Why Evangelicalism is Still the Best Option
Evangelicalism is not perfect. No informed person should make such a claim. Evangelicalism has its problems—big ones. This is nothing new. But I believe the strengths of Evangelicalism outweigh the weaknesses and present a better option than any other tradition. Otherwise, we would not be Evangelical!
While I often write about the weaknesses of Evangelicalism, sometimes complaining about our shames and blind spots, I want to do something different here. I am going to give a short list of what I believe to be the major strengths of Evangelicalism and why I believe Evangelicalism is still the best option:
1. Evangelicalism can celebrate diversity: in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. This is the dictum of Rupertus Meldenius (often mistakenly attributed to Augustine) which presents Evangelicalism’s celebration of unity and diversity. It means, “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” Evangelicals, I believe, like no other Christian tradition, can appreciate and celebrate diversity while at the same time adhering to a unifying center. Whether it be in worship style or liturgy, house churches or mega churches, Evangelicals recognize that all people are not alike and that there is room for subjective preferences. Evangelicalism, as a movement, cannot prescribe or proscribe the way people should be in areas that are based in non-essential personal preferences. We can recognize that God has created people differently—and this was intentional. If people have a personality that does not respond well to one style of worship, they are free to celebrate their diversity without feeling the obligation of adapting their style to some traditional norm.
As well, when it comes to non-cardinal issues of the Christian faith such as mode of baptism, belief about end times, views of creation, or even one’s view of predestination, Evangelicalism is not dogmatic. This does not mean that Evangelicals, such as me, do not or cannot have strong convictions in these areas: it just means that we recognize their relative importance in comparison to cardinal beliefs such as the person and work of Christ. Therefore, to be Evangelical is to be able to allow for and even, in many cases, celebrate diversity.
2. Evangelicalism promotes true conviction: Evangelicalism, representative of historic Protestantism, is built upon a distrust of one man’s or one institution’s ability to infallibly be dogmatic regarding truth to the exclusion of one’s personal convictions. In other words, Evangelicals hold to the position that belief cannot be outsourced to any human authority or tradition. Evangelicals believe that truth must be “adduced” by the individual before it can be truly believed. It is not that Evangelicals don’t recognize or respect authorities other than themselves, but that they understand that belief is ultimately an internal act of an individual’s will which requires true personal conviction. Evangelicals recognize the risk of “putting a Bible in everyone’s hands.” We recognize that in doing so we are allowing for the possibility of error and heresy. But we also recognize that the possibility of true conviction necessitates the possibility of error. In this, it is worth the risk. The personal conviction, however, should be fueled and fed from trusted outside sources, but, in the end, those outside sources cannot make the decisions for us. Therefore, in my opinion, Evangelicalism allows for true conviction more than any other Christian tradition.
3. Evangelical allowance of true scholarship: Closely connected to the second is the allowance of true scholarship. (Here is where I am really going to get into trouble.) Evangelicals are not under a necessary mandate to conform to a particular traditional system. The scholarship produced in biblical studies and theology is not an exercise in confirming an established tradition of dogma. If one were simply to enter scholarship to prove what a tradition mandates they prove, scholarship would become an exercise in confirming prejudice. This is not true scholarship.
Evangelicals are free to question, search, deny, confirm, doubt, and change to an extent that dogmatic traditions are not. Again, this is risky, but, in the end, it does not mandate a certain conclusion and can evaluate the evidence more objectively. In other words, Evangelicals don’t have to be lawyers defending a client of tradition, but they are instead investigators of truth. They can be critical scholars. Whether or not we always practice this is a different matter. But the issue is one of allowance. Evangelicals can be critical scholars who are willing to let the evidence take them wherever it leads, not simply to a predetermined destination. Therefore, I believe Evangelicals can practice true scholarship to a degree that other traditions cannot.
4. Evangelicalism is still evangelical. What I mean is that Evangelicalism is still committed to the spread of the Gospel more than any other Christian tradition. Evangelicals, with all their faults, do consistently present the need to have a personal conversion to Christ. I think that Evangelicalism still recognizes the problem and solution better than others. We are sinners who are in need of rescue. The cross is the apex of history, and we must personally have a conversion experience by trusting in Christ as our Lord and Savior. The focus is not the church, liturgy, or traditions.
I think that these reasons provide the basis for why I believe Evangelicalism will always remain strong even in the midst of our weaknesses. Also, please understand that it is the “spirit” of Evangelicalism about which I am speaking, not the nomenclature. In other words, even if the designation “Evangelical” were to go out of vogue (which could be the case), the spirit of Evangelicalism will always remain.
Please understand, too, that I respect other Christian traditions. I love the faith and stance of all those who, traditionally or not, are Christocentric, believing Christ—the God-man—is the center of all things. But, I would hope that everyone might understand that I am Evangelical for a reason. I simply believe that it offers strengths that are stronger than the strengths of other traditions. I also believe that its weaknesses are not as weak as the weaknesses of other traditions.
It is because of this I believe Evangelicalism is still the best option.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Why I am Proud to be a Protestant
- Why the Evangelical Manifesto Did Not "Work"
- What has Become of Evangelicalism? An Evangelical’s Lament
- The "Idea" of Evangelicalism (2): Distinctives vs. Norms
- Can I Just Start a New Tradition?
Print This Post

JE on 01 Sep 2009 at 3:30 pm #
Where is a good working definition of “Evangelicalism”? Thanks.
The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Evangelicalism on 01 Sep 2009 at 4:27 pm #
[...] Michael Patton on Why Evangelicalism is Still the Best Option here. Posted in Theology | No Comments » Leave a [...]
Cadis on 01 Sep 2009 at 7:32 pm #
If you type “define:evangelical” into google search you get several options
1)evangelical (relating to or being a Christian church believing in personal conversion and the inerrancy of the Bible especially the 4 Gospels) “evangelical Christianity”; “an ultraconservative evangelical message”
2)Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s.[1] Most adherents consider its key characteristics to be: a belief in the need for personal conversion (or being “born again”); some expression of the gospel in effort; a high regard for biblical authority; and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
3)Evangelicals are an indie rock band from Norman, Oklahoma. Currently there are four members of the group: Josh Jones (lead vocals, guitar), Kyle Davis (bass guitar, keyboards), Austin Stephens (drums) and Todd Jackson (guitar). Their music is renowned for its energy and unabashed enthusiasm. (My money is on this one due to the suspicious, coincidental local)
4) or I have been told an Evangelical is just an unkempt Fundamentalist.
mbaker on 01 Sep 2009 at 8:52 pm #
Good one, Cadis.
I’d say #2 probably describes the Evangelicals I know best, although I certainly can’t deny have met a few #4’s as well!
Marc on 02 Sep 2009 at 2:02 am #
I have to disagree that it is the best option. I’ve come to realise it’s still just one colour in a much broader rainbow and the Catholics, Orthodox etc. are also just narrow versions of a much bigger picture, story and experience.
The best option, is the one which has no name, because it’s not an organisation (like the rest) it’s just people getting on with following Jesus, discovering God, loving humanity and creation and acknowledging that, more often than not, we just don’t know.
The Evangelical places a premium on right beliefs which is theoretically and in practice extremely devisive, it’s often not introspective before it criticises other groups, it’s legalistically unlegalistic, often arrogant, and it would seem, increasingly ineffective at carrying on Jesus mission.
If we could re-discover what the Euangelion was perhaps we would deserve the title…
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 02 Sep 2009 at 6:27 am #
Evangelicalism, as we know it today, and evangelicalism as held by its forefathers are so far from each other, it’s like looking at two different species. In days gone by, we were consumed with a passion for God, His Gospel and His people. Now? We are more concerned with taking care of a world which hates our Saviour and His Gospel.
Doctrinal thought is actively discouraged as being “out of touch” and “divisive”. As to the count of being “out of touch”, like that really matters for anything? As for being divisive, yes – false and salacious doctrine is indeed divisive (Romans 16:17), but what of sound doctrine? Doctrine is highly important, otherwise we can all create some image of God and slap the title “Almighty” on it. I find those who disparage doctrine rather confusing, in light of the NT emphasis on it. Personally, I trust the Scriptures we possess more than anyone who merely obsessed with here and now.
We’ve turned the Gospel from a message about man’s eternal destiny to “let’s clean up the world, and make it a better place”. Humanitarianism is good – but if you feed a man and send him on his way to hell, what good is that? The Gospel – that Christ died, was buried and rose for our sins, and that by faith in Christ, the merits of that work are applied to us – is the best news we can share. THAT is evangelicalism at its best – when the Gospel is faithfully proclaimed, the authority of God’s self-revelation in Scripture is upheld (though we cannot claim perfection in fully understanding it on this side of eternity) and most important, the supremacy of God and not creation is upheld and affirmed.
Great thoughts, Mr Patton. Much food for thought…
Nick on 02 Sep 2009 at 7:09 am #
Excellent Michael. Like I told you, I like the diversity. I consider myself Arminian and I still enjoy coming to your blog and commenting since I’m not jumped on by 20 Calvinists at once. I tend to not be dogmatic on secondary issues. The only one that interests me really is eschatology where I am a strong orthodox Preterist.
I think it’d be interesting for you to do something on worship styles. I find myself getting bored in church if I have a purely applicational sermon and usually with most music, I’ve lost focus by the time of the second verse. It’d be interesting to hear about how other people worship and see how many others might be the same way.
j on 02 Sep 2009 at 8:04 am #
#s 1 and 3 are interesting to think about in relation to each other, and are true only in a relative or qualified sense I think.
In #1, if we instead think of diversity in terms of thought/beliefs, rather than practice, I think we find a broader variety of opinion among eg. Catholic Scholars. They are unified in tradition but seem more diverse in thought as regards Biblical Studies and Christian History than we Evangelicals do.
And in a related sense, #3, Evangelicals have an ideal of true scholarship/academic freedom, but one cannot simply have one’s own opinions and still participate fully in the Evangelical community, as, for example, a Jewish scholar might.
So, the freedom, I think, is only in “non-essentials”, which actually, in an earlier post of yours proved hard to pin down. We had people arguing that no doctrines need be affirmed, only direction toward Jesus, some saying yes and no to inerrancy, and others who would like to include some particular doctrine they see as foundational to others (like literal 6 day creation, etc.)
I’m not sure what exactly to do with #2 (flush it says my wife — ha ha). In particular the premise that “belief is ultimately an internal act of an individual’s will which requires true personal conviction” seems not always true. I believe a lot of things without exercising my will—I hear or see something, believe it is as it seems and then either ignore it, remember it or act on it. A report from my wife that the kids have been good today requires no exertion of my will to believe. Some things we believe without trying to and without questioning them. It’s only when we have a desire not to believe something that we seem to need the will.
Sorry for my disagreements. #4 is a good point, though.
EricW on 02 Sep 2009 at 8:16 am #
On the one hand, you have Fr. Raymond Brown, a Catholic priest, writing scholarly books on the New Testament that questioned the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith, yet much of Brown’s work was given a Nihil obstat and an Imprimatur.
And on the other hand, you have Evangelicals who question or stretch the definition of Inerrancy or raise the specter of Open Theism or don’t properly toe the line of the Westminster Confession, and they’re booted out of ETS (or brought up for possible ejection) or their seminaries.
So tell me again: Which tradition did you say practices or allows “true scholarship”?
Morning Report, September 2nd: Kidnapped in Korea, Prayer (be)for Sex, School the President, Droption, Fertility and Flu, and the Afghanistan Quagmire « Evangelical Gateway on 02 Sep 2009 at 8:57 am #
[...] from Parchment and Pen, where C. Michael Patton (whose material has appeared thrice at Patheos) explains why he believes evangelicalism is still the best option. Although his answer is slightly [...]
j on 02 Sep 2009 at 9:50 am #
i see eric W arrived at a similar conclusion to mine above, apparently while i was still posting
Joe on 02 Sep 2009 at 10:24 am #
It seems to me Evangelicalism has been extremely fundamentalist and doctrinal. Or that it insists on an all-too-simple traditional view, of simple core beliefs; and is not flexible at all. It is anti-intellectual, to the point that a genuinely investigative, scholarly Evangelical theology, is a contradiction in terms.
