Several years ago Carl Trueman wrote these words:
“Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day.”
“Is the Reformation Over?” (HT: Esteban Vázquez)
In this first post I will not answer the question, “Why am I not Catholic?” I will explain my reasons for not crossing the Tiber soon enough. Instead, today, I will begin from the “positive” side of the matter: Why am I an E/evangelical?
I am hesitant to use the word “Evangelical” with a capital “E” because right now Evangelicalism is a word with no static meaning. It is in flux. For some, Evangelicals are one and the same with the Religious Right or the Moral Majority. Al Mohler, the late Jerry Falwell, or James Dobson may represent this thread of the movement. Nor do I find comfort in the Evangelicalism represented by Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Joel Osteen, and others who are icons of what has become “mainstream” Evangelicalism. I resonate with the efforts of people like Billy Graham and John Stott to create a broad coalition, though this is easier said than done, which may be why some are predicting the collapse of Evangelicalism.
The “mission” of Evangelicalism is hard to define as well: are we to Christianize culture? Are we to “save” as many “souls from hell” as possible, even if the Gospel of the apostolic church had more to do with discipleship than we’d like to admit? Evangelicals don’t know the answer to this question as a whole.
Similarly, doctrinally, Evangelicalism lacks a central creed to define who is “in” and who is “out.” David Bebbington (in Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s) argued for these four identity markers: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism. Evangelicals aim to convert people to Christ. Converts need to have some sort of “born again” experience. This is individualistic in nature. In other words, one is not born a Christian. Paedobaptism has not been accepted by many Evangelicals, traditionally (though this has changed recently as we find coalitions including the Reformed and Baptists now), because every adult or young adult must have that moment when they “personally” confess Jesus as Lord and Savior (oddly, there has been a debate in the past about whether one can call Jesus “Savior” and not “Lord”). Yet this approach to conversionism has its challenges. We have come to see that “revival” and being “seeker sensitive” has done something nasty to our religion. We don’t know what it is exactly, but as one person has said it, “Christianity in American is three thousand miles wide and one inch deep.”
Activism may be the most controversial of the four points. Evangelicals in Great Britain were involved in the demise of the slave trade. Evangelicals have challenged social evils at various points, failed at others, but the ethos allows for civic engagement. In other words, Evangelicals do not retreat from the public square. In the United States Evangelicals are polarizing and contradictory. We fight for the right of the unborn, but we did little to protest our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We may open soup kitchens and orphanages, but we have found ourselves supporting larger systemic realities that prevent people from escaping poverty. We have a s0-so record on racial equality and we do not know what to do with the LGBTQ community. Evangelicals have split over these matters: Some fighting abortion tooth and nail; others willing to compromise. Some fighting for “traditional marriage” while others fight for “marriage equality.” Some “support the troops” while others support the troops by demanding our government keep them at home. If activism is a unifying factor we can’t agree on how to go about it.
Biblicism is a debated definition as well. For a while if one was an Evangelical one used the word “inerrancy” to define Scripture. The Bible isn’t wrong about anything, at all, ever. It is perfect in matters of sociology, science, and the sacred. Evangelicals aligned with the fundamentalist side of Christianity on this matter, but over time as Evangelicals have engaged higher criticism we have had to rethink our Bible. Even those who maintain a perfect Bible put a lot of work into explaining how this works. Others have abandoned the defense of an inerrant Bible using words like “infallible,” i.e. the gist of the Bible is perfectly true and sufficient at a metanarrative level. Some prefer “authoritative,” which may mean something or nothing depending on who you ask. For the most part most Evangelicals approach the Bible with a “hermeneutic of trust.” We want to believe what it says, so we begin there and if we abandon our ideals it is with great remorse. This may be the biggest difference between so-called “Progressive Christians” and less traditional Evangelicals, but the line between many Evangelicals and Progressive Christianity or even Protestant Liberalism is a thinning one. You can find many Evangelicals embracing higher criticism, denouncing the historicity of Adam or Noah’s flood, admitting that the genocidal narrative of the Book of Joshua are immoral or close to it, and so forth and so on. Previous generations of Evangelicals wouldn’t know what to do with this “conceding of ground” and many contemporary ones do not know what to do either.
Crucicentrism is the proposition that the Christian Gospel is centered on the death of Jesus. We do not deny that Jesus died for our sins on the cross, but many Evangelicals cannot agree on what happened on Good Friday. Should we use language like “substitutionary atonement?” Did Jesus satisfy a wrathful God by dying or do we need to rethink the meaning of Jesus’ death? Also, what about the resurrection? Does the crucifixion mean anything if Jesus did not overcome death?
I don’t know if I am a big “E” Evangelical. I will let others decide. Personally, I affirm that God’s saving work, God’s renewal of the cosmos, began in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It continues through his mediatory work for us before the Father. It will be consummated at Jesus’ Second Coming to establish his Kingdom fully on earth as New Creation replaces Old. I want everyone to be a Christian because I think Jesus is that important, but unlike many Evangelicals I do not feel comfortable with speaking for God as regards who can and cannot be reconciled to him.
Activism matters to me, but I have been tempted by the anabaptist approach of being an “alternative community” rather than trying to grasp power to force culture to Christianize. I know, there is a difference between using power and being “salt and light,” but I don’t know how to go about this usually. Some causes are easier for me to embrace; others I want to avoid altogether. Sometimes I am apathetic. Sometimes I am overwhelmed by the state of the world so I use my money to go buy something comforting, like ice cream.
I approach the Bible as a nexus where I can be lead by the Spirit of God, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have problems with it. I don’t know what do with many portions of Scripture. I use higher criticism in my own studies and I don’t need a perfect, inerrant Bible to be a Christian. Oddly, some Patristic exegesis has made me rethink how I read the Bible. When Origen wrote that problematic parts of Scripture were inserted by God to make us stop and ask about the “deeper meaning” he said something that appeals to me, kind of. I don’t know that I can allegorize everything that bothers me, but I am OK with stopping, praying, questioning, and allowing Scripture to discomfort and interrupt me without explaining away everything apologetically.
