Evangelicalism’s Fads and Fixtures
Oct 13, 2010
Joe Carter
There are two types of evangelicals in America: those who naively embrace whatever trendy items happen to be hot sellers at “Christian” bookstores—WWJD? bracelets, Testamints, prayer of Jabez scented candles—and those who shun such kitsch. I am solidly of the second type. Like a good Pharisee, I thank God every day that I’m not like those people.
But I take comfort in knowing that most of this stuff is rather harmless and nothing more than a passing fad. It is not the dernier cri that will soon be gone that concerns me but the faddage that becomes a fixture. Fads still receive scrutiny; fixtures remain largely unquestioned.
The following are ten fixtures that I find particularly harmful not just to evangelicalism but to evangelism. None of them are inherently pernicious (well, except for #10) but evangelicals use them in ways that do not serve their intended purposes.
#1 Making Converts. I’ve always felt uneasy about the idea that Christians should be seeking to make converts. Am I wrong in thinking that the making of converts is a task associated with Islam, rather than Christianity? Perhaps I have a flawed understanding of the Gospel, but I always thought the purpose of evangelism is not to make converts but to make, as Christ commanded, disciples—and to make disciples of nations, not just individuals. Indeed, my primary complaint against each of the other nine methods on this list is that they are not useful for instigating true conversion, much less make true disciples.
#2 The Sinner’s Prayer. The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a ticket into heaven because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the “sinner’s prayer.” I’ve searched through the entire New Testament and can’t find an example of anyone who was “saved” after reciting such a prayer.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that such prayer is worthless or that it can’t be used by the Holy Spirit. But salvation is not obtained by reciting a magical incantation, as far too many “Christians” will discover after it’s far too late.
#3 ”Do you know Jesus as . . . “. As I’ve said before, this is one question that needs never be asked since it reveals (a) you do not know the person well enough, or (b) the answer is yes and the person is a lousy Christian, or (c) the answer is no, in which case you just activated their fundie-alert system and caused them to switch their brains into “ignore” mode. Instead of asking about a “personal savior” you might want to simply try to get to personally know the person.
#4 Tribulationism. Ask a non-believer to give a rudimentary explanation of the “end times” and chances are he can provide a fairly accurate description of popular eschatology. Ask the same person to give a basic explanation of the Gospel message, though, and he is likely to be stumped.
The reason for this curious state of affairs is that evangelicals have promoted what I would call “Tribulationism”: an overemphasis on pre-millennial dispensational eschatology. I’m sure that somewhere in the three-dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate tale of the apocalypse.
#5 Testimonies. Several years ago, during a job interview for a Christian organization, my prospective employer asked me to tell him my “testimony.” The fact that I was a Christian apparently wasn’t enough. I had to have a good conversion story to go along with my faith.
Now you may have a great story about how “the hound of Heaven” chased you down and gnawed on your leg until you surrendered. No doubt your story would make for a gripping movie of the week on Lifetime and lead to the making of numerous converts (see #1). But the harsh truth is that as compelling, and even useful, as your story may be, it is not the most important story you could tell.
You are only a very, very minor character in the narrative; the starring role goes to the Divine Protagonist. In fact, he already has a pretty good story, so why not just tell that one instead?
#6 The Altar Call. In the 1820’s evangelist Charles Finney introduced the “anxious seat,” a front pew left vacant where at the end of the meeting “the anxious may come and be addressed particularly—and sometimes be conversed with individually.” At the end of his sermon, he would say, “There is the anxious seat; come out, and avow determination to be on the Lord’s side.” The problem with this approach, as theologian J.I. Packer, explains is,
The gospel of God requires an immediate response from all; but it does not require the same response from all. The immediate duty of the unprepared sinner is not to try and believe on Christ, which he is not able to do, but to read, enquire, pray, use the means of grace and learn what he needs to be saved from. It is not in his power to accept Christ at any moment, as Finney supposed; and it is God’s prerogative, not the evangelist’s, to fix the time when men shall first savingly believe.
#7 Witnessing. Evangelism isn’t Amway. It is not a form of Multi-Level Marketing in which you get extra credit for the number of people in your network and you don’t get a great commission for the Great Commission. If you want to sell something door-to-door, make it the good products of Avon, not the good news of Jesus.
If you want to be a more effective “witness for Christ” why not start by actively loving our neighbors? Start by loving the unlovable—the smelly, unbathed men down at the mission, the annoying kids at church, the inconsiderate jerk who cuts you off in traffic. Yes, you need to tell people about the Gospel. But that is evangelism, not “witnessing.” In the context of the Christian life, witness should be a noun more often than a verb.
#8 Protestant Prayers. A few years ago a fellow coworker, a young Catholic man, was asked to open a meeting with a prayer. Without hesitation he began reciting the “Lord’s prayer.” Afterward I joked that, having come up with such a fine prayer, he might want to write it down for future use. What I didn’t say was how his recitation of the prayer made me uncomfortable.
First, I’m not used to hearing prayers that don’t contain the word “just” (as in “We just want to thank you Lord. . .”) so it sounded strangely unprayer-like. Second, it seemed to violate the accepted standards for public prayer. I had always assumed that praying in public required being able to interlace some just-want-to’s in with some Lord-thank-you-for’s and be-with-us-as-we’s in a coherent fashion before capping it all with a hearty, but humble, Amen.
Third, I thought that prayers are supposed to be spontaneous—from the heart, off the top of the head—emanations, rather than prepackaged recitations. If it ain’t original, it ain’t prayer, right? Can I get an amen?
But where did that idea come from? We evangelicals have bookshelves filled with tomes to teach us how to pray. Yet somehow Jesus managed to wrap up the lesson in less than forty words. Why isn’t his prayer good enough for evangelicals to use? Why do our prayers sound nothing like his example?
#9 The Church Growth Movement. Sadly, this has moved from fad to fixture. Think I’m wrong? Ask the next evangelical you see to define that phrase. In fact, ask the next hundred evangelicals you see. Let me know if you find anyone that tells you they think the church growth movement is a movement in the church to grow disciples.
#10 Chick Tracts. Chick Tracts are a tool of the devil—pamphlets that provoke fear, pervert the Gospel, and divide the body of Christ. That fact—and yes it is a fact—is not changed just because you know a guy who knows a guy who heard testimony about a guy who said the Sinner’s Prayer after finding Chick’s “The Long Trip” on the floor of a truck stop restroom outside of Tucson.
Am I saying that all of these ten fixtures are worthless? No, I’m not (well, except for #10). I may be pharisaical, but I’m not a complete legalist. All I’m saying is that we evangelicals don’t need these tools of evangelism. We don’t need any fads and fixtures at all. We don’t need anything more than the Gospel. For that is one fixture of our faith that will never go out of style.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things.
Comments:
10.13.2010 | 4:20am
ENOUGH ROPE says:
Dear Mr. Carter,
Your criticism of fixtures is a worthy warning about errors in bringing the Gospel to people. As a Catholic I agree with your exhortations to witness by living the Gospel, though I ask you to think more about your penultimate sentence "We don’t need anything more than the Gospel." I do not want to start scriptural ping-pong, but where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole authority for scriptural truth?