Worse, the name refers to a belief that one should spread one’s simple ideas – or “evangelize.” Never mind that James suggested that not all of us should be teachers; since we all make many mistakes. And teachers who make mistakes, will be judged more severely in the end; because they mislead not only themselves, but many others.
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 10:57 am #
I think too many of you are defining Evangelical according to the media and a “pop” evangelical outlook. It would be much better for you to start with the Evangelical Manifesto: http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com. At least it comes from people who know what historic evangelicalism is.
Eric, I am not quite sure how to respond. I thought you must be joking if you are actually trying to argue that the institutionalized Catholic church, who has a thousand page catechism to which Catholics MUST agree, has more academic than Evangelicalism who does not have a definite creed and is not an institution. Bringing up Brown as the only example is great because he is considered by most Catholics to be a rebel Catholic. But better, consider Kung.
j on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:16 am #
Michael- as my post implied, I agree with EricW and I too have see that Catholics do have more academic freedom.
They have to adhere to tradition as a symbol, but not in their academic writing. Forget big names, I look at the difference in Catholic grad students and Evangelical ones. One group can entertain certain ideas and not question whether they are Catholic. The other knows that if their ideas change too much they are no longer evangelical and might even be going to hell.
On the one hand the Catholic can continue confessing, even with serious questions. They will still be taken in as Catholic at a teaching institution or parish. The Evangelical who shows some sign of uncertainty on certain doctrines will be dropped like damaged goods.
j on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:22 am #
as far as the evangelical manifesto, I guess maybe the difference is that Eric and I (if I presume to speak for him too) are thinking about how the community actually is functioning, rather than the abstract definitions we have given ourselves.
you (i.e any person) may convince someone you’re evangelical by appeal to the manifesto in comparison with your own beliefs, but you still won’t fit their doctrinal statement and you still won’t be really accepted—they still don’t think an evangelical should be allowed to think like you do.
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:22 am #
J,
Do Catholics have academic freedom to disagree with anything in the Catechism because the evidence leads them in such a direction AND remain Catholics?
You answer, if you are familiar with Catholicism, will be no. By definition, if anyone disagrees with even a minor point in the catechism, they are no longer Catholic. This includes the Marion dogmas, the infallibility of the pope, along with a defense of purgatory and the inclusion of the Deuterocononical books.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of freedom in Evangelicalism as the “creed” is very small.
steve martin on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:22 am #
Evangelicalism isnot counter-cultural but bends over backwards to accomodate the culture.
It is too focused on the ’self’.
It does not know how to rightly divide the Word into Law and Gospel, but melds them, therefore producing “Christian schizophrenics”.
It has a disdain for the Sacraments and odoes not rightly understand their external nature (coming to us from outside of us).
Other than that, I think it’s great!
EricW on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:26 am #
Unlike Fr. Raymond, Fr. Hans was barred from teaching theology, wasn’t he?
Considering how questioning certain views (or counter views) of creation or evolution or inerrancy or Biblical interpretation or egalitarianism or sexuality can indeed lose you your pulpit or your teaching job or your publisher or your church or your ETS membership or your friends in many of these churches, I’m not sure Evangelicalism really has more freedom of belief and academic freedom than the Catholic Church.
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:31 am #
J,
I am lost. You said, “they still don’t think an evangelical should be allowed to think like you do.”
Who does not think an evangelical should think like me? I feel like I am pretty “straight and narrow” here. I agree that there are some fundamentalists who may raise an eyebrow here and there about what I say, but they are fundamentalists.
J, are you mixing Fundamentalists, who have almost a little academic freedom as Catholics, with Evangelicals?
One thing that might enlighten you is to attend an Evangelical Society Meeting. It is there that you will see the diversity and unity of evangelical scholarship coming together in a unique way.
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:38 am #
Eric, you are talking about Fundamentalism, not evangelicalism. In evangelicalism, you have young earth, old earth, and theistic evolutionists. Notice on the Evangelical Manifesto, nothing was said about creation or, even, inerrancy. I know that ETS has inerrancy as one of its main criteria for membership, but that does not mean that society members reject people like Roger Olson, who does not accept inerrancy, as non-Evangelical. If they do, they are showing themselves to be Fundamentalists. Roger Olson is even a guest speaker at ETS often and everyone respects him a great deal. Same with NT Wright.
I know that there are always going to be the fundamentalists of every movement and it hard to tell the difference, but Evangelicalism presents the very spirit of freedom and grace that fundamentalism kills. Therefore, the two cannot be identified unless you are just following the media.
I am as much against “pop” evangelicalism as the next guy. But that is not what I am talking about here.
EricW on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:50 am #
I was at an ETS conference when Roger Olson spoke (Valley Forge, PA, I believe), and IIRC, he prefaced his remarks by saying that ETS won’t let him be a member.
And D.G. Hart has put forth the argument that “Evangelical/Evangelicalism” is a meaningless term. Read his book Deconstructing Evangelicalism. It’s been awhile since I’ve read it, but I think he suggests that you really can’t separate Evangelicalism from Fundamentalism; if you do, you end up with an “Evangelicalism” that is so broad and amorphous and contains such contradicatory elements that it’s really not right to include them all under the name “Evangelicalism” – or to use a single term like “Evangelicalism” to suggest that all these “Evangelicals” really are basically one in faith and practice vis-a-vis those who are not “Evangelicals” (and “Evangelicals” put “Fundamentalists” among those who are not “Evangelicals”).
j on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:50 am #
cmp-
i’m not appealing to catholocism and what it states, i’m appealig to catholic community. Ted Kennedy, for instance, got a catholic funeral. Seems pretty flexible to me. Notre Dame knighted Obama and got a slap on the wrist.
on the “you”, as i define it in the 1st use in that paragraph, it’s “i.e. anyone”, that is, not you, cmp, personally.
i’m not confusing evangelicals and fundamentalists. i’ve been to ETS several times and yes there is diversity to an extent, but in the background is always some discussion of who should get the boot (open theism anyone?) or whether the doctrinal statement needs to be more restrictive, or who’s bible version is really the one fit for evangelicals. regardless of the outcome, this sets the tone—not that i don’t have a nice time, but as community, this is how i see us.
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:55 am #
Eric,
Yes, I have read the book too.
Roger Olson still considers himself to be an Evangelical. How do you explain this?
EricW on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:59 am #
I explain it the way I think Hart does – i.e., the term “Evangelical” is too broad and ultimately meaningless because it includes people like Olson who aren’t allowed to join ETS.
If ETS is “Evangelical” but excludes people like Olson who consider themselves to be Evangelicals (and many other Evangelicals consider Olson to be one, too), then who defines “Evangelical” – and how can ETS call itself the “Evangelical Theological Society” when it won’t let all “Evangelical” theologians be members?
Maybe ETS should change its name to the Our Definition of Inerrancy and Theology Theological Society?
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:00 pm #
Re posts 9 & 13 and academic freedom
Evangelicalism may seem to have more academic freedom because it is composed of various denominations that differ from each other in theology and theological statements. However, within each denomination there are very clear statements of faith / theology that are quite explicit and rigorous (e.g., Lutheran, Reformed). In addition, churches usually have their own statements of faith that they use to weed out those who disagree from being members or holding pastoral or organizational positions. The same goes for many evangelical parachurch organizations.
I can’t see liberation theologians being tolerated in evangelical churches the way they were tolerated in the Catholic churches. Officially in the Catholic church one is supposed to adhere to and believe in the entire catechism, but the RCC doesn’t give someone the boot if they don’t; their priests even continue giving communion to catholics that support and promote abortion. That is very much unlike the evangelical camp where the church or denomination or parachurch would give the boot.
Look at the southern baptist seminary that gave women professors the boot when it took an official complementarian position. Remember when Piper, at Driscoll’s church, urged truly evangelical colleges and seminaries to expunge any Arminian faculty they might have? He stated, “how should we regard these errors [Wesleyanism and Arminianism] in relationship to the teaching office of the church and other institutions? . . . Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace.”
I’m not sure one is really better or worse than the other for tolerating or restricting academic and theological freedom. However, it does seem that it is evangelicals, not Catholics, who more often and more strongly get their knickers in a knot over divergent theology.
Regards,
#John1453
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:05 pm #
J,
lol…touche
Well, you know as well as I, that is not what it is SUPPOSED to be. When and if Evangelicalism goes in that direction, then it is going toward Fundamentalism and against its original spirit.
However, I DO think that this spirit is still present in Evangelicalism more than any other tradition, though not perfect. And that is the point of this post.
Also, I am certianly not talking about the cafiteria Catholic tradition of the Kennedy’s!!! Of course they have freedom, but it is not really a representation of true Catholicism. By definition, Cafeteria Catholoics are not REALLY Catholics. Let’s give Catholicism the benefit there. Just like the Jesus Seminar is not REALLY Protestant (in the historic sense).
If we allow for redefining of terms, I would concede that you are right. But I am trying to stick with what things are meant to be. We need reform, not simply gripping from within. That is what the Emerging church offered and it did not really work.
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:07 pm #
John, that is the beauty of the ideals of Evangelicals. It allows you have have your convictions and belong to particular expressions, but it houses us all. And in the end of the day, we are supposed to know we are ultimately of the same family.
Evangelicalism is transdenominational and is not, nor should ever be, a denomination.
steve martin on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:10 pm #
“Evangelicalism is transdenominational and is not, nor should ever be, a denomination.”
There is no such a thing.
A denomination is a point of view. It is ceratin values. Every faith tradition has them.
Non-denominationalism is a falsehood.
They are the non-denomination denomination.
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:10 pm #
Eric, ETS is a representation of a (one) society within Evangelicalism. It is not the only society nor does it claim to be. There are also broader Evangelical societies that would allow for Olson. ETS would not say they are illegitimate. But it is the spirit of Evangelicalism to have societies that are allowed to make their own rule of belonging to that society. ETS does not say “In order to be a part of Evangelicalism, you have to …” but “In order to be a part of this society…”
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:12 pm #
OK, got to keep preparing for class tonigh…way behind. Teaching on the early church persecutions. Never taught on it before at this level.
I will check in tomorrow and dispel with the wave of my pen all critics who dare to oppose my masterpeice here
Thanks for the discussion.
(Oh, if you don’t agree with me, you are NOT evangelical)
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:13 pm #
I lied,
A denomination is an institutionalized expression. Evangelicalism is not institutionalized, nor will it ever be.
steve martin on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:16 pm #
They do things in just about the same way as the so-called institutional churhes do.
So I disagree.
mbaker on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:17 pm #
How would one define a modern day Spurgeon, I wonder? He was pretty much a brass tacks kind of guy, who probably today would be considered a rank fundamentalist. However, even though he was British Reformed Baptist, he never lost sight of the real meaning of evangelicalism.
He had this to say about it:
“We are not called to proclaim philosophy and metaphysics, but the simple gospel. Man’s fall, his need of a new birth, forgiveness through atonement, and salvation as the result of faith, these are our battle-ax and weapons of war.”
EricW on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:24 pm #
But “Evangelicals” as well as other Christians disagree among and between themselves on what is the “gospel” (and whether or not it’s “simple”), what exactly was “man’s fall” and how exactly and specifically did it impact or affect man, how the “new birth” is acquired/given, how the atonement worked and/or works, and what part faith plays in salvation in conjunction with or apart from other things, like works.
So while Spurgeon’s battle-cry definition of “evangelicalism” sounds good, can he really rally all the troops behind it once they begin asking themselves and each other what he (or they) mean(s) by these things?
mbaker on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:46 pm #
Eric W,
You are right in your assessment of what often happens as opposed to what to needs to. I have had to deal with exactly that situation many, many times in my ministry travels to various churches of all denominations. More often than not, our ministry (which contained folks of several different denominations) was faced with having to agree to adhere to the do’s and don’t’s of a particular denominational agenda, in order to minster at a particular church. It often got exhausting and confusing trying to adjust to it, without watering down the message.
