you hold as clearly Scriptural are, in fact, largely a function of the interpretive tradition you have assumed. Catholics and Orthodoxy do not have a corner on the tradition alongside scripture market.
Jim H: “. . .the fact is that when it comes to loving our neighbors in word and deed, I’ve seen more evangelicals in third world countries in the past six years than I’ve seen RC’s or EO’s in their own countries!”
Perhaps this is your experience. I can not contest what you claim you have seen in the evangelical vs. Catholic/Orthodox communities. However, I would ask you to consider if tossing out purely anecdotal and obviously disparaging generalizations about other faith traditions is really helpful in building a witness to your own faith. Basically, all one can surmise is that this is your view from yow pew or that you have purposefully ignored the wide spread and deeply rooted contribution of other faiths to charitable service here and abroad.
Jim H.: “As DL Moody once quipped, ‘I like the way I’m doing it better than the way you’re not!’”
To which Someone might respond, “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?”
Jim H. on 01 May 2008 at 6:14 pm #
JFrances and others:
I should point out that I am not a cheerleader for my brand of evangelicalism. Obviously, I thought many things were lacking or I would never have been vulnerable and been tempted by RCism and EO.
The respect for tradition, and the beauty one experiences in a High RC Mass, or an EO Liturgy, is truly humbling for someone used to modern evangelicalism.
However, when it comes to Biblical literacy, I found both RCism and EO sorely lacking. Orthodox scholar Bradley Nassif actually accuses many Orthodox (including Priests) of being “sacramentalized” and not evangelicalized in an article that sparked much heated debate in Orthodox circles:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/NassifGospel.php
Nassif claims that many Orthodox church plants are “revolving doors” for diasaffected evangelicals, who are attracted to the beauty and tradition of the church, but ultimately leave when they realize how inward looking and un-evangelical the churches tend to be.
This indeed has been my anectdotal experience, both in the US and in Russia and Ukraine, where I’ve traveled extensively. Suffice it say that homeless kids on the streets of Ukraine or Russia know that if they want a hot meal and someone to care about them, they to go to the evangelical ministry.
This is what finally ended my flirtation with Orthodoxy. In the very heart of Slavic Orthodoxy, I saw ZERO outreach to the poor.
I’ve heard all the excuses about why this doesn’t take place, but the fact is they are spending millions of dollars building new Orthodox Churches while their orphans and widows are being loved by evangelicals - most of whom are Americans.
Chris on 01 May 2008 at 9:59 pm #
You’re comparing $US funded evangelical missions to the just-coming-out-of-sovietism Russian church?
Many times these $ spent on churches are state funds, which while the Church is grateful to get buildings, they don’t have the choice to redirect to anything they want. What you’re saying is also a bit like Judas asking why the money for Myrrh to annoint Jesus’ feet wasn’t spent on the poor.
Read more about this social work in progress. Things like this: http://e-journal.spa.msu.ru/images/File/2005/polunov(1).pdf
JFrances on 02 May 2008 at 12:40 pm #
Jim H., you have brought up several things that merit more discussion, but for the sake of brevity (I hope), a couple of things immediately come to the surface. . .
1. You said: “However, when it comes to Biblical literacy, I found both RCism and EO sorely lacking.”
I understand that this idea that Catholics are somehow Biblically illiterate is a very popular stereotype. And I would assume, like all stereotypes, that it is rooted in some measure of truth. From my own experience, of my two grandmothers, I only saw one ever sit and read her Bible (which she did quite often as a very learned and devout life-long Catholic). My other grandmother, holy and simple, instead attends daily Mass—hearing the Word proclaimed for her each day—and, when she isn’t serving family or neighbors or doing work for her church or those in need, she sits in prayer. It would be very easy for someone who didn’t know her to assume that she was quite Biblically illiterate—and I’m quite certain she’d agree. But she knows God’s Word, his love, and abides by it far better than I do or anyone else I know. I am very aware that throughout Christendom there have been periods of time, even long periods, when printed, published, and personally accessible versions of Sacred Scripture were not readily available to “the masses” for various reasons. This is undeniable. But today this is hardly a viable argument against Catholic Biblical literacy.