Your criticism of fixtures is a worthy warning about errors in bringing the Gospel to people. As a Catholic I agree with your exhortations to witness by living the Gospel, though I ask you to think more about your penultimate sentence "We don’t need anything more than the Gospel." I do not want to start scriptural ping-pong, but where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole authority for scriptural truth?
10.13.2010 | 7:13am
Sue Sims says:
'Just' in this context is what linguists call a hedge. It generally connotes uncertainty, a reluctance to commit oneself - in spontaneous prayer, it's used (not, of course, on a conscious level) to convey humility.
Joe: I don't want to worry you, but every single one of your ten points disturbed me throughout my 28-year-long life as an evangelical - and I'm now a Catholic.
Joe: I don't want to worry you, but every single one of your ten points disturbed me throughout my 28-year-long life as an evangelical - and I'm now a Catholic.
10.13.2010 | 9:35am
Sean says:
I don't think any of those things are all that disturbing, but every single one of them contributes to making evangelical protestantism (and by implication, christianity) a laughingstock to unbelievers.
10.13.2010 | 9:40am
Stephen M. Barr says:
Dear Enough Rope: I too am a Catholic, but I think you misconstrue Joe here. When he said "We don’t need anything more than the Gospel," it seems obvious to me that he meant "the gospel message". He was not asserting sola scriptura. I suspect that Joe subscribes to sola scriptura, but he was not asserting it here.
And as Catholics we must agree with him entirely on this: we don't need anything more than the gospel message.
And as Catholics we must agree with him entirely on this: we don't need anything more than the gospel message.
10.13.2010 | 9:42am
Mark says:
@ENOUGH ROPE
Maybe I am not following you, but the "penultimate sentence" doesn't imply what you claim it does.
Maybe I am not following you, but the "penultimate sentence" doesn't imply what you claim it does.
10.13.2010 | 9:58am
Macgabhann says:
@Mark
What then does it imply? If one doesn't need anything more than the gospel (to become or make disciples, I presume) then it would seem to imply that the Church is not necessary. Is this what evangelicals believe?
What then does it imply? If one doesn't need anything more than the gospel (to become or make disciples, I presume) then it would seem to imply that the Church is not necessary. Is this what evangelicals believe?
10.13.2010 | 10:12am
Bibbit says:
Very much enjoyed this article, but I just wanted to say that, I was married while attending an Assembly of God church, and we just loved praying spontaneously. We just thought it was the right thing to do, and we just wanted to do what we thought the Lord was asking us to do. We just didn't really understand how often we used the word "just", and how we got to the point where every prayer seemed to contain the word "just" at every pause. We just didn't understand.
My in-laws are members of that Assembly, and it always amazes me how they are so anti-prepared prayers, yet pretty much all pray the same prayer via the "We just" lines. Their grace before meals is 5 minutes of "We just" this and "We just" that. It's tough to eat hot food with them when they say grace. The thing for me was, not only did the repetitions of "just" really annoy me in and of itself, the fact that the word "just" essentially deflates the request bugged me even more. It's like a little kid saying, "But Mom, I just wanted to stay out with my friends a little longer! Is that such a bad thing?" The kid's trying to make what he did less significant that what it was. Somehow I felt like the folks at the Assembly were doing the same thing, but without meaning to do it.
My in-laws are members of that Assembly, and it always amazes me how they are so anti-prepared prayers, yet pretty much all pray the same prayer via the "We just" lines. Their grace before meals is 5 minutes of "We just" this and "We just" that. It's tough to eat hot food with them when they say grace. The thing for me was, not only did the repetitions of "just" really annoy me in and of itself, the fact that the word "just" essentially deflates the request bugged me even more. It's like a little kid saying, "But Mom, I just wanted to stay out with my friends a little longer! Is that such a bad thing?" The kid's trying to make what he did less significant that what it was. Somehow I felt like the folks at the Assembly were doing the same thing, but without meaning to do it.
10.13.2010 | 10:14am
john twinem says:
While the whole MLM or Avon sales comparison is, of course, quite apropos for what sometimes is taught as evangelism (I've also compared the practice to getting notches on your gun), it is easy to move (with haughty self-congratulation) in the opposite direction and end up overbalancing. I would imagine that when the apostles were being chased out of cities and acting as backstops for rocks that it wasn't because they were simply living the gospel in front of the neighbours who knew them well. There's a reason that they were accused of turning the world upside down, and it had a lot more to do with bold proclamation, and declaration of an unwelcome message to complete strangers than it did with running a soup kitchen and setting up a used clothing drive (as much as those are fitting gospel actions. Zeal without knowledge is often ugly and embarassing. On the other hand, knowledge without zeal often ends up being, well, "nice", in it's attempts to distance itself from the other. We don't "make converts", certainly--the Church's history in that area has been horrendous enough through the centuries. But at it's most potent, the church has never waited until people know how "nice" it is before it's clearly proclaimed that which is foolishness to the Greeks and a stumblingblock to the Jews.
10.13.2010 | 10:32am
Stephen M. Barr says:
Dear Macghabban: You do not think that the Church is an integral part of the gospel message? If one preaches hes the whole gospel message one preaches, of course, the Church as well. Both you and Enough Rope are boxing at shadows here.
10.13.2010 | 10:46am
Joe Carter says:
We feel most entitled to sneer at our own roots, but that inclination can nevertheless hurt those who embrace one or more of the above through ignorance yet with a good heart.
I agree and certainly hope that no one is offended by my tone. My intention is not to make fun of anyone but to get people to consider some of the more peculiar tactics we resort to in the name of evanglism.
I'm curious if you, Joe, or anyone else has any opinion about what this "just" means, or where it comes from.
It seems to be a form linguistic filler that is intended to convey humility. Since it's passed down from generation to generation (I had the hardest time avoiding saying it—still do, in fact), I suspect it is something we pick up from modeling the way other people pray in public.
john twinem I would imagine that when the apostles were being chased out of cities and acting as backstops for rocks that it wasn't because they were simply living the gospel in front of the neighbours who knew them well.
You're absolutely right. As Paul says, "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? . . . So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
But I wonder if some of my fellow evangelicals wouldn't look down on the methods of the apostles if they weren't in the Bible. Most of the time they preached in the synagogues or in the areas set aside for public debate. They don’t seemed to have engaged in a lot of unsolicited one-on-one proselyzation.
I'm not saying that because they did not, we should not. But I think it is curious.
I agree and certainly hope that no one is offended by my tone. My intention is not to make fun of anyone but to get people to consider some of the more peculiar tactics we resort to in the name of evanglism.
I'm curious if you, Joe, or anyone else has any opinion about what this "just" means, or where it comes from.
It seems to be a form linguistic filler that is intended to convey humility. Since it's passed down from generation to generation (I had the hardest time avoiding saying it—still do, in fact), I suspect it is something we pick up from modeling the way other people pray in public.
john twinem I would imagine that when the apostles were being chased out of cities and acting as backstops for rocks that it wasn't because they were simply living the gospel in front of the neighbours who knew them well.