To be fair, however, I think sometimes we all tend to over analyze the message of Christianity in such compartmentalized terms, that we get mired down in more non-essential details than real substantial messages, and miss it entirely ourselves.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:51 pm #
Re post 26
BTW, the correct spelling would be “touché”. In fencing, touché (French pronunciation: IPA [tuʃe] or “too – shay”) is used as an acknowledgement of a hit, called out by the fencer who is hit. Sorry, but I took both fencing and French growing up.
I would also disagree that those Catholics who don’t agree with the whole enchilada of the catechism are not really Catholic. Anyone who takes communion in a Catholic church is and remains a real Catholic despite any divergences of belief or practice.
Regards,
#John1453
Cadis on 02 Sep 2009 at 1:58 pm #
I’m totally confused. I thought Lewis Sperry Chafer was both a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical. I thought this of Walvoord too.
This is an exerp taken from “A Review of Lewis Sperry Chafer “Systematic theology” by John Walvoord
“Taken as a whole the eight volumes in Systematic Theology constitute a monument in the field of theological literature. It is the first consistently premillennial systematic theology ever written. For the first time modern Fundamentalism has been systematized in an unabridged systematic theology. The work is definitely creative and original. There is no other work in systematic theology which is comparable to it. Its form of treatment, method of interpretation, and unabridged character have no parallel. Unlike most systematic theologies, it is presented in highly readable form, deals with practical as well as doctrinal problems, and constitutes a veritable thesaurus of sermonic material for the preacher. It abounds in devotional passages and is closely linked with the content of the Scriptures. As a product of a lifetime of study, the work has been tested and tempered through years of classroom and public ministry in which the author was recognized internationally as an outstanding expositor of the Scriptures. As a representative, authoritative, and comprehensive treatment of systematic theology it will occupy a place filled by no other publication.”
Michael, are you saying that Chafer and Walvoord were not Evangelical or are you saying they were not Fundamentalists? Certainly both of these men I would say had regard for true conviction and true scholarship.
I give. I’m totally confused.
EricW on 02 Sep 2009 at 2:04 pm #
Maybe we need to take the apophatic approach and only say what Evangelicalism is NOT.
j on 02 Sep 2009 at 2:47 pm #
Cadis-
I think you are experiencing the “too broad” and “meaningless” aspects of the term Evangelical that Eric alluded to earlier.
Eric-
I like the apophatic idea. But it looks like dispute is already about to break out over whether Evangelicalism is not institutionalized or not “not institutionalized” (31 and 32 above).
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 3:29 pm #
Re CMP’s point 1, about diversity
CMP goes so far as to italicize the word “celebrate”. But is that even remotely close to the truth, or just an empty platitude that evangelicals would like to believe about themselves, especially in contrast to those nasty, judgmental, witch-hunting, protestant burning catholics?
If evangelicals are so open to diversity, why have evangelicals until recent decades rejected charismatics and pentecostals (and many still do)? If they’re so open to diversity, why have evangelicals until recently rejected rock music and alcohol consumption? If they’re so open to diversity, why are worship wars predominantly an evangelical thing? If they’re so open to diversity, then why do calvinist evangelicals reject arminian evangelicals? If they’re so open to diversity, why do then not accept each other’s baptisms? If they’re so open to diversity, why are their churches still so divided along racial lines? Do evangelicals allow diversity on abortion? no. On homosexuality? no. On divorce? no, or only trivial divergance. On premarital sex? no. On inerrancy? no. On Israel? no. On the attributes of God? no. On the historicity of Old Testament events? no. On women in leadership? no. While there are some divergent opinions and practices, by far the consensus is against women leaders and against associating with those who do have them. Diversity on this subject is certainly not celebrated or tolerated. Is diversity on evolution tolerated and celebrated? no, except among a very few academics.
Oh yeah, I forgot, there is diversity permitted at the scholarly level on the end times schedule. Whoop de doo.
There may be some diversity in belief among evangelical scholars (but not much, and not until recently), but there is even less among the rank and file.
The diversity among evangelicals resides largely in their different regional spoken accents and food and clothing preferences. That is, it largely consists in the diversity in the surface attributes of American culture, which they have adopted from non-Christians.
The Anglican church is far more diverse theologically and culturally than evangelicals. Mainline protestant churches are far more diverse theologically and culturally. Evangelicals are, by contrast, narrowminded both theologically and culturally and for the most part distrust higher learning (as respects the bible).
In 2007 the National Review printed that “Liberals and secularists in particular view evangelicals with both disdain and fear. Evangelicals are seen as narrow-minded, anti-intellectual . . .”
In 2009, the Religion News Service printed that “. . . knows the stereotypes about evangelical Christians: judgmental, sanctimonious, narrow-minded. He may not buy into the image, but at the same time, he knows how real—and damaging—it can be.”
Oh yeah, the evangelicals have sure earned a reputation for celebrating diversity.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 3:40 pm #
CMP keeps referring to RCC features as a contrast to the wonderful evangelicals–such as the bad ol’ catechism that they have to sign up to but evangelicals don’t. OK, here’s a question, name one catechism where evangelicals celebrate diversity but Catholics don’t. Marianism? No. The RCCs go one way on the issue and evangelicals go the other, with no diversity allowed (what evangelical has ever prayed to Mary?). Justification? They go one way and evangelicals go the other (with no diversity celebrated). Pope? They go one way and evangelicals go the other (with no diversity on that topic either). And, in so far as there are evangelical branches of the Reformed faith (e.g. presbyterians) or Lutherans, evangelicals in those churches have to sign up to lengthy catechisms too.
Regards,
#John
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 3:48 pm #
John, the point is that Evangelicals are free to believe in the Marian dogmas or disbelieve. Most happen to disbelieve them because of the evidence, not any mandate. The point is freedom, not the particular stance.
Just look at Scot McKnight and his view of Mary. Look at Lutherans and some of the early reformers.
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 3:51 pm #
John, Evangelicals do not leave out Charismatics at all. I have written much on this. I would say that the tendency in Evangelicalism these day is toward Charismaticism to some degree. However, you are still missing the point of the principle of freedom. It is not simply what most evangelicals are or what the passionately argue for that is the defining point of Evangelicalism, but it is the freedom to examine the evidence and follow it wherever it leads and remain in this large fold.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 4:43 pm #
Michael, I would respectfully disagree that evangelicals are free to believe the Marian dogmas in any significant sense of “free”. There may not be an written statement of faith that explicitly denies the Marian dogma, but no one would agree that such beliefs are properly within evangelicalism; it’s too ingrained to need to be said. More importantly, no one who held to such beliefs would long remain in a pastoral or leadership position in any evangelical church or parachurch ministry. The early reformers would not be considered evangelicals (that is, part of some group that is distinctly “evangelical”), neither historically nor in the more recent (since 1947) sense of evangelical.
As for charismatics, I did insert a time frame reference. Charismatics and pentecostals would not have been considered fit to be called evangelicals until the 70s, so it is a recent phenomenom.
I would also deny that evangelicals are free to follow the evidence to wherever it leads. Tell that to Peter Enns and see if he agrees. Chalke and others who challenge penal substitutionary atonement wouldn’t agree that evangelicalism either celebrates diversity on this topic or encourages following the evidence to where it leads.
Other than a few evangelical scholars, does evangelicalism as a whole support (let alone celebrate) Sparks’ book, “God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship”? No. Rather, it’s seen as a threat and challenged as being outside the pale. This is what Peter Enns wrote about the evangelical reaction to Sparks’ book: “Sparks is arguing that evangelical biblical scholarship has largely failed in not appropriating critical scholarship as it should. This failure stems from a faulty theology that expects things from Scripture that critical scholarship has shown to be untenable. I realize Sparks may not word it precisely this way, but this gets at what I think is a point of tension. Sparks is critiquing failings in evangelical theology on the basis of its failure to appropriate critical advances in our knowledge of Scripture. What this amounts to for some readers is a criticism of evangelical theology for being evangelical. Hence, the response is that Sparks is no evangelical, and so his book actually demonstrates why evangelicals should not appropriate critical scholarship.
What I have seen thus far in some of the early criticisms to the book is far less engagement over the content of the book than I had hoped. What I see, rather, is a lot of marking of territory about who can rightly claim to be evangelical. Much of that criticism is centered on two issues: inerrancy and Descartes.”
In 2004, in the journal First Things, Mark Knoll had this to say: “Ten years after the publication of The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, I remain largely unrepentant about the book’s historical arguments, its assessment of evangelical strengths and weaknesses, and its indictment of evangelical…
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 4:50 pm #
John,
I am an Evangelical and I asked Enns to blog here two weeks ago.
Dan and I both are Evangelicals and respect Enns. In fact, he was applauded at the last ETS meeting when he was on a panel discussion with Darrel Bock. Enns was kicked out of a seminary with particular guidlines. I would be kicked out of there as well. Enns would be kicked out of DTS, but that does not mean he is not an Evangelical. Neither DTS or Wesminster are Evangelicalism, but they are within Evangelicalism.
While being an Evangelical means that you have freedom, it does not mean that people in the camp are going to accept or agree with your position. They may be greatly against it and say it is dangerous. That is part of the Evangelical freedom. But when it comes to push or shove, an Evangelical is (ideally) not going to call your salvation into question so long as the main essentials are in tact.
Again, Evangelicals have the freedom to debate with great resolve and love for the truth, even in the particulars of non-essentials. But it is the final attitude that, unlike Catholics, will say that you are part of the True church because we center around the person and work of Christ.
Because of this, Evangelicalism is the best option in my opinion.
What is the best option in your opinion?
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 5:22 pm #
Michael, I do greatly appreciate your interaction, and respect your opinion. However, I think that we are approaching the issue of whether evangelicals celebrate diversity from different perspectives. Your perspective is more academic and individual and anecdotal, whereas mine is more rank and file, cultural, and a broader less anecdotal perspective.
Would evangelicals have gained a reputation for being narrowminded if they really did celebrate diversity on a widespread basis? Hardly. Sure, there are more broadminded evangelicals like you, but that is not the rule. Would Mark Noll’s critique have been accepted as generally accurate if it were not true that evangelicals were anti-intellectual and not open to exploring their theology?
Furthermore, the critiques of both Enns and Sparks have been widespread among the evangelical community, and Enns quote about the reaction to Sparks is in reference to evangelicalism generally, and not to a specific school.
Is there a single area of biblical study or theology where evangelicals have experienced or celebrated diversity or allowed their scholars and pastors to follow the evidence where it leads? With the exception of continuation of the charismata there is none. And even the acceptance of charismata was a cultural phenomenom and not one where scholars or lay people followed the evidence where it led. Until very recently charismatic and pentecostal scholarship was quite poor and irrelevant to the wider academic community. No one was intellectually convinced that they should become charismatic; they followed friends, or joined the next exciting thing, or were experientially convinced. The evangelical scholars followed after.
I would agree that evangelicalism is becoming more diverse, and even Noll in his article points to signs of hope. At one time Southern Baptists were not considered to be part of the evangelical movement, nor Wesleyans. Now the former are, and many of the latter are as well. There are also evangelical branches of the Anglican church. Pentecostals are now often grouped under the evangelical banner, whereas previously they were not.
Nevertheless, I would strongly disagree of your description of the distinction between Catholics and evangelicals. As long as one takes communion in a Catholic church and does not reject the sacraments, one is a Catholic no matter what one believes. That cannot be said of evangelicals. Both Sparks and Enns and Boyd are placed outside the scope of, or on the outer cusp of, evangelicalism simply because of what they believe. It does not matter if they go to or lead a church that is evangelical. Another area where this aspect appears is in the area of ethics. Catholics have a much wider diversity of scholarship and opinion in moral theory than evangelicals; the contest is not even close. Evangelicals have a very narrow scope of what counts as acceptable moral theory and thinking.
regards,
#John
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 5:30 pm #
BTW, the whole who gets to heaven thing isn’t a distinction in the evangelicals favour either. How many people, like me, grew up in an evangelical home where their parents thought Catholics were going to hell. Yep, I see that hand, and that one too, goodness, there are hands going up all over the place.