And again, nobody can argue your anecdotal experience. However, I doubt that if you had immersed yourself in either the Catholic or Orthodox faith communities that you would have really come to find that contemporary practicing Catholics and Orthodox are somehow less than on par with their average Evangelical counterparts in terms of Biblical knowledge. For better or worse, many of these communities are using the same Scripture study texts, attending the same seminary courses, frequenting the same *blogs*, and reading the same translations and lexicons as most of the Evangelical community—in addition to the daily dose of liturgical Scripture reading that a Catholic receives if one attends daily Mass or keeps the Divine Office. Basically, this observation of yours smacks of bias and I am personally defensive against statements like this as they really serve no good purpose in dialogue today.
Catholics, like Orthodox and Evangelicals, come in all shapes and sizes. You may certainly find that some are more or less Biblically literate, historically astute, devout, prayerful, charitable, and/or obedient to the Faith. Making sweeping generalizations about how Catholics (or Orthodox) are “sorely lacking” is blatantly ignoring the huge contribution the historical Church has made to the promulgation, preservation, and interpretation of Sacred Scripture throughout the ages—not to mention the more contemporary work of Catholic and Orthodox Scripture scholars and theologians.
2. You said: “ Orthodox scholar Bradley Nassif actually accuses many Orthodox (including Priests) of being “sacramentalized” and not evangelicalized. . .”
I appreciate Dr. Nassif’s appeal to the Evangelical tradition in his distinctions of “sacramentalized” versus “evangelized.” I can imagine this observation of the Orthodox community would resound quite well among certain audiences. However, as Dr. Nassif also aptly points out, with a proper understanding of Word and Sacrament, the two are inextricably connected in the life of the Church. What Dr. Nassif does not suggest, however, is scrapping sacramentalism for what many in the Evangelical community might refer to as a “Bible-only fellowship.” Instead, what Dr. Nassif, among scores of Catholic and Orthodox priests, theologians, and lay people, is suggesting is a reorientation of both Word and Sacrament on Christ. This, I think, is the constant work of the Body of Christ as we continually find ourselves renewed in Christ and conformed to Him.
1. 3. You said: “Suffice it say that homeless kids on the streets of Ukraine or Russia know that if they want a hot meal and someone to care about them, they to go to the evangelical ministry.
This is what finally ended my flirtation with Orthodoxy. In the very heart of Slavic Orthodoxy, I saw ZERO outreach to the poor.”
This is so unfortunate, but like you readily admit, it is only your anecdotal experience. The logical extension of this, then, is that you could be wrong simply because you may be ignorant of the work the Catholic and/or Orthodox communities are doing in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
Rather than propagating what could easily be considered a biased, self-interested assessment, I would encourage you to do the hard work of looking for Christ where He may not be as obvious from your perspective. Chris offered a good reference for the Orthodox community. I would suggest you take a look at the US Bishop’s website for ample information on how the Church in the United States is serving the Church in Eastern and Central Europe. Among the information provided there you will find a photo gallery of numerous representations of how the people of Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, etc are being loved by Catholics. You can access these photographs, read personal stories, and general service reports at http://www.usccb.org/aee/index.shtml
Jim H. on 02 May 2008 at 3:44 pm #
Chris - the missionaries I know serving in Russia and Ukraine area sponsored by individuals who typically contribute 50 to 100 dollars monthly to support them. They do not receive support from big organizations in the US.
JFrances — One of the first things you hear from Catholics and Orthodox is that they hear more scripture in the Mass and Divine Liturgy than we do in an evangelical service.
True. The problem of course is that they have no idea what it means! Yes, I’m generalizing, but I spent four years attending both RC and EO services, and rarely heard any sound preaching.
This is something that they are extremely defensive about because it is true, and that is exactly what Nassiff is talking about. He flat out says that “many” Orthodox Priests are not even saved!
Much imagination is required to begin to understand what they are saying about the atonement for example. Forget that Isaiah says that “he was wounded for our transgressions,” because the Fathers thought otherwise. According to the Orthodox, there is no such thing as penal substitution.
It is no wonder that the doctrine of penal substitution is now being sneered at by enlightened, progressive evangelicals who embrace teaching that wants only “mystery.”
Indeed, evangelicals deserve to get smacked down for much of our pridefulness when it comes to Biblical literacy, but the embrace of “mystery” by Evangelical converts to Orthodoxy and RCism has its own problems. After all, Paul makes clear in Ephesians 3 that the “mystery was made known” to him.