You're absolutely right. As Paul says, "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? . . . So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
But I wonder if some of my fellow evangelicals wouldn't look down on the methods of the apostles if they weren't in the Bible. Most of the time they preached in the synagogues or in the areas set aside for public debate. They don’t seemed to have engaged in a lot of unsolicited one-on-one proselyzation.
I'm not saying that because they did not, we should not. But I think it is curious.
10.13.2010 | 10:47am
Dwl says:
You do realize, Mr. Carter, that you've just demolished 90% of the content of historical evangelicalism, as defined since, say, the second great awakening?
10.13.2010 | 10:51am
Stephen M. Barr says:
I am not sure that it is fair to say (as John Twinem does ) that the Church's record through the centuries in making converts has been "horrendous". The vast majority of Christian converts throughout history have been made through the efforts of very selfless missionaries (many of them martyrs). One thinks of the Apostles themselves, St. Patrick, St. Columba, St.Boniface, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and hosts of others down to our own day. Yes, there were episodes where Christianity was forced upon peoples --- the forced conversion of the Saxons by Charlemagne comes to mind. And, yes, the missionaries often came on the heels of colonialism or empire. But the spread of Christianity, first through the Roman Empire, then among the peoples of Europe, and then in other continents, has overwhelmingly been through the preaching of missionaries, not by compulsion. And this has been true of Catholic and Protestant alike.
10.13.2010 | 10:53am
Joe Carter says:
@DWL ***You do realize, Mr. Carter, that you've just demolished 90% of the content of historical evangelicalism, as defined since, say, the second great awakening?***
The techniques maybe but not the historical content. I have made not broad criticisms of Calvinism, Methodism, dispensationalism, etc.
The techniques maybe but not the historical content. I have made not broad criticisms of Calvinism, Methodism, dispensationalism, etc.
10.13.2010 | 11:24am
Mike M says:
Picture, and perhaps pity, the trembling and confused adolescent standing in the sawdust at an evangelical tent meeting. The preacher has told him that the time is at hand for him to take that momentous step forward to the altar but he does not know what to do. Encouraged by those around him he tentatively moves ahead and accepts the assurance that he has been saved. Weeks later he comes to feel that he has bamboozled. He may never find his way back to religion. This happens all too frequently in the South and Midwest.
10.13.2010 | 11:26am
Tex says:
Amway isn't even an MLM, it's a scam: http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com
10.13.2010 | 11:28am
Macgabhann says:
Mr. Barr.
I was not aware that Mr Carter had used the expression gospel message. He said that “we do not need anything more than the Gospel.”
I would not agree that you express things well when you say that the Church is an integral part of the gospel message. Rather, I would say, the gospel message is an integral part of the Church. The Gospels and the gospel message emerged from within the Church; they are the Church’s witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. But the Gospel and the gospel message do not constitute the totality of the Church’s witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. The Church’s sacramental tradition and teachings also inform her witness and are not, I suggest, to be thought as superfluous to the formation of discipleship.
I was not aware that Mr Carter had used the expression gospel message. He said that “we do not need anything more than the Gospel.”
I would not agree that you express things well when you say that the Church is an integral part of the gospel message. Rather, I would say, the gospel message is an integral part of the Church. The Gospels and the gospel message emerged from within the Church; they are the Church’s witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. But the Gospel and the gospel message do not constitute the totality of the Church’s witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. The Church’s sacramental tradition and teachings also inform her witness and are not, I suggest, to be thought as superfluous to the formation of discipleship.
10.13.2010 | 11:30am
john twinem says:
To Stephen M. Barr
When I say "horrendous", I am, of course, referring to "by the sword" type conversion and coercion, as compared to the obedient declaration of the good news to all nations. This was standing in line with Joe Carter's critique of the evangelical attempt to "make converts"--maybe not by the sword, but by means of psychological manipulation, bait-and-switch sales tactics or even economic pressure. These, insofar as they have occurred, are blots--some uglier than others.
To Joe Carter, certainly the apostles went to the synagogues (I'm not sure you'd be real pleased if you heard that your local minister was walking into your local synagogue and looking for equal time with the rabbi) and to the Areopagus (most of us don't have one of those in our home towns!). At the same time, I don't think that one-to-one evangelism is somehow ruled out by that fact. Lydia, or the demon-possessed girl at Philippi, or the jailer there, or Christ with the Samaritan woman. . . Certainly, there was a winsomeness or something that piqued people to "ask a reason for the hope that was in them" rather than a "hit them over the head with the gospel" cold call. But I would imagine (and I hope I'm not being too speculative) that there was continually a seeking of ways to bring about one-to-one conversation about the cross.
When I say "horrendous", I am, of course, referring to "by the sword" type conversion and coercion, as compared to the obedient declaration of the good news to all nations. This was standing in line with Joe Carter's critique of the evangelical attempt to "make converts"--maybe not by the sword, but by means of psychological manipulation, bait-and-switch sales tactics or even economic pressure. These, insofar as they have occurred, are blots--some uglier than others.
To Joe Carter, certainly the apostles went to the synagogues (I'm not sure you'd be real pleased if you heard that your local minister was walking into your local synagogue and looking for equal time with the rabbi) and to the Areopagus (most of us don't have one of those in our home towns!). At the same time, I don't think that one-to-one evangelism is somehow ruled out by that fact. Lydia, or the demon-possessed girl at Philippi, or the jailer there, or Christ with the Samaritan woman. . . Certainly, there was a winsomeness or something that piqued people to "ask a reason for the hope that was in them" rather than a "hit them over the head with the gospel" cold call. But I would imagine (and I hope I'm not being too speculative) that there was continually a seeking of ways to bring about one-to-one conversation about the cross.
10.13.2010 | 11:32am
Jean says:
I love listening to testimony stories. In Catholicism it's called conversion or reversion stories. What makes these stories so interesting is how God calls each of us uniquely to live the gospel life. I don't know about the rest of you, but it also strengthens my belief in already established dogmas these persons used for reasons to convert.
10.13.2010 | 11:35am
Dwl says:
@Joe Carter
"the techniques, maybe but not the historical content"
I suggest that the techniques ARE the content. Think of Methodism's METHODS. Evangelicalism's conversion WAS what was achieved thru Finney's "new measures".
"the techniques, maybe but not the historical content"
I suggest that the techniques ARE the content. Think of Methodism's METHODS. Evangelicalism's conversion WAS what was achieved thru Finney's "new measures".
10.13.2010 | 11:35am
Dwl says:
@Joe Carter
"the techniques, maybe but not the historical content"
I suggest that the techniques ARE the content. Think of Methodism's METHODS. Evangelicalism's conversion WAS what was achieved thru Finney's "new measures".
"the techniques, maybe but not the historical content"
I suggest that the techniques ARE the content. Think of Methodism's METHODS. Evangelicalism's conversion WAS what was achieved thru Finney's "new measures".
10.13.2010 | 11:51am
Valerie says:
"I just want to say Thank you for...."
"We come to just say......"