I affirm the Gospel as a God’s chosen King establishing God’s Kingdom on earth. That King is Jesus. While the “Gospel” is being discussed and debated by many at this time I am willing and excited to engage my siblings in Christ and the world on this topic. If we do not understand the Gospel, then what are we doing? If Evangelicalism means that we begin our fellowship, discussion, and debate around the Gospel and its implications then call me an Evangelical. This is how I understand my Evangelicalism. It may be “mere Christianity,” but that is where I am confident: the basics (not saying we agree on the basics, but there is a basic ethos shared by most Christians that has more in common than not).
Now, I am one who has come to agree that Evangelicalism as a “denomination” is problematic. Rather, I see Evangelicalism as an ethos. It is a movement within denominations and churches that reminds Christians to come back to the Gospel. The Gospel is not something we learn at the “start,” but then abandon. The Gospel is Christianity. Currently, I worship with a Mennonite congregation. Can I be “Evangelical” and “Mennonite?” Yes, I think. Mennonites have a tradition that informs their doctrine and practice. Mostly, I can embrace Mennonite Christianity, but Mennonites, like Presbyterians, or Anglicans, or even Catholics may find themselves so engaged in being this or that type of Christian that the core of Christianity–the Gospel–disappears into the background. Evangelicals exist across these traditions to remind Anglicans debating over whether to allow women to be Bishops, or Presbyterians debating whether to ordain people involved in same sex relations, or Pentecostals debating whether “speaking with tongues” is essential to Pentecostalism, that none of this matters if we forget the Gospel: the proclamation that God has invaded the world, established his Kingdom, chosen his King, and sent ambassadors into the world to announce, “Be reconciled to God!”
Oddly, my definition of “Evangelical” doesn’t prevent JohnDave from embracing a label such as “Evangelical Catholic” and I’m fine with that. That is the Evangelicalism I know. It is a movement, an ethos, that embraces Christians across a variety of traditions seeking to renew the C/church by calling her back to her central proclamation then working on peripheral matters from there.
Next up: JohnDave will explain why he is a Catholic.
__________
See also:
the archives near Emmaus 
“…in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic.”
I don’t understand this. I was once a Protestant having experienced life in several splinter denominations, and looking back, I am amazed and amused at the great amount of energy strategizing and rationalizing why one should not be a member of that Church, that One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which Christ Himself established on St. Peter and which continues today in that Apostolic Tradition which St. Peter and the Apostles established based upon the commands of Jesus Christ – that Church where Christ and His Font of Mercy are present perpetually.
What is the salvific value in being opposed to Christ’s true Church? When to love God is to obey every word He has said (which includes those words of establishment and authority he gave to St. Peter, the Apostles, and their legitimate successors), why in the world is living a life of protest of any salvific value at all? It is a life of rebellion – of “We refuse to belong” and “We refuse to obey” and “We refuse to follow that Will of Jesus Christ which He set into motion with His own words” and “We are better than the sinners in the Catholic Church”?
What is “Evangelicalism” if it is not rooted in the Catholic Faith – that Faith which established the Canon of Scripture and the Sacraments – that Church which at Pentecost was gifted with the Holy Spirit to guide Her in all Truth?
The “Compass” or direction that you need is and always has been in the Catholic Church. You need to start there to get your bearings. If you stay there and persevere, you will not get lost.
Francis
Trueman’s words do acknowledge the strength of the claims of the Catholic Church. I don’t deny many of them. That said, I do have my reasons for not joining the Catholic Church, which I will explain in my next post, and it isn’t as simple as refusing to belong or obey.
Perhaps there has already been a collapse of evangelicalism. I find it interesting that there still is no clear definition of the gospel even among so-called evangelicals – so no wonder we’re not clear about our mission and so on…
So what attracted you to the Mennonites? ( A few days ago, I showed my wife in the NIV preface how Mennonites were among the 1978 translators.)
Honestly, the local expression here in San Antonio. I wasn’t looking for a Mennonite Church. When I asked around about Churches before moving here a friend recommended I contact his friend who was part of the Mennonite Church. We chose to visit because we knew at least one person. We visited other Churches. After a couple months we decided that this community made the most sense at this time. That said, if I were to move to another city there is no guarantee I would join the local MC USA congregation. I appreciate the Mennonite emphasis on discipleship, living as followers of Christ in this world, being peacemakers and serving the local community, and the basic core Protestant doctrines like the Trinity and our Canon are embraced.
As to whether Evangelicalism has collapsed, well, that is hard to know since “Evangelicalism” remains in flux. It is like asking when the Roman Empire collapsed, officially! We are in the midst of a great shift, yet much of Evangelical Christianity (whatever this means doctrinally, though it seems observable as an ethos) remains the source of many influential leaders, large churches, publishing houses, academic institutions, and so forth. I don’t know how it holds together, so we’ll see if it continues to do so.
Yes, I do agree with your assessment of it as an ethos, more than anything else. I believe it’s my frustration with the whole evangelicalism landscape, being in flux, as you rightly put it, why I’m talking collapse. But, ah!
Yes, we call learn from each other here. I know a few years ago, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary did a conference on the Anabaptists, the ancestors of the Mennonites, so I hear you on the emphases. Perhaps I’ll visit a Mennonite gathering someday.
I guess I don’t know what to call Christianity that is outside of traditional labels such as Baptist, Reformed, Pentecostal, Methodists, etc. These groups are defined by particular creedal realities, while Evangelicalism may exist within these traditions, but it can exist outside of them as well (i.e., non-denominational churches/independent churches). Maybe Evangelicalism will become Christianity that emphasizes congregational autonomy where each church is a “free agent?”
Brian you touch on many things in this post, and you parse out the issues facing Christianity today nicely. Commenting on a few things – you observe If activism is a unifying factor we can’t agree on how to go about it..
When Evangelicals in Britain opposed slavery, there was no consensus (at first). There was great opposition that persisted for decades, until ultimately (most) Christian’s could no longer deny William Wilberforce’s fundamental claim that slavery and Christian ethics were not compatible (they could no co-exist). His efforts specifically did a number of things; it targeted public awareness, it engage the mechanism of politics, it established a moral norm etc.