I urge you to conduct an experiment. Do a search right now on the popular Orthodox blogs and compare how many times you see the Bible quoted versus the church “Fathers.” If you really want to get them riled up, try quoting scripture that directly contradicts what some “Father” had to say.
Then attend an Orthodox liturgy and spend some time afterwards talking to the Priest and various members about their parish, taking note of how much discussion of outreach to the poor takes place.
This will not take long.
Gary (aka fool4jesus) on 02 May 2008 at 4:08 pm #
JFrances — One of the first things you hear from Catholics and Orthodox is that they hear more scripture in the Mass and Divine Liturgy than we do in an evangelical service.
I suppose that would depend on who “we” are exactly. More than your typical seeker-sensitive service (Saddleback, Willow, or the more modern and “edgy” types with names like “Lifepoint”), that is true. What tiny amount of scripture is actually used is not explained and, worse, often given meanings far from anything either the authors intended or anybody for the past 2,000+ years has ever used.
If you are talking about mainstream protestant churches, I’d say they come out about even with any RC service I’ve ever been to (and I’ve been to many).
However, for many evangelical churches, they’re totally wrong. Take such different churches as John MacArthur’s, D.J. Kennedy (RIP) or most any Calvary Chapel. You get not only nearly-constant Bible exposition, but they actually discuss what it means. Anybody who has spent any time at all in such services can plainly see this.
Chris on 02 May 2008 at 5:04 pm #
Nevertheless Jim, the Orthodox church is exiting a period where all preaching and teaching and other activities were banned, and going into a period of finding its footing. What a couple of US missionaries are doing can hardly be compared to how a 100 million member church is doing. There are totally different dynamics at work. Go look at what the church was doing 100 years ago, and compare to what protestants were doing then.
JoanieD on 02 May 2008 at 7:53 pm #
To JFrances in #29…you always write such well thought-out and well-written comments. I enjoy reading them. I hope you stick around on this blog and continue contributing.
Joanie D.
JFrances on 02 May 2008 at 11:25 pm #
Jim H., once again, you have offered a lot with which to interact and since I can not really address the issues you have with the Orthodox community, which seems to be your big beef, I’m going to respond to one point:
You said: “One of the first things you hear from Catholics and Orthodox is that they hear more scripture in the Mass and Divine Liturgy than we do in an evangelical service.
True. The problem of course is that they have no idea what it means!”
My first instinct is to revert to my inner 6 year old and simply say “Nuh-uh.” But I’ll elaborate. . .
To be quite honest, I have no idea if I “hear more scripture in the Mass. . .than [you] do in an evangelical service.” That wasn’t my supposition. Instead, I was challenging your assertion that the Catholic/Orthodox communities are “sorely lacking” in terms of “Biblical literacy,” which you thus far have failed to prove beyond your own admittedly anecdotal and obviously poor experience.
Further, I think that your charge that the problem with the Catholic/Orthodox communities is that they “have no idea what [Scripture] means,” presumably based on your poor experiences in various churches, is more evidence of your bias rather than a truly objective observation. If you need a Catholic or Orthodox reading list to help you reconsider, I’m sure we could provide you with one!
To be fair, I think I understand. You may have to believe that Catholics and Orthodox are complete Scriptural idiots and charitable degenerates to defend your choice to remain in your tradition. But, make no mistake about it, it is your tradition that you are defending and not the Gospel. And your anecdotal observations remain your anecdotal observations.
I don’t know what Catholic or Orthodox churches you frequented during your flirting years, but I do know that “sound preaching” is in the ears of the listener, just as St. Paul warns Timothy (1 Tim. 4:3). To some extent, we all prefer listening to the choir which sings the songs we know best. If by “sound preaching,” you mean Calvinism, then yes, you probably never heard it preached in a Catholic or Orthodox church. And, yes, the tradition and beauty you found yourself drawn to would indeed seem like window dressing for your sensibilities if your measuring stick is penal substitution. However, the Word of God is, in fact, heard daily in every Catholic Church throughout the world. And regardless of the quality of any given sermon, hearing the very Word of God proclaimed is an undeniable grace which can move the heart of an unbeliever. Hearing good preaching is a gift beyond measure and surely helpful in instructing a church, but in terms of Sacred Scripture itself, J.I. Packer writes:
“Its central message is so plainly stated in the text that the most unlearned of those who have ears to hear and eyes to see can understand it. “The unfolding of thy words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.”. . . ‘Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.’