The "just" in prayer is something I never thought of before, but in reading your article and the comments something occurred to me.
The 'just' prayer is the "me" prayer. It is all about the individual or the specific group that is present. But the 'Our Father' brings God into the center of the prayer, not just me. We have to remember that we are not the center, God is the center.
"We come to just say......"
The "just" in prayer is something I never thought of before, but in reading your article and the comments something occurred to me.
The 'just' prayer is the "me" prayer. It is all about the individual or the specific group that is present. But the 'Our Father' brings God into the center of the prayer, not just me. We have to remember that we are not the center, God is the center.
10.13.2010 | 12:01pm
49erDweet says:
Overuse of "just" can be lain at the feet of Bill and Gloria Gaither's lyrics, IMO - bless their hearts.
10.13.2010 | 12:03pm
Paul says:
As someone who grew up and to the present has remained within Evangelicalism (though who is also considering crossing the Tiber, as they say), I confess that I think everything Joe says in the post is spot on. I also agree with Stephen Barr that there is some shadow boxing going on (though every now and then perhaps its good fun to take a jab at a shadow . . .).
To Joe's list I might add tossing the ol' strategy of guilting people into witnessing by describing to them to them the final judgment day on which believers will be confronted by those to whom they failed to tell the good news. Folks who in the confrontation who will say, "Why didn't you tell me? If you had only told me I would have believed and wouldn't be going to hell . . ." There was also the corollary story of one's whole life being played, as it were, on a giant screen for all to see. I think this was supposed to be before some judgment concerning reward. These strategies for encouraging Evangelicals to witness and for exhortation to good moral behavior used to give me nightmares about going to Heaven. Not, mind you, that I wanted to go to Hell. It was rather something of a catch-22. And if it was Hell versus this Heaven, it was hard not to want to be left alone. I'm still sometime surprised that given the church and private, fundamentalist school of yesteryear that I managed to remain in the faith. There was good there, to be sure. But one could spend an awful lot of time in a state of panic. Watching the precursor to the Left Behind Series, Thief in the Night also helped keep the nightmares and panic going.
Though I'm no dispensationalist, Chuck Swindoll's Grace Awakening and then discovery of the Reformations emphasis on grace came as water to that parched ground. I see problems with much in Protestantism now. But one can understand how if faced with the dilemma between Fundamentalism and various strands of Evangelicalism (dominate in the U. S.), the high Reformation is infinitely preferable. Of course, the nominalism of the Reformers and the implication of limited atonement in Calvinism seemed to sap out the graciousness of God, the very graciousness with which they were so entranced. But that's another story.
Joe should appreciate this. Some years ago, as a joke, an old friend sent me a tract. The front depicted red hot flames (and maybe some people in them). The caption read, "The burning hell. Thousands of degree hot and not a single drop of water." Once you opened the tract it explained how to avoid all the waterless hotness. Before I opened it, I thought the whole thing was a very craftily generated joke. I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry.
To Joe's list I might add tossing the ol' strategy of guilting people into witnessing by describing to them to them the final judgment day on which believers will be confronted by those to whom they failed to tell the good news. Folks who in the confrontation who will say, "Why didn't you tell me? If you had only told me I would have believed and wouldn't be going to hell . . ." There was also the corollary story of one's whole life being played, as it were, on a giant screen for all to see. I think this was supposed to be before some judgment concerning reward. These strategies for encouraging Evangelicals to witness and for exhortation to good moral behavior used to give me nightmares about going to Heaven. Not, mind you, that I wanted to go to Hell. It was rather something of a catch-22. And if it was Hell versus this Heaven, it was hard not to want to be left alone. I'm still sometime surprised that given the church and private, fundamentalist school of yesteryear that I managed to remain in the faith. There was good there, to be sure. But one could spend an awful lot of time in a state of panic. Watching the precursor to the Left Behind Series, Thief in the Night also helped keep the nightmares and panic going.
Though I'm no dispensationalist, Chuck Swindoll's Grace Awakening and then discovery of the Reformations emphasis on grace came as water to that parched ground. I see problems with much in Protestantism now. But one can understand how if faced with the dilemma between Fundamentalism and various strands of Evangelicalism (dominate in the U. S.), the high Reformation is infinitely preferable. Of course, the nominalism of the Reformers and the implication of limited atonement in Calvinism seemed to sap out the graciousness of God, the very graciousness with which they were so entranced. But that's another story.
Joe should appreciate this. Some years ago, as a joke, an old friend sent me a tract. The front depicted red hot flames (and maybe some people in them). The caption read, "The burning hell. Thousands of degree hot and not a single drop of water." Once you opened the tract it explained how to avoid all the waterless hotness. Before I opened it, I thought the whole thing was a very craftily generated joke. I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry.
10.13.2010 | 12:05pm
T B says:
Perhaps too many Catholics have already piped in here, but I just had to laugh here at the whole "just" thing. As a New Yorker by birth, though now living in Texas, and having been personally prayed over by Baptist friends; I take the "just" bit to be a Southernism rather than anything theological. I take it to be a habit of speech that is meant to be disarming (when addressed to fellow humans); ie this is my whole agenda don't assume there's something I'm not telling you behind it: " I just mean this...". Somehow it crept into the cadence of public prayer by example. What I always found more, well to be somewhat uncharitable, annoying, is the repeated address to God. I mean like: " God we just want to thank you today, and Lord we just want to ask you to bless us. God we ask you to be with us always and Lord we just ask your blessing on our familys and God we just..." I don't get why God needs to be invoked by name in every single phrase. Then again I find the habit of the Lord (in John) to say "I tell you the truth" over and over to be annoying too.
. . . But don't tell Him I said that.
. . . But don't tell Him I said that.
10.13.2010 | 12:10pm
Paul says:
Stephen Barr's response to John Twinem is spot on. Those who say otherwise are really caricaturing history to a tremendous degree.
10.13.2010 | 12:10pm
ahem says:
"Third, I thought that prayers are supposed to be spontaneous—from the heart, off the top of the head—emanations, rather than prepackaged recitations."
Mmmmmm. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the vast majority of prayer is recited, handed down since the beginning of Christianity from the Fathers of the Church. The words are beautiful and elevated and no less sincere for having to be recited. Unsurprisingly, it affects the quality of our spontaneous prayer.
Every morning, for example, a good Orthodox recites the Trisagion, which includes the Lord's Prayer and other wonderful things like this:
"O heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who art everywhere present and fillest all things; Treasury of good things and Giver of life: Come and abide in us and cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls, O Good One. Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal have mercy on us..."
Go look up a youtube version by Theosis Productions.
Prayer can be so very much more.
Mmmmmm. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the vast majority of prayer is recited, handed down since the beginning of Christianity from the Fathers of the Church. The words are beautiful and elevated and no less sincere for having to be recited. Unsurprisingly, it affects the quality of our spontaneous prayer.
Every morning, for example, a good Orthodox recites the Trisagion, which includes the Lord's Prayer and other wonderful things like this:
"O heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who art everywhere present and fillest all things; Treasury of good things and Giver of life: Come and abide in us and cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls, O Good One. Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal have mercy on us..."