The cold war between Catholics and evangelicals did continue up into the 60s. But things have warmed considerably since then. And though the RCCs haven’t repealed any of their anti-protestant denunciations they made during the reformation, even the Pope recognizes none RCCs, including evangelicals, as brothers. True, it’s as estranged brothers and not allowed to partake of communion in a Catholic church, but still they see us as fellow travellers that they will meet again in heaven.
Consequently it’s incorrect to say that Catholics don’t consider evangelicals to be part of the broader body of Christ (and thus saved).
As for options, I see no reason to depart from what I was raised in (broadly evangelical adult-baptist nondenomination), so I currently go to such a church. It’s as good a place as any to worship God, participate in community, and grow. I wouldn’t go for the Catholic option, but it’s certainly not because evangelicals are (allegedly) more diverse.
Regards,
#John
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 5:40 pm #
John, that is why we have to distinguish, as I am trying to do here, Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism as a “fundamentalist” (in the specific sense of ahering to the fundamentals) movement our of Fundamentalism.
I think that most people need to reread Ramm and Henry on this subject so that we are not guilty of anachronism or historical revisionism. All one has to do is look to Mark Noll as the historian of Evangelicalism, both in a proper and a celebratory way.
What you describe is Fundamentalism. What I am describing is a proper way to look at Evangelicalism.
Again, three key authors: Noll, Ramm, Carl Henry.
Then finally, I would ask you to look toward the most iconic Evangelical figure Billy Graham.
After you are done with that, throw in some Olson and Oden.
Then come back to the Calvinists once again.
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 5:47 pm #
John, I challenge you to do this:
Take this statement:
“Nevertheless, I would strongly disagree of your description of the distinction between Catholics and evangelicals. As long as one takes communion in a Catholic church and does not reject the sacraments, one is a Catholic no matter what one believes.”
And ask it at Karl Keaton’s http://www.catholic.com in their forum. They have much approval in the Catholic church and some of the best Catholic apologists are there.
In the end, I would challenge you not to define things first by what the current culture of the subject believes. If that is the way we define things, then America, Christianity, marraige, and the like is without hope. Otherwise, let us try to engage people to understand what the truth is about the subject. Once eductation stops, I agree, go to the local market and get your info. But I don’t think we need to give up and join in the trumpet of defeat or defeatism just people people are ignorant.
(Not directing this at you of course)
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 5:50 pm #
Got all my work done BTW!!
Off to teach early church history. (Not to ask them what they think “early church history” is.
JUST KIDDING!!
BTW: Evangelicals are demonstratably funnier than non-evangelicals.
POP Quiz: What is an Evangelical? Answer: A nice fundamentalist! HA
POP Quiz 2: How can you tell an Evangelical from a Fundamentalist? Ask them if they like Billy Graham! Ha
Lots of truth to both of those.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 6:26 pm #
I’m a bit puzzled to be told that what I have been describing is fundamentalism rather than evangelicalism. I’ve referred to and quoted from documents and writers who purport (in their opinion at least) to be talking about evangelicals.
It’s no surprise that evangelicals have been very conservative culturally and intellectually. Isn’t that why Carl Henry wrote his book in ‘47? Evangelicals have not yet escaped those roots, though his and B. Graham’s work are now paying dividends. Nevertheless evangelical cultural has, for those reasons and others, not historically been one that celebrates diversity of any kind. The reformers, especially Luther, persecuted and killed my Mennonite forebears, though one couldn’t really call them “evangelicals” in the sense of evangelicals being a culturally distinct and identifiable group.
As for Catholics, it is correct to say that they consider themselves the one “True” church (with a capital T), but that does not mean that they believe we are going to hell. The most recent relevant document on this is the one that the current pope released through the Vatican in 2007, in which it was stated that the Second Vatican Council’s opening to other faiths – including “ecclesial communities originating with the Reformation” – had recognised there were “many elements of sanctification and truth” in other Christian denominations, but had also emphasised that only Catholicism was fully Christ’s Church. The document said that other Christian faiths “lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church”.
Still, I guess the evangelicals are a bit better because we’ll at least allow a Catholic to take communion in church (even though a Catholic is not supposed to take communion anywhere except in a Catholic church). If the focus is solely on “True” church, then I agree that you are correct, but the problem is that evangelicals don’t use such conceptual categories or language so it ends up being a bit of an apples and oranges thing.
Regards,
#John
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 6:41 pm #
I’ll challenge all of CMP’s other points eventually, but at this juncture I only have time to add a comment about his point #4, that they are still evangelical, that is, spreading the Gospel.
George Barna of The Barna Group has stated that “There does not seem to be revival taking place in America. Whether that is measured by church attendance, born again status, or theological purity, the statistics simply do not reflect a surge of any noticeable proportions.” Moreover, he has also found that “…evangelicals remain just 7% of the adult population. That number has not changed since the Barna Group began measuring the size of the evangelical public in 1994….less than one out of five born again adults (18%) meet the evangelical criteria.”
The 2006 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches found that the The Assemblies of God, the Mormon church and the Roman Catholic Church were the fastest-growing major denominations in the United States in the previous year. While the AoG have been a part of the National Association of Evangelicals since 1943, there is still the RCC growth that contradicts CMP’s point # 4 as being an evangelical distintive that makes it a better option.
I do agree that evangelical is a good option, I just don’t agree that it’s the best option.
regards,
#John
EricW on 02 Sep 2009 at 7:05 pm #
I do agree that evangelical is a good option, I just don’t agree that it’s the best option.
regards,
#John
Okay, I’ll bite: What do you consider to be “the best option” (i.e., the one that is better than any other tradition), #John1453, or if there is not one, the ones that are better than Evangelicalism – and why?
John on 02 Sep 2009 at 9:11 pm #
(1) A lot of the differences in evangelical worship come from doctrinal disagreements. Regulatory principle vs charismatic vs traditional and so on. Whilst evangelicals may in many cases accept differences as lower in importance than other things, that doesn’t prove that evangelicals “celebrate” this diversity.
In any case, would Paul have “celebrated” setting up half a dozen churches in Corinth to suit everyone’s individual preferences? Seriously?
(2) How is conviction more “true” in the bible as divine teaching than a conviction in the Church’s teachings as divine teachings? You assume your conclusion in labelling Holy Tradition as mere human teaching. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, you should throw out the authority of scripture so that your convictions can be more “true”.
(3) How is your commitment to the scriptures as the word of God (with all the necessary accompanying assumptions, such as traditional authorship, inerrancy of historical accounts etc), make you more open to scholarship? Rather, the object of your sacred turf is simply slightly different, but your sacred cows moo just like everyone else’s.
In any case, the very act of being evangelical leads to the blind necessity to prove wrong things that fundamentally contradict being an evangelical. Things like the historicity of the episcopal apostolic succession. Here is a documentation of protestants dropping a doctrine because it conflicted with their pragmatic needs rather than true scholarship:
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/episcopacy-and-the-reformation/
(4) What you win them with is what you win them to. If you are going to count in the evangelical camp all the populist movements that win people to easy believeism and prosperity gospels, and fundamentalist baptists and boston movement who think only they are saved, for all their enthusiasm, having travelled around on sea and land to make a proselyte; and when he becomes one, have they been made twice as much a son of hell? What evangelicaism is “spreading” seems to be an open question, since it morphs from one year to the next. Unless you want to narrow the term down to much smaller group, in which case it seems much more questionable if they are the most committed to the spread of the gospel.
mbaker on 02 Sep 2009 at 9:26 pm #
John #1453,
Normally, I admire your scholarship. but your number 3 seems to differ somewhat from your number #2.
Could you please give more specific details as to what and why you consider the differences between the two to be?
Thanks.
EricW on 02 Sep 2009 at 9:29 pm #
mbaker:
“John” and “#John1453″ are two different persons, I believe.
I may be wrong, but I think “John” is Eastern Orthodox.
mbaker on 02 Sep 2009 at 10:31 pm #
Thanks, Eric W.
#John 1453, if you are are not one and the same, I apologize.
Perhaps the other John could elaborate.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 10:49 pm #
“John”, who wrote post 54, is not the same as “#John”.
I’ve been using #John1453 to differentiate myself from all the other John’s out there (John is North America’s most common male name). In fact, there is John with my same last name (but no relation, as far as I know) who is a convicted pedophile. Even weirder, he doesn’t live that far from me.
I don’t think there is “a best option” out there. Certainly not one that is generally best. There may be a “best” for some people in relation to their personhood and unique life experiences, and there may be different “bests” at different times, but no overall best. And even if evangelicalism could lay a realistic claim to being the overall best, it wouldn’t be for the reasons set out by CMP.
regards,
#John
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 10:58 pm #
Just got word this article will be posted on Patheos.com.
Have not been able to keep up here since I left and am going to have to move on to other blogs.
Thanks for the discussion folks. I like to engage on these comments every once in a while when I feel I need to.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:04 pm #
Hmmm, from CMP’s latest post it appears that I have not made myself clear enough on Catholics and correct belief. So here goes again:
1. There are beliefs that Catholics are supposed to adhere to, and many of those beliefs are uniquely Catholic. So I’m not saying that a Catholic is “free” to believe anything in the sense of being officially permitted to or in the sense that there are no doctrinal lines in the sand.
2. However, having divergent, unorthodox or even heretical beliefs does not cause one to lose one’s membership in the Catholic church. People who support abortion, which the catholic church right on up to the pope and back down are officially and strongly against, are still catholics provided they don’t leave the church. The Kennedys, even Teddy, are still Catholics.
That is very much unlike evangelicals. Evangelicals might still believe that Greg Boyd is saved, but most would not put him inside the evangelical camp, and many have tried to forceably evict him. Evangelicals, if they want to maintain their evangelical cred, most definitely cannot follow the evidence where it leads.
Regards,
#John
John on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:44 pm #
mbaker: if your question was addressed to me, I don’t understand the question.
John on 02 Sep 2009 at 11:52 pm #
“People who support abortion, which the catholic church right on up to the pope and back down are officially and strongly against, are still catholics provided they don’t leave the church.”
I believe heresy gets you an automatic excommunication (Canon 1364). Given Canon 1389, I would expect that support of abortion would constitute heresy.
#John1453 on 03 Sep 2009 at 5:26 am #
re post 62
I’ve read that before (about the automatic excommunication). Technically true, but ignored in practice. Other than the recent case in Brazil, I’m unaware that anyone has been refused communion because of their stance on abortion. While that theology may put one’s soul in danger of an extended stay in purgatory it doesn’t, in practice, exclude one from taking communion or counting oneself as a Catholic. Moreover, my distinction between Catholics and evangelicals, contra CMP, still remains. Catholics will allow one to hold a wide range of beliefs while still allowing oneself to be counted a Catholic, whereas the same does not hold true for evangelicals. Cross one of the many evangelical shiboleths and one is no longer an evangelical, regardless of which church one attends, or what one’s personal life or actions are like.
regards,
#John
#John1453 on 03 Sep 2009 at 7:57 am #
Re points 2 & 3 of CMP’s post
Evangelicalism does not promote true conviction any more than other branches of Christianity, nor does it allow true scholarship.
Bishop J. Shelby Spong is still an episcopalian, even though he holds to and promotes several heretical views (heretical to evangelicals, RCCs, pentecostals, and Orthodox). If he had started out as an evangelical, he wouldn’t be one now. But he is still an episcopalian. Hence, in the episcopal church (and in any mainline protestant church) there is far more elbow room to do true scholarship and to pursue the evidence where one thinks it leads than there is in any branch of evangelicalism.
One of several areas where evangelicals cannot follow the evidence where it leads relates to Biblical historicity, the relationship of the Bible to contemporary ancient literature, and (in)errancy. As Peter Enns puts it, the evangelical response is essentially “Sure Israelite literature looks a lot like uninspired ancient texts, but don’t let that bother you. We can safely and quickly by-pass this to talk about how it is the Word of God despite this.” Though he did say that this was a bit of a caricature, he didn’t think it too much of one.