For you to say that Catholics and/or Orthodox “don’t understand what [Scripture] means” is simply a false, unfounded and biased accounting of the Great Tradition which has served very well to carry the Gospel to all nations throughout the ages well before Wycliffe or Piper podcasts. In truth, what you mean is that Catholics and/or Orthodox don’t understand Scripture according to your interpretive tradition.
And Jim, while yes Catholics hear Scripture read in the Liturgy of the Word, it is an often ignored point that the entire order of the Mass is a expository exhibition of Sacred Scripture: see http://teresatomeo.com/documents/TheMass.pdf
JFrances on 02 May 2008 at 11:36 pm #
Joanie D., thank you. Your kind words and generous encouragement are so greatly appreciated. I do what I can—when my children are sleeping, bathrooms are clean, beds are made, and the rest of my life is gracious to this indulgence!
Jim H. on 03 May 2008 at 12:39 pm #
JFrances — Dismissing what I say as biased is one thing, but what do you say about Orthodox Theologian Bradley Nassiff?
He makes my point, with much greater force:
“In short, they do not know the core content of the gospel or how to integrate its meaning into their everyday lives. I realize these are sad things to say, but a correct diagnosis precedes the proper cure.”
Read the entire article here:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/NassifGospel.php
My concern for readers of this blog is to be very careful when emracing emergent teaching embracing mysticism. You never know where it will take you, and if Nassiff is right, and I believe he is, the mystical path is an empty one.
JFrances on 03 May 2008 at 6:15 pm #
Jim H., forgive me, but at this point in the dialogue, I’m not sure who you are talking to. Thus far, I have done my best to challenge your assertions regarding Catholics specifically whom you have claimed are Biblically illiterate, charitably deficient, and exegetically inept. You have provided very little support for these claims beyond your own poor experiences and impressions.
You said: “Dismissing what I say as biased is one thing. . .”
I am not dismissing what you have to say as biased. I’m challenging you to provide evidence that it’s not.
You asked: “but what do you say about Orthodox Theologian Bradley Nassiff? He makes my point, with much greater force. . . Read the entire article here”
First, I read Dr. Nassif’s article before I commented on it in my post #29.
Second, Dr. Nassif isn’t saying anything about his own community that you could not find being fired from the pulpit and printed about any other Christian tradition. He’s saying, “We’re not where we should be.” To which I’m sure he would hear a great Amen a thousand times over, regardless of his audience.
What Dr. Nassif is not saying, however, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. He’s not saying, that when liturgy, sacrament, Orthodox theology are misunderstood or appropriated, they should be exchanged for a mainline Evangelical Protestant tradition, which seems to be the sway of your argument. Dr. Nassif is very clear about his conviction “that the Orthodox Church preserves the fullness of God’s truth.”
So, what do I say about Bradley Nassif? I say he’s doing a really good job of addressing certain interior needs within his own tradition while making it seem reasonably accessible for non-Orthodox Christians who are seeking a liturgical and sacramental tradition.
Jim ends: “if Nassiff is right, and I believe he is, the mystical path is an empty one.”
Admittedly, I have not read Nassif’s work exhaustively, but I’m not sure he has ever made such a statement regarding the Orthodox tradition and Eastern mysticism. Citation?
Chris on 03 May 2008 at 9:46 pm #
“My concern for readers of this blog is to be very careful when emracing emergent teaching embracing mysticism. You never know where it will take you, and if Nassiff is right, and I believe he is, the mystical path is an empty one.”
Of course, Nassif says nothing at all against “mysticism”. In fact, he talks in that article about ” translating the principles of monastic life to the spiritual disciplines of the average Christian”, which sounds pretty mystical to me.
Nassif’s complaint is “Instead of Christ-centered messages, we hear sermons dealing with moral values, social issues, financial giving, the environment, or the need for more Church attendance”.
Well, I’ve never heard sermons about those things in Orthodox churches. Nassif is right to correct churches that are like that, but it’s not my experience. EIther way, it’s nothing to do with pro or con mysticism.