Go look up a youtube version by Theosis Productions.
Prayer can be so very much more.
10.13.2010 | 12:28pm
Macgabhann says:
Mr. Barr.
I was not aware that Mr Carter had used the expression gospel message. He said that “we do not need anything more than the Gospel.”
I would not agree that you express things well when you say that the Church is an integral part of the gospel message. Rather, I would say, the gospel message is an integral part of the Church. The Gospels and the gospel message emerged from within the Church; they are the Church’s witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. But the Gospel and the gospel message do not constitute the totality of the Church’s witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. The Church’s sacramental tradition and teachings also inform her witness and are not, I suggest, to be thought as superfluous to the formation of discipleship.
I was not aware that Mr Carter had used the expression gospel message. He said that “we do not need anything more than the Gospel.”
I would not agree that you express things well when you say that the Church is an integral part of the gospel message. Rather, I would say, the gospel message is an integral part of the Church. The Gospels and the gospel message emerged from within the Church; they are the Church’s witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. But the Gospel and the gospel message do not constitute the totality of the Church’s witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. The Church’s sacramental tradition and teachings also inform her witness and are not, I suggest, to be thought as superfluous to the formation of discipleship.
10.13.2010 | 12:45pm
john twinem says:
Not sure that there needs to be an either/or response to the issue of prepared or spontaneous prayer. Certainly the Lord's prayer, and other beautiful, patterned prayers are meaningful teachers concerning the God whom we approach. I had not read the Trisagion provided by "ahem" previously, but consider it moving and a wonderful expression of the character and nature of our Sovereign. This does not rule out the vitality, or indeed the Biblical character of spontaneous, non-constructed prayer. When the scripture says, "Do not worry about anything, but in everything, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God," or within the context of public worship, "I urge . . . that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone . . .", it certainly seems to be acknowledging the place of prayer that is a response to circumstance, and probably very much in the moment. By all means, remove fillers, verbal pauses, and mannerisms that are meant to play to the crowd (my own favourite is the tendency of the speaker to pray in a tone or at a pitch that's dramatically different than their normal range); the prayer is to One. But don't forget to show a little grace to people with bad grammar and no sense of poetry; I might be speculating here, but I think that God does.
10.13.2010 | 12:49pm
Brittany says:
From the perspective of a recent Christian university graduate, the fads turned fixtures mentioned in the article seem to have largely disappeared among younger evangelicals. It seems to me the majority are moving in the direction Mr. Carter concludes we should move in. The danger now is that we'll throw out evangelism altogether because we disagree with the forms that it took on. The gospel still needs to be spoken and words are necessary to do so. We don't want to create enemies of our own devices, but neither do we want to shy from facing the natural enemies of the cross.
10.13.2010 | 1:09pm
JP says:
Many people who attempt to co-opt the evangelisation of the Early Church fail to realize that the first Apostles were pushing a totally foreign religion on Europe, North Africa, and Asia Minor. From the Roman and Greek Pagans, to barbarians of Northern Europe, and continuing into Asia Minor, Christianity was not something easy to accept. Today's Evangelicals in many ways are just trying to steal the sheep, as it were.
One trend within Protestanism that seems to be gaining some force is the Emergent Church. Last year some relatives invited my wife and I to view a DVD of one of a seminar they attended. That seminar was hosted by a young minister who runs an Emergent Church in Grad Rapids. They seem to be attempting to reinvigorate Evangelicalism with Eastern Orthodoxy. They have no problem at all using icons, and some rubrics of the Eastern Church. From what I understand, they've been fairly successful in evangelizing Hispanics. And one can find statues of Our Lady in thier Church. I can't imagine Fundementalist ever crossing over; but, they do attract many upscale younger Protestants. It's all probably a fad. But, I wonder if this is the start of a newer, long term trend with younger Protestants?
One trend within Protestanism that seems to be gaining some force is the Emergent Church. Last year some relatives invited my wife and I to view a DVD of one of a seminar they attended. That seminar was hosted by a young minister who runs an Emergent Church in Grad Rapids. They seem to be attempting to reinvigorate Evangelicalism with Eastern Orthodoxy. They have no problem at all using icons, and some rubrics of the Eastern Church. From what I understand, they've been fairly successful in evangelizing Hispanics. And one can find statues of Our Lady in thier Church. I can't imagine Fundementalist ever crossing over; but, they do attract many upscale younger Protestants. It's all probably a fad. But, I wonder if this is the start of a newer, long term trend with younger Protestants?
10.13.2010 | 1:35pm
Jason Roebuck says:
Joe,
I just wanted to say it was hard for me to start reading this post, because I thought you were saying that all forms of evangelizing were a mistake. However, as I read further, I realized that it is the fact that you are too old to appreciate the fact that young people are inundated in their lives with all forms of media that are spreading the message that comes from the evil one, and that fact would cause you to think it is not important to proselytize in order to combat the reverse effect that exist in our world today in mass quantities. Anyway, great job getting people talking about this subject and I hope your post does not stop people from wanting to spread the good news for fear of being seen as heretics in the eyes of certain "authorities" within the body of Christ. All roads lead to the truth in my faith and anyone willing to bring up the subject is doing the Lord's work in my eyes. Personally, I don't care how misguided they are, because any effort to broach the subject of salvation is moving in a positive direction, in my opinion. Peter had to reach up to Jesus, before he reached down to save him from sinking. Jesus didn't spend anytime telling Peter that his hand was not formed correctly before he pull him from the water. My point is, let's not spend time telling people what they are doing wrong, let's just tell them to keep going, the truth will find us only if we keep searching for it. God bless you brother!
I just wanted to say it was hard for me to start reading this post, because I thought you were saying that all forms of evangelizing were a mistake. However, as I read further, I realized that it is the fact that you are too old to appreciate the fact that young people are inundated in their lives with all forms of media that are spreading the message that comes from the evil one, and that fact would cause you to think it is not important to proselytize in order to combat the reverse effect that exist in our world today in mass quantities. Anyway, great job getting people talking about this subject and I hope your post does not stop people from wanting to spread the good news for fear of being seen as heretics in the eyes of certain "authorities" within the body of Christ. All roads lead to the truth in my faith and anyone willing to bring up the subject is doing the Lord's work in my eyes. Personally, I don't care how misguided they are, because any effort to broach the subject of salvation is moving in a positive direction, in my opinion. Peter had to reach up to Jesus, before he reached down to save him from sinking. Jesus didn't spend anytime telling Peter that his hand was not formed correctly before he pull him from the water. My point is, let's not spend time telling people what they are doing wrong, let's just tell them to keep going, the truth will find us only if we keep searching for it. God bless you brother!
10.13.2010 | 1:46pm
Bill Robberson says:
Lots of words-LOTS of words and His name is mentioned only 4 times! And, never in a sense of honor. Sorry, but reading your pointless rumblings was a waste of time for me but-hey-hopefully others have had their spiritual walk enhanced.
10.13.2010 | 1:52pm
David Gress says:
Valerie confirms my impressions of much spontaneous prayer: that it's about me and not either God or faith. I have never presumed to know how to address God better than He himself proposed and his saints since suggested.