It is true that some evangelical scholars are pushing the envelope in this and other areas, but its not because evangelicalism is a movement that promotes vigorous scholarship. Rather, evangelicalism is being dragged kicking and screaming into the world of modern scholarship and is definitely a johnny-come-lately. The scholarship of other protestant movements, and of the RCC, is far far ahead of evangelicals, both in the nature of their scholarship, their dominance of the fields of scholarship, and their promotion of true scholarship. That is not to say that there have not been excellent evangelical scholars, but is a more accurate picture of the evangelical movement as a whole.
CMP’s four points look to me like the view from behind rose coloured glasses. If evangelicalism is going to make any progress in the next decade, it is necessary to have a realistic view of it.
#John1453
John on 03 Sep 2009 at 8:38 am #
If the canons of the Catholic church say that you are not a Catholic, but particular congregations are ignoring the rules, are you still a Catholic?
#John1453 on 03 Sep 2009 at 9:05 am #
I appreciate your interaction and comment, John, but I did not intend to send this thread off course and down a rabbit trail by addressing in more detail CMP’s reference to Catholicism. My point is only that Catholicism is far more tolerant of divergent viewpoints than evangelicalism (by tolerant I don’t mean accepting, I mean not giving someone the boot). It is true that, officially, there are some extreme views that will get one excommunicated from the RCC, but the list of those views is far far smaller than what would get one booted from the evangelical camp. Moreover, since evangelicalism does not have official, comprehensive, enforceable power structures in place, the “booting” takes place informally and more easily. If other evangelicals say that one is not evangelical, and most evangelicals agree, then that’s it. Sorry. No longer part of the party. Or one gets into “yes I am an evangelical”, “no you’re not”, “yes I am”, . . . // “yes he/she is evangelical”, “no they’re not” . . . A sort of boundary marking (like a dog peeing on the fence) that does not happen in RCC, Episcopalian, etc.
regards,
#John
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:28 pm #
I’m sorry, but I’m a little lost here. When I read the New Testament, I see the most narrow-minded, “fundamentalist” literature on the planet. You have Paul cursing people to damnation for adding to the gospel, telling folks to watch those who cause divisions against the doctrines the Apostles were teaching and to avoid such ones and telling his protegé to watch his DOCTRINE and his LIFE closely.
Maybe the problem is one of too little latitude – but a hankering of a little too much latitude…
David Di Giacomo on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:33 pm #
All of these assertions are merely an opinion based on perspective.
1. Where you see a celebration of diversity, I see an increasing acceptance of relativism and reduction to a lowest common denominator which never ceases to get lower.
2. Where you see true conviction, I see unbelief and a secular, as opposed to a christian, worldview.
3. Where you see true scholarship, I see historical revisionism to justify the unjustifiable.
4. Finally, where you see Evangelicalism “committed to the spread of the Gospel more than any other Christian tradition”, I see Evangelicalism more committed to the spread of Evangelicalism than it is to the spread of the Gospel. They are not the same thing.
Quite frankly, I believe that more and more, Evangelicalism is more American than it is Christian. That’s why I left. I want the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of Uncle Sam.
EricW on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:41 pm #
David Di Giacomo wrote:
Quite frankly, I believe that more and more, Evangelicalism is more American than it is Christian. That’s why I left. I want the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of Uncle Sam.
So, where did you go after you left Evangelicalism?
And how and in what ways does your current environment/country/abode have what Evangelicalism lacked – i.e., “the Kingdom of God” or at least better access to it?
C Michael Patton on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:48 pm #
Doug, I think that is nice in a very idealistic way. But sense 2000 years of church history have not allowed us such a stance and since non of us are Apostles, there are going to be a lot of areas that latitude must take place.
Otherwise, bite on the tradition that you think has it all (or mostly) right and be dogmatic with them. Problem: which do you choose?
I choose Protestant Evangelicalism, where there is freedom in expression and freedom in the areas that are not clear.
Stating what you said is one thing, being able to find a way to apply it is another. Even the Church of Christ is becoming more liberal due to the failure of this idealism.
C Michael Patton on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:51 pm #
David, where did you go and why is it better?
(And it can’t be “no where” as “no where” is really somewhere. And it can’t be “to my own interpretation” as this will bring about more problems than any.)
C Michael Patton on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:53 pm #
Folks, what I have seen here is a lot of criticism with absolutely no solutions.
If Evangelicalism is not the best option, what do you think is? Is there a perfect option? Or is it purely subjective?
I am quit impressed with some of your ability to criticize, but somewhat disturbed by your lack of substitution. Quite postmodern as it stands.
C Michael Patton on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:54 pm #
Eric, nice. You beat me to it.
Dozie on 03 Sep 2009 at 6:19 pm #
CMP wrote:
“Evangelicalism can celebrate diversity”. And, “By definition, if anyone disagrees with even a minor point in the catechism, they are no longer Catholic.”
By diversity then, do you mean variations of truth or the toleration of untruth?
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 03 Sep 2009 at 6:44 pm #
CMP,
Just to clarify…
I agree that there are some issues which are simply not black and white – such as the nature of baptism. church government, etc. which are open for discussion. There are other things – the nature of God, man, the Word and salvation which ought to be closed-gate issues, otherwise it becomes a rather fruitless free-for-all…
L P Cruz on 03 Sep 2009 at 7:01 pm #
Quite frankly, I believe that more and more, Evangelicalism is more American than it is Christian. That’s why I left. I want the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of Uncle Sam.
Well done David. Present Evangelicalism is the American version of Protestantism.
I have left too, but I have gone back to the original Evangelicals – where the word was first attributed – the Lutherans.
LPC
mbaker on 03 Sep 2009 at 8:28 pm #
L P Cruz,
Would you tell us why you believe the Lutherans were/are the original evangelicals?
From my time at a modern Lutheran church, they seemed more like Catholics and Episcopalians with an an emphasis on liturgy, and repeating man made creeds rather than preaching the word of God. They even have a yearly book where you can go anywhere in the US and receive pretty much the same liturgical message on any given day, no matter where you are. Where is the Holy Spirit in this?
And how is that evangelical rather than denominational?
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 04 Sep 2009 at 4:56 am #
Having slept on it, this discussion seems a little specific in that I haven’t quite noticed these problems in the UK, where I reside. Here, churches generally aren’t into the political scene, generally have theirs sleeves rolled up when it comes to social action and a generally wide set of beliefs are endorsed, and yet folks are still called “evangelical”…
Joe on 04 Sep 2009 at 11:01 am #
Evengelicalism in American, is “American” is the sense, unfortunately, that it combines right-wing nationalist politics, with religion; speaking as if God was an American Republican.
Whereas, in contrast, in the Bible God never mentions America by name at all.
Indeed, God comes to unite “all nations,” all tongues, all “peoples.”
Joe on 04 Sep 2009 at 11:35 am #
The authority that is cited here on what Evanagelicalism “really is” – the “Evangelist Manifesto” – explicitly states that it “does not claim to speak for all evangelicals.” Which is to say, it is not definitive at all.
C Michael Patton on 04 Sep 2009 at 1:28 pm #
Joe, you are right, there is not defenitive statement about what evangelicalism is since it is a “spirit” build on assumed principles.
David Di Giacomo on 04 Sep 2009 at 7:43 pm #
A couple people have asked me where I went when I left. I am now a catechumen in the Orthodox Church. I believe that it has unswervingly kept the faith of the apostles as all others have, to some degree or another, wandered from that fullness. I did not leave for “my own interpretation”. That’s exactly the kind of thinking I rejected in leaving Protestantism.
Perhaps you might be interested to know, Mr. Patton, that you were a major catalyst in pushing me in that direction. I don’t mean anything bad by that. Simply, your very clear and able expositions of evangelical theology, contrasting it among other things with Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the Emerging Church, made me realize why I could not remain in Protestantism.
Cadis on 04 Sep 2009 at 7:55 pm #
youch! IMO.
EricW on 05 Sep 2009 at 8:18 am #
David:
Thanks for replying. I fully understand. We did the same thing a few years ago – i.e., after 2+ decades as Evangelical/non-denom/Charismatic Protestants, we made our way East (after ruling out Rome) and spent 3+ years in the EOC in an OCA church, 2 as catechumens and 1+ years after being baptized and chrismated. But finding I could no longer profess or adhere to the Orthodox teaching about the Eucharist and the priesthood, and after some further studies of church history and the development of the liturgy and church beliefs, I left, and my wife left some time after that. My godfather, also a convert, had left a few months before me after a radical encounter with the Holy Spirit that was like a scales-dropping-from-his-eyes experience, which also included a major physical healing. We’re all back in the boundary-less land of non-denominational Protestantism, but with all its flaws and problems, I think that’s where we’ll stay.
Joe on 05 Sep 2009 at 10:40 am #
What bothers me, is that though Evangelism invokes the “spirit,” on the other hand, it is a spirit based on a particular set of “principles.” But those principles, fundamentals, appear to many, to be extremely narrow; Fundamentalist.
To be sure, I see Evangelicalism growing, since the days when the new Evangelicalism was over-defined as the American state religion, by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan.
At the same time, it retains its ties to those roots. And I don’t see it really keeping up, with Biblical scholarship, serious contemporary theology.
For that reason, I read a little contemporary theology, and don’t attend church at all.
Maybe that’s my religion: scholarly theology. With no church, at all.
C Michael Patton on 05 Sep 2009 at 1:23 pm #
One thing that some have consitantly missed is the word “can.” “Can” is not an indicative. When I say I am still a Evangelical because of diversity, it is qualified by the word “can” not necessarily “does.” Evangelicals CAN celebrate diversity more than others.
This does not mean that they alway exemplify this praise. However, Evangelicals do this much more than does Catholics and Orthodox, but both of those traditions would not think it a virtue to celebrate diversity in many of the areas which Evangelicals can and do, so keep that in mind.
geekborj on 05 Sep 2009 at 6:50 pm #
Bro Michael did a fine point here indicating that “Evangelicalism is not perfect. No informed person should make such a claim. Evangelicalism has its problems—big ones. This is nothing new.” It rather seem to me that the true Christianism was never perfectly realized (in its full sense) because of inherent big problems. If the same is the most significant argument against the “other” Christianism (e.g. Catholicism, Orthodoxy), then what’s the advantage of being an Evangelical? Aren’t the “other” Christians also evangelical in the true sense?
As described by Bro Michael here (though probably not authoritative for other Evangelicals) seems to contradict the Bible which Evangelicals supposed to preach:
1. Evangelicalism can celebrate diversity: “that there is room for subjective [yet non-essential, personal] preferences.” But this is against what we observe in reality that evangelicals separate from each other (truest possible senses) creating their own group just because of not agreeing in “non-essentials” of the supposed ONE Faith. I believe St. Paul has been very particular about much disagreements within the Church as to whose position is better than the other (see his letter to Titus).
2. Evangelicalism promotes true conviction that it “is built upon a distrust of one man’s or one institution’s ability to infallibly be dogmatic regarding truth.” Trust is one of the qualities of the Love as St. Paul elaborated in Corinthians. Without it the Church would fail and the love of Christ is given in vain. How come such “-ism” would be founded on the exact anti-thesis that God offered to Man? How come that God who trusted even Judas be betrayed by such distrust? If indeed Evangelicalism can promote “true conviction” then how come such “truth” can come in many different shapes according to one’s taste? When one sees a circle to be a square, isn’t the truth still that circle, not that one man’s opinion?
3. The allowance of scholarship is therefore false as #1 and #2 “properties” contradict each other. Scholarship is based on the fact that “truth” can be found and that truth is one and unique, then some must be false and some true — there is no room for “diversity” in truth — there is only one and only one Will of God, and many men’s opinions. True scholarship means deepening in our understanding.