That there is no unity, is of-it-self not the problem – confusion is the natural state of sinful man. That Christian leadership lacks force of character sufficient to act the catalyst for the apologetic that cultivates consensus is the issues. However, we live in the so-called “post-modern age” (an expression I’ve never truly quite figured out). In part this means that we “doubt truth, but are certain about ourselves”, whereas before we “doubted ourselves, but were certain about truth” (even if we did not recognize it perfectly).
If truth itself can be doubted (however we perceive it), how can Evangelicals cultivate consensus about a matter. Without truth there can be no objectivity .. (apparently I am no post-modernist – I wonder if you consider yourself one ..) Activism will not itself be the unifying force. What will be the unifying force is that we, as Christians, come to some broad agreement that some biblical principle is at play which we’ve come to recognize needs to be addressed (so the agreement precedes the activism). On this front, the devil has done his work effectively. He has neutered the moral relevance of our faith by painting many of these issues in simplistic terms. He has made false dichotomies where none should exist.
Take some of the issues you cite:
Abortion, a battle between extremes. Does anyone really deny that ‘terminating the life of a foetus’ in any and every circumstance based solely upon the whim of mere choice – is wrong? Similarly does anyone really deny that for a state to impose its will on a women is wrong? The debate is framed as ‘either you are pro-choice, or pro-life. What if one is both, or neither ..? I am pro-choice, but do not think these right include the right to terminate any and all unborn under every circumstance. I am also pro-life, but recognize that one cannot simply hold up the life of the foetus as sacrosanct in every and all circumstances – that would be no less extreme as the other position.
War. Again whether or not wars are waged on moral grounds – war is the default state of man in rebellion to God. Death is the result of sin. The question isn’t ‘should we, or should we not go to war?’ As long as man is in rebellion against God we will be forced to war. The question is ‘what do we go to war about’, or ‘when is war appropriate for a Christian society’? I would argue that the minute we accept Christ, in some sense we are setting ourselves up to war against the world, and its values. This means that to be a nation and a company of nations of Christ followers we will always be morally accountable for issues of Christian morality. Notwithstanding political arguments about whether or not our nations are truly motivated by pure motives when it decides to go to war, we cannot be a nation of Christ followers standing idly by while 3 million people starve to death (resorting to canabilism) in N. Korea (for example), without being hypocrites. Likewise, we cannot allow a mad-man in Europe to conduct genocide simply to avoid conflict. ‘Turning the other cheek’ does not absolve us of our responsibility to ‘give justice to the weak and fatherless’, or ‘maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute’. Turning the other cheek is not the strategy Jesus took when he over-threw the money-changers in the temple. War is terrible – absolutely – but sin, not war, has led to the downfall of creation. If the natural state of man in rebellion to God, is to wage war – we might as well align this unavoidable conflict and wage in accordance with Christian duty and face the world’s rejection, because of an association with Christ.
Greater than our need to confront violence is our responsibility to confront sin and the lies that under-pin them. Ultimately you conclude by alluding you see ‘Evangelicalism as an ethos’. I agree that there is something about the Kingdom of God that goes beyond mere denomination (I assume this is what you mean by ethos), so while you were being ‘positive’ I think it’s reasonable to point out that if this is true (the Kingdom of God goes beyond mere denomination), it is reasonable to ask does any particular denomination completely represent the Kingdom of God? If the answer is “no” I see no compelling reason to try to give up the ‘whole’ in favour of the part, especially when doing so may inject unbiblical doctrines ….
As concerns “postmodernist,” well, I think that this depends on how you are using that label. Many equate postmodernism with utter subjectivity, especially when I read Christian critiques of postmodern thought. If this is what you mean then “no” I am not a postmodernist. IF, on the other hand, you mean what many postmodern philosophers mean, i.e., we see things from an angle and a perspective and contra the project of folks like Kant and Descartes there is no “universal” perspective for us humans (the project of modernism), then yes, in that sense I am postmodern. In other words, objective truth exists but we understand it subjectively. As a subject it is impossible for me to understand the object from the perspective of the object. I cannot cross the subject-object divide. I cannot be with another person and know their thoughts as well as they know their thoughts. I cannot meditate upon God and understand God as God understands God’s self. That doesn’t mean I deny God, nor that God reveals truth about himself, but even then, I understand it subjectively. Hope that clarifies.
While I agree that there is no denomination that corners the Kingdom this doesn’t mean that denominationalism is suddenly inferior to non-denominationalism. In other words, if I tell a Methodist, “You live in the Kingdom in closest affiliation with Methodist communities, and you find Methodist doctrine to best express your worldview, BUT I transcend this embracing the entire Kingdom without boundaries!” the truth of the matter is I have set boundaries myself. I have chosen a label free, maybe individualistic expression of Christianity as the best expression of Christianity. How does that make me different from the Methodist who find Methodism to be the best expression of Christianity? I don’t think it does.
Now, I am not committed to my Mennonite Church or the Mennonite Church USA to the same degree that JohnDave is committed to the Roman Catholic Church, so there is a degree of difference, and I understand that. Even so, being label free has become a label, sometimes a scary, out-of-touch, individualist label.
I agree with you that the ‘free’ label is itself a label. The heart of my concern about denominationalism is twofold:
1. Denominations tend to ‘stove-pipe’ our views.
2. Even if it is true we ultimately cannot avoid denominations (and I think you’re argument here is true) we should recognize that a denominational perspective is not the same as a ‘Christ’ perspective. In other words we should recognize that denominations sometimes introduce unbiblical ideas and therefore, never put denominational loyalties before Christ loyalties and perspectives. Popes, theologians (such as Calvin, Wesley), and preachers (Piper, Rob Bell, etc) are all fallible, and themselves only have voices in the market-place of ideas.
Also, I agree with your perspective on ‘truth’ that truth has an objective basis but is known subjectively. What I disagree with is the idea that we cannot understand truth in some sense ‘objectively’. It may be true that we cannot understand the objective nature of truth, of our own accord, because of subjectivity, but we do not function alone. Objective truth can be approximately understood objectively as an aggregate of our subjective experience. One blind man cannot know the elephant, but 10 blind men can know him better, and better still 1000 can. The aggregate experience of the 1000 is certainly a better approximation of the ‘objective elephant’ than the subjective limitation of one (and I would argue not far off).