My fellow-Catholics have made good points and I won't add to them and certainly not begin to refight the Reformation.
T B finds "I tell you the truth" in John tiring. I don't know what translation he is quoting; when reading the Bible in English, I use either King James or the Douay. I used to have a Revised Standard Version, American edition, but it seems to have disappeared. As I recall, Fr Neuhaus preferred it.
What John actually says in Greek is "amên amên legô humin", "truly, truly I say unto you", which I don't find tiring at all. Bad translations are the absolute bane of Bible reading and liturgy.
My fellow-Catholics have made good points and I won't add to them and certainly not begin to refight the Reformation.
T B finds "I tell you the truth" in John tiring. I don't know what translation he is quoting; when reading the Bible in English, I use either King James or the Douay. I used to have a Revised Standard Version, American edition, but it seems to have disappeared. As I recall, Fr Neuhaus preferred it.
What John actually says in Greek is "amên amên legô humin", "truly, truly I say unto you", which I don't find tiring at all. Bad translations are the absolute bane of Bible reading and liturgy.
10.13.2010 | 1:57pm
portland eric says:
I would love to see a similar list for Catholics -- any takers?
Warning to Catholic Pharisees (including myself): My experience is that at the level of ordinary parish life we are much worse at discipling than our Evangelical brothers and sisters (especially serious Reformed ones). Of course there are exceptional parishes. The only meaningful discipling of lay people I have seen are in the various lay renewal movements not in typical parish life. It seems like we lay people have completely abandoned any sense of Mission to non-believers and cradle-Catholics. Despite our many gifts to the People of God and the World lets not get too smug. We have serious problems ourselves.
Warning to Catholic Pharisees (including myself): My experience is that at the level of ordinary parish life we are much worse at discipling than our Evangelical brothers and sisters (especially serious Reformed ones). Of course there are exceptional parishes. The only meaningful discipling of lay people I have seen are in the various lay renewal movements not in typical parish life. It seems like we lay people have completely abandoned any sense of Mission to non-believers and cradle-Catholics. Despite our many gifts to the People of God and the World lets not get too smug. We have serious problems ourselves.
10.13.2010 | 2:11pm
Stephen M. Barr says:
Maghabban,
I think you are looking for things to disagree about. My point is only that Joe Carter is not talking about these issues. In his post he is distinguishing between things that he feels are peripheral to Evangelicalism, though in some cases perhaps useful, such as particular forms of spontaneous prayer, certain evangelizing techniques, etc. and things that are essential to Evangelical Christianity. He simply is not talking about the relation of the Word, the Church, the Sacraments, etc., or Protestant-Catholic differences in understanding these things. He is an Evangelical critiquing aspects of contemporary Evangelicalism and presumably addressing himself primarily to his fellow Evangelicals. What business is it of us Catholics if Evangelicals use the word "just" in their prayers or have altar calls in their worship services, or ask each other for "testimonies"?
The magazine First Things involves both Catholics and Evangelicals. It is closely connected with a project called Catholics and Evangelicals Together. We have vigorous and frank discussions of our differences; but we don't go at each other in a querulous spirit. We don't have chips on our shoulders.
Again, my point is that you are parsing Joe's words (not to mention mine) with insufficient regard to their context or purpose.
I think you are looking for things to disagree about. My point is only that Joe Carter is not talking about these issues. In his post he is distinguishing between things that he feels are peripheral to Evangelicalism, though in some cases perhaps useful, such as particular forms of spontaneous prayer, certain evangelizing techniques, etc. and things that are essential to Evangelical Christianity. He simply is not talking about the relation of the Word, the Church, the Sacraments, etc., or Protestant-Catholic differences in understanding these things. He is an Evangelical critiquing aspects of contemporary Evangelicalism and presumably addressing himself primarily to his fellow Evangelicals. What business is it of us Catholics if Evangelicals use the word "just" in their prayers or have altar calls in their worship services, or ask each other for "testimonies"?
The magazine First Things involves both Catholics and Evangelicals. It is closely connected with a project called Catholics and Evangelicals Together. We have vigorous and frank discussions of our differences; but we don't go at each other in a querulous spirit. We don't have chips on our shoulders.
Again, my point is that you are parsing Joe's words (not to mention mine) with insufficient regard to their context or purpose.
10.13.2010 | 2:16pm
Stephen M Barr says:
Macgabbhan,
One more thing: when Catholics or Protestants use the expression "the gospel" without qualification or modifiers, in most contexts they mean "the gospel message". If they mean the four books of the New Testament, they usually say "the gospelS" --- plural. Neither Evangelicals nor Catholics refer to the Bible as a whole as "the gospel". It is quite clear from context and from common usage that Joe meant 'the gospel message".
One more thing: when Catholics or Protestants use the expression "the gospel" without qualification or modifiers, in most contexts they mean "the gospel message". If they mean the four books of the New Testament, they usually say "the gospelS" --- plural. Neither Evangelicals nor Catholics refer to the Bible as a whole as "the gospel". It is quite clear from context and from common usage that Joe meant 'the gospel message".
10.13.2010 | 2:39pm
Jacob says:
"Lots of words-LOTS of words and His name is mentioned only 4 times! And, never in a sense of honor. Sorry, but reading your pointless rumblings was a waste of time for me but-hey-hopefully others have had their spiritual walk enhanced."
This is my personal pet peeve right here. Two of them in fact: first, word counting (love is said x times in the new testament and judge is said y times. y < x so loving must be more important). I'm thinking less counting more thinking.
The second is the idea that anything more subtle than saying "God is good" is a waste of time.
This is my personal pet peeve right here. Two of them in fact: first, word counting (love is said x times in the new testament and judge is said y times. y < x so loving must be more important). I'm thinking less counting more thinking.
The second is the idea that anything more subtle than saying "God is good" is a waste of time.
10.13.2010 | 2:54pm
Jacob says:
@Jason Roebuck"I realized that it is the fact that you are too old to appreciate the fact that young people are inundated in their lives with all forms of media that are spreading the message that comes from the evil one, and that fact would cause you to think it is not important to proselytize in order to combat the reverse effect that exist in our world today in mass quantities."
I'm 23 (not too old) and agree with him completely. You spread Lies by repeating them until people accept them. You spread Truth by engaging a person's intellect.
I went to under-grad at the University of Tennessee, and I had many conversations with street preachers. But the part that was interesting started after I refused to give a simple yes/no answer to a few questions, and after it was demonstrated that we were both too mentally nimble to be bludgeoned into submission by the standard bible quotes.
And I absolutely never had any conversation with the people holding signs and yelling that we were all going to Hell. They were too busy "witnessing" to be witnesses.
I'm 23 (not too old) and agree with him completely. You spread Lies by repeating them until people accept them. You spread Truth by engaging a person's intellect.
I went to under-grad at the University of Tennessee, and I had many conversations with street preachers. But the part that was interesting started after I refused to give a simple yes/no answer to a few questions, and after it was demonstrated that we were both too mentally nimble to be bludgeoned into submission by the standard bible quotes.