4. Evangelicanism is not Christocentric, it is Man-centric. Why would the Church of God be concerned of Man’s whims and likes — scholarly approach, acceptance of differing opinions about “circles,” “diversity” of truth as convincing idea of the truth.
If one would analyze what is essentially the same between the Latin (West) and the Greek (East) rites of the Catholic Church, i believe one would eventually find the ONE truth. I don’t seem to find this if I try to find the common beliefs of Evangelicals which is not found in the Catholic Church. Having more does not mean un-truth, it means having…
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Sep 2009 at 12:59 am #
Churchill: “Capitalism is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.”
Adapting the Churchillian phrase:
“Evangelicalism is surely the worst theological and ecclesiastical system, except for all the others that have been tried.”
The others that have been tried: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Liberal Protestantism, Emergers.
#John1453 on 08 Sep 2009 at 8:20 am #
CMP’s post #86 is an important one for understanding his series on evangelicalism. In that vein, it is also important to note his stress on the word “idea”. Those two points are a large part of what underlay my post (on one of the related threads) wherein I wrote that it will be interesting to see what definition CMP uses, not because there is a “best” definition, but because the definition will / will not be useful depending on what CMP says his purposes are. Then we can discuss whether the underpinnings of his definition are valid, and if so, what more can be said.
I see evangelicalism primarily in sociological terms, which is why I see the “doing / does” as a more important category than the hypothetical “can”.
Eagerly awaiting the next post.
regards,
#John
EricW on 08 Sep 2009 at 9:50 am #
If one would analyze what is essentially the same between the Latin (West) and the Greek (East) rites of the Catholic Church, i believe one would eventually find the ONE truth. I don’t seem to find this if I try to find the common beliefs of Evangelicals which is not found in the Catholic Church. Having more does not mean un-truth, it means having…
IMO, some of “what is essentially the same” in those churches that differentiates them from most Evangelical churches includes them being:
a) hierarchical in their organization,
b) episcopal (bishop-led) in their government, with priests heading/serving individual congregations,
c) creedal in their confession,
d) sacramental re: chrismation, baptism, the eucharist, etc., and the use of things like holy water,
e) liturgical in their worship,
f) calendrical in their cycle of services and scheduled feasts and fasts,
g) venerational with regard to saints, esp. the Theotokos/The Virgin Mary, and holy places and relics,
h) eucharist-centered in their worship, with the eucharistic regarded as sacrificial (either a re-offering of Christ, or a re-presentation to God and the people of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice) and the bread and wine believed to be(come) the real body and blood of Christ, all of which can only be done/overseen by a priest or bishop.
YMMV
geekborj on 08 Sep 2009 at 10:08 am #
That is a good observation, EricW. I would like to add the following:
i) recommendation of living a holy life through frequent participation in sacraments of life: eucharistic feast, and confession (reconciliation and penance)
f) Maintains the Ten Commandments and the Two Summary Commandments.
g) Frequently uses “repetitive prayers” such as the Our Father and Hail Mary.
As one might not immediately see, living a holy life is closely connected to maintaining the “state of grace” to participate in the communion (reception of Christ in the eucharist) — defined as being free from willful violation of the Commandments (“mortal sins”).
Also, in the Eastern Rite, it is recommended hold on to the Eucharistic Fasting since the midnight before Communion while just about 1h before Communion in the Western Rite. Though the practice is different, the idea of readiness in spirit and body is required during Communion with Christ.
One final note: the Eucharistic Mass is not simply a “re-presentation” or “re-offering” of the Lamb of God, it is rather the “real and direct participation in the actual offering of the Lamb in Golgotha/Calvary.” The Mass is a movement of spirit both in space and time — a taste of eternity, heaven touching earth (cf. Lamb’s Supper by S. Hahn)
–
“so that all may be one”
Joe on 08 Sep 2009 at 10:17 am #
1) At one time, “Fundamentalism” referred to a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. So for example, promises of physical miracles, bread out of the air, had to be taken as meaning just what they said; not as metaphors for say, the nourishing spirit of God coming from heaven.
2) Today however, without be anachronistic, we might simply specify that there is a new “fundamentalism.” One which may not take the Bible literally, but still adheres to other similar, very basic (and probably false) “fundamentals.”
3) And we might add, much of the New Fundamentalism, is related often, to Muslim fundamentalism. In its intermixing of religion, with nationalism/patriotism; and its turning away from the meek side of Jesus, to the advocacy of war and violence.
In particular, American Evangelists, think “God and Country” really go together. Whereas in the Bible itself, God often spoke against “nations”; posed religion and prophets against “kings”; posed a God not just for one country, but “all peoples,” “all tongues.”
God also warned about preachers who intermix their own politics or human ideas – the “traditions of men” – in with their religion. While those who confuse American national interest and patriotism with Christianity, in effect are doing that all the time. Continually.
Indeed, your (MP) own opening statement here or elsewhere, presents God and America as just two parts of the same thing.
EricW on 08 Sep 2009 at 11:15 am #
One final note: the Eucharistic Mass is not simply a “re-presentation” or “re-offering” of the Lamb of God, it is rather the “real and direct participation in the actual offering of the Lamb in Golgotha/Calvary.” The Mass is a movement of spirit both in space and time — a taste of eternity, heaven touching earth (cf. Lamb’s Supper by S. Hahn)
True. That is what it has become. However, the earliest liturgies make no reference to the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ, nor was there a prayer for such to happen, and the eucharistic language in The Didache has no connotation of it being a participation in Christ’s offering at Calvary.
L P Cruz on 08 Sep 2009 at 7:03 pm #
mbaker.
You asked why I think Lutheranism is the alternative.
Firstly they focus on justification by grace through faith – JBFA.
The liturgy is not where you should start about Lutherans. You should start at their catechism and in their Book of Concord.
For example read Luther’s Small Catechism (w/ explanantions) then you will get a gist why they do the Liturgy. I recommend orthodox synods – LC-MS/WELS/ELS etc.
Then there is the concept of Means of Grace. Evangelicals(modern ones) do not understand this concept that is why they could not think why Lutherans rally on JBFA but also believes in the efficacy of baptism and the Lord’ Supper.
The HS is found in the Word and Sacraments.
For people to say where is the HS in all of these, is to engage in mysticism or inner experience – which is not reliable.
LPC
mbaker on 08 Sep 2009 at 8:23 pm #
L P Cruz,
Thanks for the specific resources. I shall certainly check them out.
Are you open to questions? I know many folks are defensive about their particular beliefs, and feel threatened by being questioned. I am not one of them. Although I don’t want to offend anyone, I am a believer in specific, direct answers, without unnecessary rudeness, or evasiveness, since I believe any branch of Christianity should be open to scrutiny.
So if you are game for further discussion as to why you believe Lutheranism is superior or equal to evangelicalism, so I am. Just give me a few days to study up first.
God bless.
geekborj on 09 Sep 2009 at 5:28 am #
“However, the earliest liturgies make no reference to the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ, nor was there a prayer for such to happen, and the eucharistic language in The Didache has no connotation of it being a participation in Christ’s offering at Calvary.”
Dear EricW:
Since one mentions the Didache as reference as to how early Christians have regarded the Eucharist early on, i would like to mention the early Fathers of the Church as to how they elaborated the contents of that Catechism. We should notice our understanding of the Faith develop, we don’t keep our understanding under the ground like in the Parable of the Talents. Since all Christians know of it, this does not need to be mentioned in Didache. Only later when new members question it that Real Presence has to be defended and explained.
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
Read more: http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
EricW on 09 Sep 2009 at 6:00 am #
I know, geekborj. I read all those same quotes and more when I was considering becoming Catholic or Orthodox, and found many of them quoted in the conversion testimonies and books of Evangelicals who had become Orthodox or Catholic. And after I became Orthodox, I used to cite and refer to them whenever I discussed the “real presence” and the Eucharist with my Evangelical friends, and argued the same way. C. Michael Patton and comments here at Parchment and Pen have cited them and/or interacted with them in past posts that discuss the Church Fathers. I still have many of the books and several by Scott Hahn, including the book you mentioned/quoted in an earlier post in this thread.
geekborj on 09 Sep 2009 at 6:42 am #
All glory to God, EricW! One day, there will be one Church, the true Pillar and Foundation of Truth, she who is given the authority as Christ is given by the Father in His Incarnation. While Orthodox and Catholic have some differences, though much of political rather than theological. Could you please direct me where to find the differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology? Thanks.
EricW on 09 Sep 2009 at 8:02 am #
Yes, all glory to God! FYI, geekborj, I am no longer Orthodox, nor do I currently hold to the Catholic or Orthodox teaching of the Eucharist.
Re: finding discussions of the differences between Catholics and Orthodox, you can probably find such information via Google. A brief list my former priest once gave included:
Theological Differences
1. Filioque
2. The Papacy
3. Purgatory
4. Original Sin
5. Atonement
6. Indulgences
7. Divorce, indissolubility of marriage
8. Saints after 1054
9. Views of each other (I understand that Roman Catholics consider Orthodox to be schismatic, but to have valid sacraments, hence a Roman Catholic can take the Eucharist from an Orthodox priest; but that’s a moot point, because an Orthodox priest can’t knowingly give the Eucharist to a non-Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox consider the Roman Catholics to be heterodox, not merely schismatic, and will not state that the Roman Catholic Church has valid sacraments.)
New Roman Dogmas
1. Papal Infallibility
2. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary
3. Assumption of the Virgin Mary
Christian Practice
1. Fasting
2. Chrismation separated from Baptism becomes Confirmation
3. Communion of infants
4. Form of Baptism: immersion vs. pouring
5. Leavened vs. unleavened bread for the Eucharist
6. Communion in both the Body and Blood
7. When does the transformation of the Bread and Wine take place?
8. One Liturgy a day vs. several Masses
9. Unction vs. Supreme Unction (I think the correct term is “Extreme Unction”)
10. Married vs. celibate clergy
11. Sign of the Cross
12. Legalism
13. Priestly misconduct
14. Varied forms of piety
15. Icons vs. Statues
The above is just a list; to explain or discuss them here would take many pages. You could talk with an Orthodox Priest, or perhaps read Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Michael Pomazansky- it’s online here:
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM
Or read St. John of Damascus (St. John Damascene) An Exact Expostion of the Orthodox Faith. It’s online, too (but I can’t include 2 links in a single post here, so you can cut and paste the following URL into your address bar):
orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html
The EOC and the RCC are in some foundational ways more different from each other than the RCC is from Reformation Protestant churches. The EOC is not simply the RCC plus icons and minus the Pope, as I used to naively think. As Clark Carlton, a Baptist convert to Orthodoxy, has said, the EOC and the RCC/Protestants don’t even worship the same Christ (or perhaps he said “God”). One of his books is: The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church. I wouldn’t vouch for all he writes, but it’s one person’s view of the differences between the EOC and the RCC, and that was your question.
Joe on 09 Sep 2009 at 4:36 pm #
I think Evangelicals and Catholics are more or less equally dogmatic, deep down.
The only freedom, many would say, is outside all churches.
L P Cruz on 09 Sep 2009 at 8:48 pm #
mbaker,
I am absolutely game for questions. You can visit my blog and we can communicate via email from there.
I was in a Charismatic denom for 22 years and then was in Calvinism for 4 years. So I have been around Evangelia and I have seen a few things.
Evangelicalism is what it is today – chaotic, because it’s base is founded on Pietism/Revivalism that separates the HS from the Word and Sacrament. In other words, they have deviated from the original Evangelicals, and misunderstood sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia. They deviated from the objective promises of God and have gone chasing after mystical experiences i.,e subjectivism.
This was ironed before already inside Lutheranism.
So your questions are welcome.
LPC
geekborj on 09 Sep 2009 at 10:42 pm #
“Re: finding discussions of the differences between Catholics and Orthodox, you can probably find such information via Google.”
Thanks a lot EricW for the informative links. I’ve visited the last link and I find it very interesting as it is very similar to the Catechism of the Catholic Church format. Meanwhile, I’m also looking for an authoritative source information about the Orthodox (Eastern) Church (OEC)’s Faith. Something that I could hold on to and definitely say that is believe by all OEC.