It’s true man (species) is not God, and so cannot understand as God does, but that does not deny man collectively the ability to overcome his subjective limitations. God has given man ‘reason’. Individually, we may not be perfectly reasonable. Collectively, however, we can overcome our short-comings. (We all recognize, for example, logical principles, such as the ‘Law of excluded Middle’ – something cannot be both true and false at the same time)
I think this is why ‘community’ is important, not only in the pursuit of ‘truth’, but also to expose truth in worship (which is interesting because it has liturgical implications). I think this is also why the Gospel must be ‘spoken’ and ‘heard’. The act of speaking the ‘Gospel’ as a community allows the Holy Spirit to overcome the subjective weakness of one. The act of hearing allows the Holy Spirit to illuminate the dark places of the hearers heart, which otherwise might remain non-illuminated …
Brian LePort,
Thanks for starting this very interesting series of posts. I know that it just so happens that you are disucssing this with a Roman Catholic, but I’d like to make a comment on something you quoted at the beginning of this post.
I know he made the caveat ‘in the West’ but I have to say that for numerous reasons I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is default and the central question for a Western Christian ought to be ‘Why am I not Eastern Orthodox?’ To give one example, our version of the Creed is older and we have had less theological innovations than the Catholic Church. If you look at the schism of 1054, I’d think you might agree that the West was the one that had deviated more from the Christianity of the patristic era and the ecumenical councils., and everything Trueman said about Rome’s claim to historical continuity applies even more so to the East. I’d actually be interested to hear if you agree with that or not.
Anyhow, just a thought, I’m obviously approaching this with a bias. My move to the Eastern Orthodox Church from evangelicalism is recent and still in progress (and it is a move that I felt compelled to make after reading some of the fathers and looking into the Eastern Tradition), and if you ever have a willing Orthodox associate I think a similar series would be very fascinating or perhaps just you defining your position in response to the Eastern Tradition.
Brian LePort,
Thanks for starting this very interesting series of posts. I know that it just so happens that you are disucssing this with a Roman Catholic, but I’d like to make a comment on something you quoted at the beginning of this post.
I know he made the caveat ‘in the West’ but I have to say that for numerous reasons I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is default and the central question for a Western Christian ought to be ‘Why am I not Eastern Orthodox?’ To give one example, our version of the Creed is older and we have had less theological innovations than the Catholic Church. If you look at the schism of 1054, I’d think you might agree that the West was the one that had deviated more from the Christianity of the patristic era and the ecumenical councils., and everything Trueman said about Rome’s claim to historical continuity applies even more so to the East. I’d actually be interested to hear if you agree with that or not.
Anyhow, just a thought, I’m obviously approaching this with a bias. My move to the Eastern Orthodox Church from evangelicalism is recent and still in progress (and it is a move that I felt compelled to make after reading some of the fathers and looking into the Eastern Tradition), and if you ever have a willing Orthodox associate I think a similar series would be very fascinating or perhaps just you defining your position in response to the Eastern Tradition.
Andrew
On this matters we agree. I think anyone who is part of a denomination should be humble and honest about the fallibility of a denominations limited offering to broader Christianity. Some of the most annoying Christians are those who think their brand is faultless and perfect. It makes dialogue impossible and these types fall prey to what you warn against: their denominational identity is superior to (or wrongly equated with) their Christian identity.
John M
This is a great question. Hopefully, JohnDave and I can say somethings about Orthodoxy during this series. One of my reasons for not being a Catholic is what you suggest: if I am going to go with a system centered on the episcopate, I find Orthodoxy far more sensible and in keeping with the early episcopate than Rome’s claim. Now, I confess, I am not an expert on these matters at all. As far as I know there does seem to be agreement that Rome was a “first among equals,” with Rome emphasizing “first” and the other bishops emphasizing “equals.” If the Papacy were to abandon some of the claims of infallibility and superiority over other bishops it would catch my attention because I think it would be the correct move.
Why I am not Orthodox? Partially, Orthodoxy is foreign. We Evangelicals are Protestants and Protestant theology is shaped, in part, as not-Catholic. When I have read the Fathers it does seem to me that Orthodoxy is closer, but then there is (and this is my perception, so it may be ignorant) the problem I have with absolutely static theology. Catholicism seems to have given more room for innovation within orthodoxy while Orthodoxy is a very closed system. Then there are superficial matters: the role of women, the perceived ethnocentrism of varios branches of Orthodoxy, etc.
I hope you will continue along with this discussion and inform us from your perspective because I’d like to hear Orthodox voices on this matter. Similarly, I’d be happy to hear a bit about your transition from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy.
John M, you ask a good and relevant question. If Trueman’s claim is true, Eastern Orthodox would likely have a better than Roman Catholicism on approximating the ‘default position’. However, not everyone accept’s Trueman’s position as true.
The question is ‘What constitutes’ the default position? Perhaps Roman Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy) most closely approximates the faith of the Church Fathers, but who says they got it right? One cannot simply appeal to a ‘default position’ and presuppose everyone agrees they understand it, or even understand it the same.
There are a couple of reasons I would argue, for example, the Church Fathers got it wrong. First, they Hellenized exegesis, meaning excised the Gospel of its Hebrew character. Second, they (mostly) shared a largely anti-Semitic perspective on how ‘Christian’ believers related to God’s relationship to his chosen (meaning Israel). Now this could have resulted for theological reasons, or ignorance of history reasons, regardless – it’s changed how the covenant is understood.
The Roman Catholic Church, like the Easter Orthodox Church, like the Protestant reformation is a lens, a framework through which we read the text. Although this may sometimes be helpful, sometimes it isn’t. If there is a default position, it is the one held by the authors of the text, and not something that came later.
I might also add that our view and understanding of the Judaism of the Pharisees does not represent the most ancient ‘Israelite’ religion.