And I absolutely never had any conversation with the people holding signs and yelling that we were all going to Hell. They were too busy "witnessing" to be witnesses.
10.13.2010 | 2:55pm
Lancelot Lamar says:
On Chick tracts: Yes, Jack Chick is crazy and his anti-catholicism is especially vile and bizarre. I believe that one of his tracts claims that the Jesuits caused Nazism and the Holocaust.
However, I remember reading "This is Your Life" when I was in 7th grade. I lived in a small, Kansas town dominated by mainline and Catholic churches where the only religious imperative was to be a nice, patriotic, decent, moral person, and if you were you would earn your way to heaven. This tract was my first exposure to the idea that the American Civil Religion of decency and moral striving was not enough, and was not even Christianity at all.
The sovereign God used this message to begin to move me toward the gospel of grace. I am not the only one, and if God is sovereign he can even use Chick tracts to bring people closer to Him.
However, I remember reading "This is Your Life" when I was in 7th grade. I lived in a small, Kansas town dominated by mainline and Catholic churches where the only religious imperative was to be a nice, patriotic, decent, moral person, and if you were you would earn your way to heaven. This tract was my first exposure to the idea that the American Civil Religion of decency and moral striving was not enough, and was not even Christianity at all.
The sovereign God used this message to begin to move me toward the gospel of grace. I am not the only one, and if God is sovereign he can even use Chick tracts to bring people closer to Him.
10.13.2010 | 3:01pm
Hi Joe,
Do you see problems with baptismal regeneration as well?
Do you see problems with baptismal regeneration as well?
10.13.2010 | 3:35pm
Holly Ordway says:
Jason wrote: "Personally, I don't care how misguided they are, because any effort to broach the subject of salvation is moving in a positive direction, in my opinion. Peter had to reach up to Jesus, before he reached down to save him from sinking. Jesus didn't spend anytime telling Peter that his hand was not formed correctly before he pull him from the water. My point is, let's not spend time telling people what they are doing wrong, let's just tell them to keep going, the truth will find us only if we keep searching for it."
I appreciate the good intentions here, but couldn't disagree more with the point.
As a former atheist who became a Christian as an adult, I found overt attempts to "broach the subject of salvation" to be a positive deterrent to a serious consideration of God and salvation.
It was the witness (used as a noun - yep!#7 is spot-on) of serious Christians that ended up making me interested and willing to listen. First, the witness of Christians long dead, in poetry, and second, the witness of Christians I knew who lived out the Gospel and showed me an example of serious but not pushy Christian faith... so that I wanted to find out what they actually believed, and why.
Even if something is merely ineffective, doing more of it isn't a good idea, if for no other reason that the time and energy spent doing something ineffective could be used in better ways. For instance, those who are passionate about witnessing (as a verb...sigh) could probably benefit from study and reflection to be better prepared to give a reason for the faith that is in them. I know a lot of my fellow parishioners admit that they want to share their faith, but don't feel comfortable doing so because they can't give reasons why it's true, or why their neighbor should take it seriously. If someone tries to explain the Gospel to an unbeliever, and makes a total hash of it as soon as the unbeliever asks a few questions that wander off-script, that's not going to impress the unbeliever one bit... quite the opposite.
I think the two good witnessing options here are : 1) learn enough about our faith to be able to explain it correctly and clearly (and I am glad that my friends took this route, for it's the way the Spirit worked to draw me into Kingdom) or 2) know that you can't do it, and simply invite people to come to church with you, where they will (one hopes) hear the Gospel.
I appreciate the good intentions here, but couldn't disagree more with the point.
As a former atheist who became a Christian as an adult, I found overt attempts to "broach the subject of salvation" to be a positive deterrent to a serious consideration of God and salvation.
It was the witness (used as a noun - yep!#7 is spot-on) of serious Christians that ended up making me interested and willing to listen. First, the witness of Christians long dead, in poetry, and second, the witness of Christians I knew who lived out the Gospel and showed me an example of serious but not pushy Christian faith... so that I wanted to find out what they actually believed, and why.
Even if something is merely ineffective, doing more of it isn't a good idea, if for no other reason that the time and energy spent doing something ineffective could be used in better ways. For instance, those who are passionate about witnessing (as a verb...sigh) could probably benefit from study and reflection to be better prepared to give a reason for the faith that is in them. I know a lot of my fellow parishioners admit that they want to share their faith, but don't feel comfortable doing so because they can't give reasons why it's true, or why their neighbor should take it seriously. If someone tries to explain the Gospel to an unbeliever, and makes a total hash of it as soon as the unbeliever asks a few questions that wander off-script, that's not going to impress the unbeliever one bit... quite the opposite.
I think the two good witnessing options here are : 1) learn enough about our faith to be able to explain it correctly and clearly (and I am glad that my friends took this route, for it's the way the Spirit worked to draw me into Kingdom) or 2) know that you can't do it, and simply invite people to come to church with you, where they will (one hopes) hear the Gospel.
10.13.2010 | 3:50pm
Macgabhann says:
Mr. Barr
You really should attend to what is actually said and address that rather than what you would like to imagine has been said. It is less tedious, and conducive to discourse.
Let me leave you with one thing. Earlier you wrote, with respect to Mr. Carter and what he had said about evangelizing needs: “And as Catholics we must agree with him entirely on this: we don't need anything more than the gospel message.”
I, an RC, do not agree with what you say. If you would like to know why I disagree with you, then I refer you to my previous post above. If you would like to engage with what is actually said there, then I would be very interested to hear what you have to say.
You really should attend to what is actually said and address that rather than what you would like to imagine has been said. It is less tedious, and conducive to discourse.
Let me leave you with one thing. Earlier you wrote, with respect to Mr. Carter and what he had said about evangelizing needs: “And as Catholics we must agree with him entirely on this: we don't need anything more than the gospel message.”
I, an RC, do not agree with what you say. If you would like to know why I disagree with you, then I refer you to my previous post above. If you would like to engage with what is actually said there, then I would be very interested to hear what you have to say.
10.13.2010 | 4:06pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Following Sue Sims, those "justs," and even the "Lords" are hesitation forms, or embolalia. Placeholders. Spaces that allow us to collect our thoughts. They are additionally, as she notes, hedges. We are quite used to uh and um. More recently, these more evasive forms, such as "sort of, "kind of," and "like" have become more common. There are interesting discussions online among linguists and cognitive scientists what this trend toward uncertainty means.
The "just" form is indeed originally Southern, or more exactly, Highland South, whose settlers in turn settled those points south and west of Appalachia. As that highly portable Christianity, suitable for frontier use, became dominant even in later generations, the southern section of the US between the mountain ranges became Evangelical Central, and many of its forms have spread into general evangelical culture.
It kills me to say it, but I actually do know a person first hand who "got saved from a Chick tract I found in a gutter," and I know her from those days when gutters were common in her life. Consider that God's sense of humor, Joe.