Those articles you pointed out seems to give differences but the one that I find seem to hinge on Papacy and the Filoque clause. While the second is minor as the both “sides” seem to emphasize a different part of the Truth; the main issue is on authority. The main contention is on the “primacy” of the Bishop of Rome (Pope) and his grace of Infallibility ex cathedra (final authority/arbiter over issues over bishops). Unless the OEC holds a General Council of their own, this will remain an open issue for OEC as to who will eventually “rise up and speak” then make “the multitude silent,” listening to other corroborative testaments (Acts 15:7-12).
For me, the fact that there is no one to turn to for authoritative and final decisions when “doctrinal issues” arise in OEC’s, OEC’s are not different from Protestant churches.
Even so, I still believe that eventually, the Holy Spirit will convince the world that there will eventually be “one in all.”
–
“so that all may be one”
Dozie on 12 Sep 2009 at 8:38 pm #
“I am no longer Orthodox, nor do I currently hold to the Catholic or Orthodox teaching of the Eucharist.”
Is this not what it means to be “evangelical”? You essentially create your own religion.
EricW on 12 Sep 2009 at 11:19 pm #
Is this not what it means to be “evangelical”? You essentially create your own religion.
No, sir/ma’am. That is what the Orthodox and Catholic churches did when they misunderstood and mistaught what Jesus said and meant and taught at His Last Supper.
To be “Evangelical” is not a matter of creating one’s own religion. It means to have had one’s life impacted and changed by the Euaggelion of Jesus Christ and to live and work so that it might impact others’ lives as well. Catholics and Orthodox Christians, too, are “Evangelical” if they live their lives for the Good News.
Dozie on 13 Sep 2009 at 10:39 am #
“To be “Evangelical” is not a matter of creating one’s own religion. It means to have had one’s life impacted and changed by the Euaggelion of Jesus Christ and to live and work so that it might impact others’ lives as well.”
So, are you simply “evangelical” or are you also a member of a religion/Church? I suppose there are many people who claim to have the same experience you claim for yourself without even necessarily being Christian.
If you claim Christianity for yourself, how did you come to know what it means to be Christian?
If you claim the bible, on whose authority do you take the bible to be true? Is it on your own authority or someone else’s?
If it is your own authority, have you also examined all the religions of the world, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, and following your own analysis, decided you’ve found the brand of Christianity that matched what you found?
To summarize, it takes Jesus assuming the form of man, living, dying, buried and resurrecting, and commissioning Peter as head of newly founded community, to found a Church. Waking up 1500 years later and deciding you are founding a “Church” will not do it, no matter how clever or audacious you may be, hence communities of the Reformation are not properly speaking, Churches. There are not two Christian Churches on earth; there is only one and it is not invisible.
EricW on 13 Sep 2009 at 1:03 pm #
So, are you simply “evangelical” or are you also a member of a religion/Church? I suppose there are many people who claim to have the same experience you claim for yourself without even necessarily being Christian.
If you claim Christianity for yourself, how did you come to know what it means to be Christian?
If you claim the bible, on whose authority do you take the bible to be true? Is it on your own authority or someone else’s?
If it is your own authority, have you also examined all the religions of the world, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, and following your own analysis, decided you’ve found the brand of Christianity that matched what you found?
To summarize, it takes Jesus assuming the form of man, living, dying, buried and resurrecting, and commissioning Peter as head of newly founded community, to found a Church. Waking up 1500 years later and deciding you are founding a “Church” will not do it, no matter how clever or audacious you may be, hence communities of the Reformation are not properly speaking, Churches. There are not two Christian Churches on earth; there is only one and it is not invisible.
Whatever, doozie.
To summarize: You and other RC’s read and believe and encounter history and Scripture and the Lord as you do, and I and other non-RC’s read and believe and encounter history and Scripture and the Lord as we do. You like Rome’s Kool-Aid, that’s fine. Enjoy! Pax.
geekborj on 13 Sep 2009 at 4:12 pm #
Hi All, peace of the Lord!
Rome does not force everyone to drink the “Kool-Aid” (whatever that means). Just like any (or at least most) credal faith, adherence to the Faith should not be forced, either be it by family or by friends. Adherence to the Faith is something that we grow into. Something that at one point in our lives, we decide to abide by it and by the same Faith, live with Hope of being within the Truth as revealed once and for all by the Lord — the Logos made Flesh (at least within the Christian Faith).
What is in the name? Evangelical or Bible-based, Protestant, Lutheran or Calvinist, Roman or Latin, Orthodox Christian… All are the same as long as everyone claims that Jesus is God and that He is OT is pointing at Him as the Messiah — the definitive Noah, Moses, and Jonah. That Jesus, during the last Passover, was (and still is) the Lamb of God (cf. Revelation to John).
Thus the Christian Faith is common in the belief that the Lord God is the God of history, be it a country/nation or even in the personal level (read: God even knows each of our names). Hence, however different our individual paths are, am sure God is calling our names and has set unique paths for each of us. It is for each of us to respond to that calling and be open to his guidance, without hindering it either our stubborness or pride to see the truth.
As I always say: “I would rather be blind by looking at the Truth, rather than being blind by refusing to look at It.”
Somewhere, somebody said: “To know the truth, follow the lies.” (X-Files).
Pray and He will surely lead us There. May Jesus forgive us all, may He lead us all to heaven and may He have mercy especially to those who need most.
–
“so that all may be one.”
EricW on 13 Sep 2009 at 4:43 pm #
Rome does not force everyone to drink the “Kool-Aid” (whatever that means).
geekborj:
Well, it was actually “Flavor Aid,” but the popular myth is that it was Kool-Aid. Sean Hannity regularly uses the term “Kool-Aid” re: such things on his radio show.
Dozie on 13 Sep 2009 at 7:13 pm #
“What is in the name? Evangelical or Bible-based, Protestant, Lutheran or Calvinist, Roman or Latin, Orthodox Christian… All are the same as long as everyone claims that Jesus is God and that He is OT is pointing at Him as the Messiah — the definitive Noah, Moses, and Jonah.”
False, false, and false! There is a major dividing line between God’s action and man’s caricature of the same action. Jesus founded the Catholic Church and Protestant attempt to ridicule what God has establish by attempting to erect counterfeit “Churches” in Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, or any other ism, is purely foolish.
I listened to James White’s “A brief Introduction to the Reformation” this morning. Somewhere in there he claimed that Luther did not intend to found a Church. This is a claim made by many Protestants and somehow they think it is an impressive one. What it really means is that Protestantism was founded accidentally by a man whose mental condition and moral state have been the subject of great controversies.
There are people and blog sites who spend considerable amount of energy defending Luther one charge after another, including Luther’s promotion of adultery; his permission of polygamy; his abominable description of the Jews; his support for murdering “frigid and frail and women”; and his audacious command to “sin boldly”, among many other charges. One asks, how many match sticks does it take to burn down this figure of Luther? You look at the man and you wonder if he is qualified to be any body’s God parent, let alone the founder of a religious system that wants to claim some sort of authenticity? Yet there are men with intelligence who are willing to defend the man as having recovered the true gospel, although they are not willing to be Lutheran themselves.
For any of Protestantism to be true, the history of salvation has to be repeated, beginning from the Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation, the selection of the apostles (with Luther at the head), the death, burial, resurrection, and all. It cost God too much to found his Church – the Catholic Church and no man, if he has the fear of God in him, will entertain the temptation create a rival movement in opposition to what God already established. In a sense, the unpardonable sin is the sin of Luther and his cohorts.
Again, some say that Luther recovered the gospel lost or corrupted by the “papists”. While they deny infallibility to the popes they are more than willing to assert that Luther unfailingly (infallibly) recovered the true gospel but if you ask them if they are Lutheran, more than likely they will say, no. If Luther recovered the true gospel why are majority of Protestants, if not all of them, not Lutherans?
Again, it cost God too much that if any man or woman has the fear of God in him or her, an attempt to erect a rival institution in opposition to the Church of Christ would never be contemplated. This sort of…
geekborj on 13 Sep 2009 at 8:36 pm #
Pure “evangelicanism” is not the best option. It could be everybody’s best choice but not the best option as laid down by God. It will be His Will done.
Let me clarify my point on “What is in a name?”:
1. I’m not promoting that “there is no true visible church.” What I meant here is that God allows such human actions because He can bring more good out of it. As anyone can see, there are a lot of people being brought to the true Faith because of these “deviations.” Jesus himself prophesied that everyone in the Flock will be tested and that many wolves in sheep’s clothing will come, many false teachers will appear. Nevertheless, those who have willed to find the true shepherd will find it. Knock and the door will be opened.
2. Each path is unique that somehow many will go astray from the straight line but in the end, converge to the same point (or circle). Remember, many birds will rest on the big tree (). But in the end, there will always be ONE big tree. How many have returned to the one Fold because of educated decisions? How many have turned away from the same because of hate and pride?
3. One should not reinvent the Wheel. What God has founded, no one can found again (1 Cor 3:11). There is only one Cornerstone. But there is only one first stone founded on it — the Kepha/Rock. Luther has never wanted to be separated from the Church, until his pride overwhelm him wanting to be his own pope. He was given a general council (Trent), whose canons he rejected. Indeed, just follow the “lies.” Dig deeper about your respective Faith. Seek and you will find. Do not hide the Talents, gamble it, test everything.
4. “Kool Aid” or “Flavor Aid” is an allusion of what happened several years ago, hence: “Don’t drink the juice.” This is never going to happen in the one holy apostolic and universal Church (visible Church, the body of Christ animated by His Spirit). “Kool/Flavor Aid” is an allusion to lies. If you are after the truth, find out more about the alleged lies. Who founded your church? For what reasons are your church founded? What keeps its existence? What will happen to your church if 90% of the members become “apostate”? What are the basis of all those “rituals”? How coherent are the “ideas” about God and His divine Plan for Salvation?
In the end, I say: “Look at the Idea, not the people who talk about It.” Do you reject something just because the Roman Catholic Church says it? You might not believe me just because I am a Catholic guy. Indeed, some have ears but do not hear; others hear but do not listen.
The true Church is a persecuted Church. The word “temptation” does not bear a deep meaning without the Church.
If anyone has ears, listen to what the Spirit has to say. (Rev 2-3)
Joe on 17 Sep 2009 at 2:36 pm #
How persecuted is the Catholic Church? It has one billion members, and is the largest church in the world. It is not a persecuted minority.
geekborj on 18 Sep 2009 at 2:26 am #
The word persecuted is not about being in minority. It is about how the ideals and the Faith itself is challenged. It is how the members are being challenged to live their faith (Catholic practices, traditions[small 't'], and Traditions[big 'T' being Mass, Confession, etc.]) freely and without any hindrance (either by law within the community, or by social pressure). It is also how media, culture, and political communities attack or belittle the Catholic beliefs including the Catholic’s leaders the Pope and the bishops.
As examples: There are a hundreds of jokes about the Catholic practices. Media always try to find flaw(s) on the statements of the Pope and even their respective local bishop conferences. Every political entity cries against the Church whenever the Church leaders issue defense against the State’s “rape” of human dignity.
Many Credal churches and religious organizations exist today as if the main essence is just opposing the Catholic Faith, if not attacking it (being anti-catholic in nature).
[Pure] Evangelism (if any exists), based on the article above, will never be persecuted because its members are free to CHANGE their practices as they please to remove any pressure from any entity (e.g. law) or peers. This is very unlike a “dogmatic” church which cannot change the revealed faith but only develop and elaborate.
dudley davis on 03 Oct 2009 at 7:00 pm #
I have read this entire forum today and found it very interesting and I learned much reading it. I am a reformed protestant who also is an ex roman catholic so I would like to comment on a few comments made in the forum for one who has been in both camps.
The following qre the qoutes and then my response.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:51 pm #
Re post 26
I would also disagree that those Catholics who don’t agree with the whole enchilada of the catechism are not really Catholic. Anyone who takes communion in a Catholic church is and remains a real Catholic despite any divergences of belief or practice.