I would argue Moses, Hosea, Isaiah (and presumably ancient believers) understood their faith the same way Jesus did, though perhaps not perfectly. The Judaism of the Pharisees, therefore, represents only a caricature of the religion that was passed on to the ancients, and a corrupt one at that. Jesus, it could be said, was the ultimate ‘Reformer’ in that he came to restore our view of covenant, and God.
Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and dare I say it, even the Reformation, need this constant ‘revision’ (re-focusing away from man-theology back onto God-theology)
Brian LePort,
Yes, because of Peter Rome is ‘first among equals.’ That was understood to be a position of primacy, but not universal pastoral authority and certainly not the authority to do things (such as change the creed) without the consensus of an ecumenical council.
On the objection of ethno-centrism, there is some truth to that. Many immigrants kept their faith to themselves with their ethnic communities. The Russian Church has done great things in the last century to reverse this trend and the OCA (the American church) is largely due to the Russians sharing their faith with non-Russian Americans.
I suppose static theology is something we disagree about. I’m not much a fan of theological innovations, and the Orthodox emphasis on passing down the faith received from the Apostles is a large part of what attracted me to it and it may be what repels you.
Andrew T,
Given that the Eastern Church best represents the views of the Church Fathers, I don’t see how it can be denied that this would be an indication that they are right. Asking what the church fathers believed is, in my opinion, almost the same as asking what the Apostles taught. For example, Ireneaus was only separate from the Apostle John by Polycarp. In other words, the Patristic Era is more likely to be correct (compared to a bunch of American evangelicals separated by 2,000 years from the Apostles and wholly disconnected from any notion of Apostolic Tradition) simply by virtue of its temporal proximity to the Apostles. If you want to say that the Fathers were incorrect, than I think it follows that there is absolutely no way for us to be correct. If the Fathers were wrong, then the true faith was lost within a generation of our Lord, how can we hope to recover it?
I suppose you might answer this with ‘going directly to the Bible;, but I would submit for your consideration that the the fruit of ‘sola scriptura’ speaks for itself (every man his own pope, his own interpreter of the Bible, and the thousands of denominations and millions of personal theological inventions that we see in the American church – all of this is not promising to me) – this besides the fact that sola scriptura is self refuting (an authority, the church had to define scripture, which means an appeal to scripture necessarily includes an appeal to the authority of the church). This is only to introduce the idea of Apostolic succession, that the Scriptures cannot be approached independent of the context of Apostolic tradition. Asking what the early church believed can be reworded as ‘what did the Apostles teach?’ Because we have the writings and teachings of history of the Church, we do not have to guess on our own in interpreting the Bible. New theological innovations based on the Bible that have no basis in history do not have that basis because the Apostles taught something otherwise.
I don’t know if I’m explaining this well or if that’s even coherent, I’m not educated like Brian LePort, but I hope I’ve at least partially explained why I think the church fathers were right.
Brian LePort,
Yes, because of Peter Rome is ‘first among equals.’ That was understood to be a position of primacy, but not universal pastoral authority and certainly not the authority to do things (such as change the creed) without the consensus of an ecumenical council.
On the objection of ethno-centrism, there is some truth to that. Many immigrants kept their faith to themselves with their ethnic communities. The Russian Church has done great things in the last century to reverse this trend and the OCA (the American church) is largely due to the Russians sharing their faith with non-Russian Americans.
I suppose static theology is something we disagree about. I’m not much a fan of theological innovations, and the Orthodox emphasis on passing down the faith received from the Apostles is a large part of what attracted me to it and it may be what repels you.
Andrew T,
Given that the Eastern Church best represents the views of the Church Fathers, I don’t see how it can be denied that this would be an indication that they are right. Asking what the church fathers believed is, in my opinion, almost the same as asking what the Apostles taught. For example, Ireneaus was only separate from the Apostle John by Polycarp. In other words, the Patristic Era is more likely to be correct (compared to a bunch of American evangelicals separated by 2,000 years from the Apostles and wholly disconnected from any notion of Apostolic Tradition) simply by virtue of its temporal proximity to the Apostles. If you want to say that the Fathers were incorrect, than I think it follows that there is absolutely no way for us to be correct. If the Fathers were wrong, then the true faith was lost within a generation of our Lord, how can we hope to recover it?
I suppose you might answer this with ‘going directly to the Bible;, but I would submit for your consideration that the the fruit of ‘sola scriptura’ speaks for itself (every man his own pope, his own interpreter of the Bible, and the thousands of denominations and millions of personal theological inventions that we see in the American church – all of this is not promising to me) – this besides the fact that sola scriptura is self refuting (an authority, the church had to define scripture, which means an appeal to scripture necessarily includes an appeal to the authority of the church). This is only to introduce the idea of Apostolic succession, that the Scriptures cannot be approached independent of the context of Apostolic tradition. Asking what the early church believed can be reworded as ‘what did the Apostles teach?’ Because we have the writings and teachings of history of the Church, we do not have to guess on our own in interpreting the Bible. New theological innovations based on the Bible that have no basis in history do not have that basis because the Apostles taught something otherwise.
I don’t know if I’m explaining this well or if that’s even coherent, I’m not educated like Brian LePort, but I hope I’ve at least partially explained why I think the church fathers were right.
Sorry about all the double posts, something is wierd with my wordpress account.
The Church Fathers were readers and intrpretaters of the bible, and we are readers and interpreters of them. They cannot be credited with infallibility, and certainly do not fall within the same category of ‘inspired’ as the writers of scripture.
Of course you believe the church fathers believe the same as the apostles. I don’t share that presupposition, which is why I pointed it out. Obviously, I believe Paul understood things Ireneaus did not.
I didn’t say ‘true faith was lost within a generation of the Lord’, however if it was lost at all, it was lost in a series of small steps, which makes your argument about American Evangelicals semi-true. I say semi-true because it is possible to recover the Gospel after the fact. I would argue that the reformation’s renewed reading of scripture did much to wrest away important aspects of the Gospel from tradition and the tyranny of the ekklesia. However, it has also since introduced problems of its own, as Brian sometimes alludes to.
With respect to ‘every man being his own pope’, that is a tired argument. Only by denying the Holy Spirit could every man be his own pope. Absolutely, if there is no Holy Spirit, every man is indeed his own pope. However, if there is a living Holy Spirit, there is both a facilitator of the illumination of faith, but also of reason (or would you argue the Holy Spirit is not effective, or would you argue the Holy Spirit cannot be our unifying influence?). Is this not Orthodoxy’s very own claim to how the bible became written in the first place?
John
I sense that I don’t have as much trouble with the “primacy” of the Pope as I do what you observe: supreme authority, even able to alter creeds that had been shaped by councils. I have seriously considered Anglicanism at various points, because the episcopate matters to that tradition, but Anglicanism’s openness makes me wonder what the difference is between being an Anglican and being another form of Protestant without Bishops. In other words, Anglican Bishops seem to be more administrators at times that preservers of Apostolic Tradition.
I wouldn’t say that the Orthodox emphasis on preserving the Apostolic Tradition “repels” me. I want to be part of a Christianity rooted in the message of Jesus and the Apostles. I’m not seeking innovation without limits, but it appears to me that even our greatest thinkers such as Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, and others were forced to shape Christianity theology as it engaged new situations and new questions. The Trinity may have Scriptural roots, but our understanding is indebted to the Fathers unpacking the doctrine using their own language and worldview. My fear is that we may not be allowed to do the same today if the Orthodox tradition has its say. Does that make better sense?
John M, you are correct, there was an authority behind ‘scripture’, except it was not the Church. If the bible possess authority as God’s word, it does so because God did so through the work of the Spirit, not, because of anything the Church did.
Consider that for a second; pick some popular bible (NIV, KJV, LEB, ESV, doesn’t matter) these examples represent the texts we read, modern, English. These texts are the ones we treat as authoritive. Neither the Byzantine, nor the Roman Church had much to do with their production, so even if it were true that some church possessed the power to impart authority into the text, the Church couldn’t make this claim in the case of most English bibles. Ah, you might argue, but the church produced the Greek scripts behind the texts, except that this claim is anachronistic, and few of those making Sola-Scriptura claims read Greek copies anyway (they read English translations)
Besides, I don’t defend ‘Sola-Scrptura’. I defend ‘Sola-Scriptura con Spiritus Sanctus’ and I see the same Holy Spirit at work (albeit with a fallible human partner) in the writing of the original Greek, as the translating into Latin, English, German, or the reading, interpreting and proclaiming. (Mind you, that doesn’t mean these all have equal authority)
As far as I can tell, the church has nothing to do with it.
Andrew T,
It is not my position that the Holy Spirit is ineffective, but obviously something is up when there are so many disparate ideas on fundamental issues within Protestant Christianity. That is more my point. What I mean is that it is evident that a bunch of individuals reading the Scripture and interpreting it come up with incompatible concepts, which to me means that Scripture alone is not sufficient. Obviously the Holy Spirit would not do such confusion. And you are correct that the Orthodox view the Scripture as the work of the Holy Spirit, but that is coupled with the idea that the Holy Spirit operates largely in the Church, and an individual reading the Scripture who is otherwise divorced from the sacramental life of the Church has no guarantee of understanding correctly. The Moscow conference affirms that ‘We know, receive, and interpret Scripture through the Church and in the Church.’
Brian LePort,
Yes, I understand your concerns much better now. It is certainly true that Athanasius and others had to define the faith in response to other ideas. By the way, I am reading the Quest for the Trinity and writing notes so that I can better understand my faith, so thank you for that excellent recommendation. That is acceptable, I think. What is not acceptable is coming up with new ideas that no one has ever heard before such as papal infallibility. So I think we are agreed in this area, I don’t know what to expect in the future of the Orthodox Church. It is possible that it is far more rigid now than it was in the past. I suppose my choice in church comes down to my preference for erring on the side of rigidity than on the side of theological anarchy.
John M, I agree that there is diversity within Protestanism, but I hope your not labouring under the false belief this same diversity doesn’t exist in Catholicism …
Besides, Moscow conference or not, the church affirming its own importance doesn’t make it so.
No, of course it does not make it so. You are right about that. I only quoted the Moscow conference to relay the Church’s position on Scripture. To me, the importance of the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles is simply axiomatic (the only question being what does that Church consist of, one particular Church, all of Nicene Christianity, or what else?), so there is little I could say on the matter. I only meant to explain that I do not think the Holy Spirit is nonexistent or ineffective, not convince you of Church authority by citing the Church.
I am not laboring under that belief about Catholicism. I am woefully ignorant of the technicalities of Catholic thought, having bypassed that tradition in my move from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy, but I do not think they affirm any such thing as ‘Scripture Alone with the Holy Spirit.’ The theological diversity within Protestantism (besides being much broader than the diversity within the Orhtodox Church, and I would suspect the Catholic Church) is problematic if they affirm Sola Scriptura (with the Holy Spirit). To explain what I mean, it’s a problem if the Holy Spirit is supposedly enlightening Scripture to individual Christians in contradictory ways. Right? The problem is not the theological diversity, but the theological diversity coupled with the affirmation of Sola Scriptura with the Holy Spirit. Does that combination not, in your view, end with the result that the Holy Spirit is contradicting himself continuously? If, as I suspect, that Catholic Church does not affirm that about Scripture, it is not problematic if there is wide diversity in the opinions of individual Catholics, since there is (as far as I know) no belief that individual interpretations from Scripture should be authoritative. Am I missing something here?
Is it a problem if the Holy Spirit illuminates scripture in conflicting ways? Humans, by their fallen nature come to the text in conflicting ways; it is the Spirit that brings them towards unity. This is as true in the Orthodox community, as the Reformed one.
If you see diversity in protestantism, don’t blame the Holy Spirit, blame the lack of Spiritual maturity (which incidentally the bible makes allowances for [1 Peter 2:2][2 Peter 3:18] and esp. [Rom 14:5-9]). How can one man esteem a particular day, while another esteems all days equally, or how can one man feast while another fasts? The body of Christ recognizes that not all believers are at the same stage of spiritual development, and suggests that this should be met with acceptance, not criticism.