I agree with Michael and not John
C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:05 pm #
J,
By definition, Cafeteria Catholics are not REALLY Catholics. Let’s give Catholicism the benefit there. Just like the Jesus Seminar is not REALLY Protestant (in the historic sense).
I totally agree with Michael.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 6:26 pm #
Still, I guess the evangelicals are a bit better because we’ll at least allow a Catholic to take communion in church (even though a Catholic is not supposed to take communion anywhere except in a Catholic church). I agree with John here.
However when I started visiting Protestant denominations and participating in the Lords Supper in the Protestant churches who welcomed me…..I was technically ex communicated from the roman catholic church.
geekborj on 13 Sep 2009 at 4:12 pm #
Somewhere, somebody said: “To know the truth, follow the lies.” (X-Files). I will not argue here at all .. Good statement …I believe the devil is the master of deceit and he will make a truth look like a lie and the lie look like a truth.
I strongly disagree with dozie however on the following statement.
Dozie on 13 Sep 2009 at 7:13 pm #
For any of Protestantism to be true, the history of salvation has to be repeated, beginning from the Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation, the selection of the apostles (with Luther at the head), the death, burial, resurrection, and all. It cost God too much to found his Church – the Catholic Church and no man, if he has the fear of God in him, will entertain the temptation create a rival movement in opposition to what God already established. In a sense, the unpardonable sin is the sin of Luther and his cohorts.
I am an adult convert to Presbyterianism as well as Protestantism. I was a
roman catholic until I was and became interested in the study of the Protestant
Reformation and the different branches of Protestantism about 3 years ago.
I now believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation i.e. the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith
alone, in Christ alone.
I studied the Protestant Reformation with fervor and I became convinced and a
believer in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. When I accepted the
authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and realized that salvation is
by grace alone could no longer say I was a Roman Catholic
I became a Presbyterian because I believe that Calvin restored the church to
its pure and uncorrupted form.
I will answer by saying I was a cafeteria roman catholic and discovered that Once God removes the veil from the eyes of the Roman Catholic and gives him/her eyes to see and ears to hear and new heart of trust in the real grace of God there is no more Roman Catholicism left in the soul. Hence, to be born again by the Spirit puts an end forever to Roman Catholicism. I really did not leave the roman catholic religion I was no longer a roman catholic. One cannot believe in salvation through the Roman Catholic system of sacraments, etc., and salvation by grace through faith alone at the same time. It is one or the other. I am a Reformed Protestant because I believe that all Christians are catholic, and I made an affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian Protestant because I chose the other as the truth once I was born again. I believe it was Rome that moved away from the true church Christ founded. I also did not become a Lutheran because Luther only trimmed the branches of the corrupted tree of roman Catholicism, Calvin , Knox and Zwingli and the Reformed branch of Protestantism restored the church to its true gospel and its true form that Christ intended.
In faith,
Dudley
mbaker on 03 Oct 2009 at 7:56 pm #
Dudley,
Some things I can agree with you on.
“I also did not become a Lutheran because Luther only trimmed the branches of the corrupted tree of roman Catholicism, Calvin , Knox and Zwingli and the Reformed branch of Protestantism restored the church to its true gospel and its true form that Christ intended.”
Although I am not a Lutheran, it would be most helpful if you elaborated on that. I have heard from more than a few than a few Lutheran folks that they believe they have the best take on true evangelicalism, but never specifically.
Why, and where are the differences?
dudley davis on 03 Oct 2009 at 8:58 pm #
To mbaker: It was initially the Lords Supper and interest in the sacraments and worship which led me to become a reformed Protestant. Later on I became more of a Reformed Evangelical protestant and became very much less sacramental altogether. I now also even renounce the rc mass as an abomination and have become more Baptist in my view of the ordinances which I now prefer to say rather than sacrament.
When I was contemplating becoming a Presbyterian I studied Calvin, Knox and Zwingli in great depth. I have adopted besides the Westminster standards and Confession of faith the teachings on Calvin, Knox and Zwigli and those three Protestant reformers had more of a basis on what I now believe as a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. I am also now considering a move to the Reformed Baptist fold .
I was an Episcopalian for a while after leaving the roman catholic church. I initially left the roman catholic church in 2006 because the current pope and his policies alienated me from that church. I was still very roman catholic however in theology , sacrament and worship. I joined an Episcopal congregation at the invitation of friends who were Episcopalians. It was high Anglican Episcopal and they even called their Sunday service a mass which was very much similar to the roman liturgy. I knew technically I had become a Protestant by joining their Episcopal church but really did not understand what it meant to be Protestant or what the different Protestant denominations taught in faith.
I began to read and study the Protestant Reformation and also explored other Protestant denominations during my first year as a Protestant after leaving roman catholicism. I did not become a Lutheran for the same reasons Zwingli renounced Luther’s teaching on the sacrament. I did attend services with a Methodist congregation for a brief period while exploring Protestantism. I was invited to the Lords Supper with them on one occasion, they open their table to all believers even if not yet officially a member of the Methodist church. I did like and think their position and teaching while very Protestant theologically on the Lords Supper that it is primarily a memorial, and not a sacrifice anew as roman catholicism teaches, the service of the Lords supper is a re-representation of the one and only needed sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for all who accept him in faith. I also believe that is a fine view for Protestants to take even Reformed Protestants, as long as we see it as symbolic of Christ’s sacrifice and not the sacrifice which Rome claims and which I now and Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians reject. I did decide to become a Presbyterian because I believe like Calvin as well as Knox and Zwingli that the Roman church was so corrupted the only way to return to the truth was to renounce her and her pope and its false teachings and return the Gospel and the Church to its true roots and foundation and teachings. I am a Reformed Protestant currently…
dudley davis on 03 Oct 2009 at 9:00 pm #
. I am a Reformed Protestant currently Presbyterian but also consider being Baptized in the Reformed Baptist fold of Protestantism. I came to believe the only way to return to the truth was to also renounce roman catholicism and all her apostate teachings.
I have found there are only a minority of cradle Protestants who understand that it was the roman catholic papists who broke from the true ‘catholic “church and it was Calvin and the Reformed Protestants who restored the church to its uncorrupted foundation. Papists think it is we, the Reformed Protestants who separated and left the true church.
I came to truly believe there is nothing outrageous in believing that all true Christians are justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone and that the Bible is our only source of authority. To challenge these twin pillars of Christian faith is to challenge the heart of the Gospel. Those who set aside these basic Christian tenets are themselves ‘outrageous’ and stand against the Gospel. Roman Catholicism stands against the gospel thus I renounce roman Catholicism! It is why I became a Reformed Protestant. The pope gives teachings which contradict scripture ,it is why I initially left the roman church and at first became an Episcopalian Protestant , I too renounced the pope!
I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation I submit in discipline to the doctrines of John Calvin and the teachings of the reformed Protestantism and belong to a Reformed protestant Church in doctrine and life.
I also concur with Zwingli who believed the problem to be rooted at least partly in sacramentalism itself. The only way to legitimately resolve Roman excess was to reinterpret the nature of the sacraments. Pruning the tree was not enough; pulling the tree up from its roots was the only action that could actually fix the problems. Another reason why I became a reformed protestant and not a Lutheran.
Applying his modified understanding of the sacraments to the Eucharist led Zwingli to affirm its primary purpose as the proclamation of salvation and the strengthening of faith in the hearts of believers. Zwingli insisted that the biblical text taught that the Lord’s Supper was a sign, and that to make it something more violated the nature of the sacrament. However, this caution did not keep Zwingli from strongly affirming a “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Eucharist brought by the “contemplation of faith.”
I also concur with Zwingli that there is no real presence and that Christ becomes present in communion by our common faith. I have also come to the conclusion I like the Baptist position of ordinance because it further removes us from the corruptions of the papist teachings they also call sacrament. Therefore I now think I prefer the Baptist teaching of the two ordinances baptism and the Lords Supper. I am studying the London Baptist confession of faith and I am attending…
dudley davis on 03 Oct 2009 at 9:01 pm #
I also concur with Zwingli that there is no real presence and that Christ becomes present in communion by our common faith. I have also come to the conclusion I like the Baptist position of ordinance because it further removes us from the corruptions of the papist teachings they also call sacrament. Therefore I now think I prefer the Baptist teaching of the two ordinances baptism and the Lords Supper. I am studying the London Baptist confession of faith and I am attending services in the Reformed Baptist congregation and am in an inquirers class. I am considering being baptized by immersion as a Protestant in the reformed Baptist fold.
In faith,
Dudley
PS Just curious .. Are you also a Reformed Protestant?
dudley davis on 03 Oct 2009 at 9:45 pm #
To mbaker and all: As a concluding note and clarification on my previous comments I wish to note I agree with Michael on the following points and really all his positions.
But particularly when Michael said:
1.Evangelicals are free to question, search, deny, confirm, doubt, and change to an extent that dogmatic traditions are not. Again, this is risky, but, in the end, it does not mandate a certain conclusion and can evaluate the evidence more objectively. In other words, Evangelicals don’t have to be lawyers defending a client of tradition, but they are instead investigators of truth.
2.Evangelicals, with all their faults, do consistently present the need to have a personal conversion to Christ.
3.The cross is the apex of history, and we must personally have a conversion experience by trusting in Christ as our Lord and Savior. The focus is not the church, liturgy, or traditions.
I agree with Michael especially on the 3rd point I quoted of his. When I was a roman catholic I received communion every Sunday at mass. I also went to communion regularly while and Episcopalian. However when I became a Presbyterian we only celebrated the Lords Supper on the first Sunday of each month. Gradually my view of sacrament or ordinance became more Reformed Protestant and I began to believe that the sacraments , and the church were not the primary mode of salvation as had been ingrained in me as a roman catholic. A personal conversion to Christ and believing we are saved and justified by faith in Him alone. I now center my Christian experience on the Gospel and scripture and less on sacrament or ordinance.
I can say I experienced a “True Protestant Conversion” as John Calvin also described.
As my knowledge of Protestantism expanded I became a Reformed Protestant and an Evangelical because I believe Reformed Evangelical Protestantism is the most purely and authentically Protestant. I believe we are against heresy and popery as a corrupt and evil institution and as Protestants we promote the truth of the true church and Gospel founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Evangelicalism and Reformed Protestantism is a return to the true church. Even the roman church taught me that Presbyterians and Baptists were the furthest from Rome in their theology and teachings , worship and sacrament, ordinances. That is true and the only thing I will now agree with the roman church on. I am a Reformed Protestant because we are further from the corruptions of Rome than any other branch of Protestantism. I am beginning to think that the Reformed Baptist fold of the Reformed branch of Protestantism is even more so Protestant then Presbyterians which again is leading me towards the Reformed Baptist fold. I am and want to be purely most Protestant in my expression of the Christian faith. It is my belief that reformed Protestantism and Protestant Evangelicalism is the true Church and teaches the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
In faith,
Dudley
EricW on 03 Oct 2009 at 11:09 pm #
It’s a shame that sacerdotalism reared its head so early in the history of the church, supplanting the charismatic operation of the Spirit and the church’s growth and instruction through the apostles and prophets and teachers with the resurrection and reinstitution of the Old-Covenant mediatorship of a human priesthood between Christ and His Body.
Joe on 04 Oct 2009 at 2:22 pm #
The problem with Evangelicalism in turn though, is that it doesn’t have very fixed – or reliable – doctrines.
First: 1) gifts of the “spirit” are notortiously subjective. Lots of silly things are allowed in Evangelicalists; believing the the Holy Spirit told us to vote Republican in every election, etc.. Many hear something they think is the Holy Spirit … that is not really so holy after all; but a “false spirit.”
Worse, 2) the very name puts the emphasis on converting – “evangelizing” – others. On vociferously telling everyone what your idea of God is; even as there is no assurance that your personal idea is accurate.
For that reason? My vote is still: no church at all.