This is no different from what we find in the Orthodoxy community. My point was that simply pointing to the church fathers saying the Orthodox Church today shares their beliefs, and so shares in the apostolic tradition is as false an argument as the Reformed one which argues the Reformers represent the apostolic tradition. Only the apostolic tradition represents the apostolic tradition, and even then, its worth is only in its ability to accurately relect Christ. These arguments don’t carry much weight to one who doesn’t believe the church fathers necessarily reflect the apostolic tradition themselves. Reformers make exactly the same claim, saying that leaders of the Reformation were reclaiming (from Catholicism) a more ancient apostolic tradition, but that too is obviously false.
Both claims look towards some historical group and automagically presuppose that that group represents most purely, the apostolic tradition. Bunk, I say. If I want the apostolic tradition, I look neither to Reformers, nor church fathers, but to the apostles, and even then I don’t stop their, for the apostles modelled themselves on Christ; so ultimately I look to Christ. (In the big picture, church fathers and reformers actually count for very little. That’s what Paul himself said when he said in [Gal 2:20] ‘I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me’)
Is it a problem if the Holy Spirit illuminates scripture in conflicting ways?
Andrew
Yes
There is only one Holy Spirit and only one Truth but there are many deceiving spirits .
I understand this might not go over very well here because everyone here believes they are lead by the Holy Spirit except for me .
Contra Robert: if the Holy Spirit’s role in illuminating Scripture is merely to guarantee we arrive at the same historical-grammatical propositional message of Scripture, then yes, it may be a problem. Likewise, if Scripture is merely a source from which we derive theological propositions, then yes. If Scripture and language in general (see Speech-Act Theory; cf. Kevin Vanhoozer) are more dynamic than that though–which I believe is true–then conflicting interpretations are not always bad. Conflicting interpretations occur when humans read anything ever written. The question is whether or not the action inspired by the reading aligns with what God is doing in the world through his Spirit.
“…everyone here believes they are lead by the Holy Spirit except for me.” Quite the boast there.
How is admitting I am not lead by Holy Spirit a boast?
Robert, if you read your own statement it is either (1) a poke at others in this conversation thread who “think” the Spirit guides them somehow OR (2) rhetorical humility. Either way, it is a boast that you know that you aren’t led by the Spirit unlike “everyone” else who misguidedly does.
Brian
No it was just being honest about what I feel.My statement was in reference to how it would go over here.
Interesting, what do you think of when you think of someone being led by the Spirit then? Why would you see yourself as not being led by the Spirit? Do you think other Christians are led by the Spirit, but you are not or do you think Christians are mistaken in thinking that the Spirit leads us?
I can only judge myself and give my opinion that for some reason the Holy Spirit is not active in this present generation and many generations past.
“Interesting, what do you think of when you think of someone being led by the Spirit then?”
I would see all the gifts at work.
“Why would you see yourself as not being led by the Spirit?”
There is no way my motives and thoughts are pure enough.
“Do you think other Christians are led by the Spirit, but you are not or do you think Christians are mistaken in thinking that the Spirit leads us?”
If they are it should be provable .
Doesn’t this seem to limit the Spirit’s work to its most extreme manifestations? The gifts are one thing, but I don’t think the gifts provide an exhaustive list. Similarly, while our motives and thoughts may haunt us at times that doesn’t mean that the Spirit is not active. We may see “fruit of the Spirit” that seems a bit malnourished, but that doesn’t seem to me to be one and the same with not being led by the Spirit. So while I agree that Jesus, Paul, and others emphasized the fruit of such a claim it seems to me that you are being a bit hard on yourself and others.
I like what C.S. Lewis said once. Summarizing: We may see someone who is a Christian who irks us and who seems to be a difficult person. We may see someone who is not a Christian who is a fine chap and enjoyable. This doesn’t mean the Spirit isn’t active. We might imagine the Christian would be far worse without the Spirit and we may imagine the other as being even more agreeable if he were a Christian. I might add: we don’t know what the Spirit does in common grace even for those who aren’t Christians.
Brian
Every fruit that is claimed by a christian is found in every religion even in atheist Can an atheist be lead by the Holy Spirit without knowledge or faith of it?
My hope is to be lead by it someday which is my thirst for the truth.
There is something missing which I feel was persecuted into extinction at some point the last 1700 years.
Let me clarify that I am not saying morality and ethics is impossible for people of other religions or no religion at all. I know that is incorrect from experience. What I am saying is that you may be expecting more from the idea of being led by the Spirit than is necessary. Personally, if I were not a Christian I think I’d be a nasty person. Many of the things I am inclined to do are prevented or inhibited by the reminder of my allegiance to Christ, my love for others, and my witness in the world. Similarly, when I fail it is the reminder that our God is graceful that allows me to move along without becoming infatuated with my own failings. I think this is the work of the Spirit. I wouldn’t be able to muster up this awareness of God and others without divine intervention of some sort.
Again, this doesn’t mean other who are not Christians cannot be great people. As I noted in my summary of Lewis’ words, we know good people who are not Christians. The questions for me is whether I would be a good person if not a Christian or would I be worse than I am. I can all but guarantee I’d be worse.
I know many atheist who love the morals exhibited in the Gospels and claim they are a better person from it, but they also love the morals presented in most religions .
I believe you are mistaking love for christianity, I believe love makes you the great person you are which yes christianity is a great source .
No, I don’t think I am mistaking love for Christianity. I am saying that Christianity provides the narrative that informs the “why” of love. Love for the sake of love is a fine concept. Rhetorically I understand why people say things like, “If you can’t love people because people are people then…” but I don’t buy it. Selfishness is our most natural inclination. Self-preservation is as much a part of who we are as our DNA. Personally, it is the Gospel that reminds me that my life is not about me. If you remove the Gospel then honestly, I think the best thing I can do with my short time on earth is anything and everything that pleases and serves me and my self interest. The Gospel narrative informs me of who I am and to whom I belong. This is what allows my heart to love and serve: I believe in the Creator who is renewing all things, who resurrected Jesus from the dead.
Dont get me wrong, I think amongst all the christians I know I find you a great example.
The fact is I cant and wont condemn any human because I believe in Grace but there is more to entering a Covenant relationship with the Creator then Grace provides. I believe Grace was preached throughout the OT but did not become a reality till a more perfect Mediator was chosen.
But Grace is a gift which can not be earned but the OT and NT is full of references to obedience and works which I see as a sign of the elect of God who receive a special reward along with Abraham of a prolonged life in the land promised to Abraham as a possession . This is the reality of the renewed Covenant that writes the Commandments in our hearts and keeps us pure which I see as the indwelling of Holy Spirit.
Robert said “I can only judge myself and give my opinion that for some reason the Holy Spirit is not active in this present generation and many generations past.”
It saddens me you say this, and I don’t agree that the Holy Spirit is not active or present in this generation. That said, you also said “There is only one Holy Spirit and only one Truth but there are many deceiving spirits .“.
Many spirits including deceiving spirits are active in this present generation; this includes the Holy Spirit. If you recognize that deceiving spirits are at work, what makes you think that the Holy Spirit isn’t at work. If you are gauging this solely on your own experience – brother, that is too small a subset for you to make such a determination.
I will say bluntly, honestly, and unabashedly, that the Holy Spirit is at work not only in this generation, but directly in my life. That is not a boast, for the Spirit does many things, including the conviction for sin. Nevertheless, I have, and do experience the Holy Spirit, sometimes in stunning and unexpected ways, always subtly, always when my eyes are fixed most certainly on Christ, His glory and His purpose. I am, for the most part, a rational person. Most rational people will reject this last claim – and I am ‘ok’ with that. I first experienced the Holy Spirit as an adult. However, as with people, unless one cultivate a relationship with a person, one cannot experience what that person is like. So it is with the Holy Spirit.
How can we discern the Holy Spirit from other spirits (which I have not, as far as I can tell, experienced directly). The bible gives the answer. Judge a tree by its fruit. If the Holy Spirit enthrals one towards Christ, if one becomes consumed in, and by, the love of God – to love what He loves and to hate what He hates, to stand for Gospel truth, or its principles, in the face of mortal danger, or at the expense of the estimation of the world, whatever the cost – its pretty clear the Spirit is Holy. If your faith requires you to make a payment for your faith you don’t feel able to humanly make, and yet still do – the delta is met by this Holy Spirit. However, the most obvious tell-tale sign, I would argue, is emergence of discernment (or wisdom) itself. Discernment and wisdom exhibited by the ignorant and the uneducated that glorifies God is fairly compelling evidence the Spirit is at work in a defective and deficient servant become son.
In my experience there is a direct relationship between prayer, or bold prayer, and the activity of the Holy Spirit (which is why I suspect Jesus prayed alot). For example, have you ever prayed to ‘discern’ the motivations of men, or asked God to directly reveal His will? Have you ever asked to have the Holy Spirit expose or remove a prejudices that blind you from seeing his purpose clearly, that you might not see through a veil, or a glass dimly? Have you ever prayed for a miracle, to have it happen, or better still to have more marvellous potentials shown to you should that miracle not happen? If you’ve prayed none of these things, if you’ve not come before God knowing that what little faith in Christ you have, however imperfect and in whatever state, was purchased at a infinite price, so grants you audience with the Majesty who created the universe – I recommend you do, but do so with sincerity and unwavering faith that He hears. At first it will seem futile, but progress is in inches. Lear to recognize what little things the Spirit does, and credit him. From this grow in your faith that the Spirit can and will do great things. However recognize also that the Holy Spirit does not serve you, He serves God, and so do you. The Holy Spirit, therefore, will only ever help you serve God more fully and your intentions must align with God’s will, which you must also train yourself to discern (through prayer).
I have never spoken in tongues, rolled on the ground or anything like that. Though I claim to experienced the Holy Spirit, I do not claim his presence is constant or persistent. Most often He is subtle and humble, but not always. Only occasionally is His present felt directly, experientially, either with great power, or as a shepherd. This experience with Him, comes unexpectedly, often in the intensity of worshipping, and magnifying God, with a whole and focused heart – having entered a church (even a Catholic church), having left the world behind for the purpose of focusing on one thing alone – telling God as completely as you are able, how great He is, and being thankful He is in your life.
But don’t look for this experience. Look for the experience when He is near, you know it, but he is not ‘felt’. This is when the greatest things happen. God always does the most amazing things without boasting.
Andrew
As i said my belief would not go over well here.
Yes I have prayed over and over for all those things.
The elect can not serve 2 masters so until I learn not to serve the carnal I can not serve the spiritual which my goal is to expose the deceiving spirits by exposing the suppressed truths of mainstream christianity .
Robert, I’m not critiquing your belief. We all have the same struggle between carnal and spiritual – so you are not alone. However that struggle is not yours alone. I would suggest what you need to learn is not how to master your flesh (for that power may not be in you – I certainly don’t possess it) but instead learn to recognize and trust the Spirit.
Furthermore, like you, I believe mainstream Christian carries theological baggage (and false belief) it shouldn’t – so even there we’re not at odds.
Andrew
You,Brian and a few others here have been a great value to my search. While I may not agree sometimes I really appreciate the honesty which I find very rare today.
Wow, I got slammed this whole week with entertaining guests from overseas and the conversation here has moved quickly! After scanning some of the comments, while I’ll read more fully tonight, I can see that some of what I’ll have in the next post will touch on some of what was said. I’m looking forward to the weekly dialogues with all of you. My post will be out tomorrow.
Protestant splinter groups are fine. There is a constant dialogue going on, as above. That is healthy. On the other hand the Roman church makes claims which no human organisation may claim, infallibility is one. They really are more like a religious fascist organisation than a meeting of called out Christians.
The new Testament has a ‘church’ which is the Body of Christ of which He is the head. That is not now, was not then and never could be a human organisation of earth. The New Testament only has churches. Each local church is meant to be independant and its elders responisble directly to the Lord Jesus.
Indeed Matthew 18:20 shows us the change from Judaism. Two or three may meet to the Name of the Lord Jesus. That is the equivalent of the temple which Solomon built. The place where Jehovah chose to place his name