The "just" form is indeed originally Southern, or more exactly, Highland South, whose settlers in turn settled those points south and west of Appalachia. As that highly portable Christianity, suitable for frontier use, became dominant even in later generations, the southern section of the US between the mountain ranges became Evangelical Central, and many of its forms have spread into general evangelical culture.
It kills me to say it, but I actually do know a person first hand who "got saved from a Chick tract I found in a gutter," and I know her from those days when gutters were common in her life. Consider that God's sense of humor, Joe.
10.13.2010 | 4:15pm
PJ says:
Pertaining to #8: What about the psalms? They ARE biblical, and they are certainly worthy enough for Jesus to pray them.
A few months ago I heard on the radio an interview between a local non-denominational pastor and the author (sorry but I don't have a name, as I was driving at the time) discussing this very thing. Why is this so new, so revolutionary? What happened?
As for the Chick Tracts, while they might frighten and scandalize a handful of Catholics into fleeing their church, they likely reinforce Catholicism more frequently, and yet even more frequently, produce agnostics and atheists from both parties.
A few months ago I heard on the radio an interview between a local non-denominational pastor and the author (sorry but I don't have a name, as I was driving at the time) discussing this very thing. Why is this so new, so revolutionary? What happened?
As for the Chick Tracts, while they might frighten and scandalize a handful of Catholics into fleeing their church, they likely reinforce Catholicism more frequently, and yet even more frequently, produce agnostics and atheists from both parties.
10.13.2010 | 4:58pm
JDD says:
"O heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who art everywhere present and fillest all things; Treasury of good things and Giver of life: Come and abide in us and cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls, O Good One. Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal have mercy on us..."
Ahem, beautiful prayer - thanks for that.
Been to an Orthodox wedding once - loved it.
Ahem, beautiful prayer - thanks for that.
Been to an Orthodox wedding once - loved it.
10.13.2010 | 5:17pm
Dblade says:
The thing about these methods though is that they work, especially when the person isn't already a lapsed or cradle Christian. I've not seen any real modern Catholic conversion story apart from that: usually it seems to be a Christian "crossing over" from a high church establishment, or people who were raised Catholics and believe either from youth, or returned after a lapse.
The danger in trashing them (except Chick) is that you are subtly reinforcing the cradle christian aspect of faith. That's the real dangerous fixture: that too much of modern Christianity is transmitted culturally and is not followed because of a true understanding or belief. That's how you get Spong and Greeley-adherents in love with a cultural vison of a faith but with little sense or rooting in it.
Some door to door would do you good, anyways. My agnostic take on faith has more respect for people who do evangelize that way because it forces them to take a real look at other people not in the cultural sphere of your faith.
The danger in trashing them (except Chick) is that you are subtly reinforcing the cradle christian aspect of faith. That's the real dangerous fixture: that too much of modern Christianity is transmitted culturally and is not followed because of a true understanding or belief. That's how you get Spong and Greeley-adherents in love with a cultural vison of a faith but with little sense or rooting in it.
Some door to door would do you good, anyways. My agnostic take on faith has more respect for people who do evangelize that way because it forces them to take a real look at other people not in the cultural sphere of your faith.
10.13.2010 | 5:43pm
Rob F. says:
I am a Roman Catholic (and a D&D player ;), but I have a soft spot in my heart for Chick tracts. The comic book art is strangely attractive and dramatic; the fear-mongering emphasizes that the subject is an important one (how many high-schoolers ever hear that?); and not all the tracts are anti-catholic. The ones that are anti-catholic are not what I would call vile. They merely emphasize that 1: Jack Chick is wrong about some important things, and 2: that he loves Roman Catholics.
Maybe I'm weird, but Jack Chick had a positive influence on this trad RC's spiritual life 30 years ago.
Maybe I'm weird, but Jack Chick had a positive influence on this trad RC's spiritual life 30 years ago.
10.13.2010 | 5:46pm
DWiss says:
"...an overemphasis on pre-millennial dispensational eschatology. "
This phrase is pure brilliance. I plan to commit it to memory, and repeat it whenever a theological conversation gets out of control. Game over.
This phrase is pure brilliance. I plan to commit it to memory, and repeat it whenever a theological conversation gets out of control. Game over.
10.13.2010 | 5:53pm
donald todd says:
Thanks for the article and the following responses. I enjoyed reading most of it.
I remember reading GK Chesterton who noted that religion and politics are the only really interesting things. But the good news is not a pushy hard sell item.
I remember the witnessing but with great care. I found pushy Christianity appalling. Much too often it came off like a death threat (think of the apocalypse or Chick's tracts as a prelude to hell) rather than good news. I failed to read the left behind series because I thought them more of that pushy, death threat stuff, rather like chick tracts in books.
I was under the impression that I was to live my life committedly and let that witness do the work. So I would occasionally bring up religion with my co-workers (the majority of whom, Catholic or Protestant, were resistant to expressing the love of God in public - perhaps outside of their church or congregation or home).
I pray daily; occasionally pray in front of the abortuary; and vote based on my Christian beliefs.
I ran into some evangelicals who told me that the Lord's Prayer was how to structure prayer, but it was not a prayer in its own right. These people were once-saved/always-saved, and praying to be saved - which the Lord's Prayer does - meant it was to be avoided. One can hardly be delivered from evil if one has already and permanently been delivered from evil. What was Jesus thinking of when He taught the apostles to pray using those words?
Islam causes conversion with a sword. Christianity with a Word. One waters, another cultivates and the Lord brings about the harvest.
I was an evangelical and am now Catholic. Same guy, same Bible, different perspective. I still have a good testimony but, like Paul, it is rarely used. Jesus is the Purpose. Mary Magdelene, please keep me in your prayers. Amen.
I remember reading GK Chesterton who noted that religion and politics are the only really interesting things. But the good news is not a pushy hard sell item.
I remember the witnessing but with great care. I found pushy Christianity appalling. Much too often it came off like a death threat (think of the apocalypse or Chick's tracts as a prelude to hell) rather than good news. I failed to read the left behind series because I thought them more of that pushy, death threat stuff, rather like chick tracts in books.
I was under the impression that I was to live my life committedly and let that witness do the work. So I would occasionally bring up religion with my co-workers (the majority of whom, Catholic or Protestant, were resistant to expressing the love of God in public - perhaps outside of their church or congregation or home).
I pray daily; occasionally pray in front of the abortuary; and vote based on my Christian beliefs.
I ran into some evangelicals who told me that the Lord's Prayer was how to structure prayer, but it was not a prayer in its own right. These people were once-saved/always-saved, and praying to be saved - which the Lord's Prayer does - meant it was to be avoided. One can hardly be delivered from evil if one has already and permanently been delivered from evil. What was Jesus thinking of when He taught the apostles to pray using those words?
Islam causes conversion with a sword. Christianity with a Word. One waters, another cultivates and the Lord brings about the harvest.
I was an evangelical and am now Catholic. Same guy, same Bible, different perspective. I still have a good testimony but, like Paul, it is rarely used. Jesus is the Purpose. Mary Magdelene, please keep me in your prayers. Amen.
10.13.2010 | 6:05pm
Corey says:
Joe,
The largest denomination of evangelicals is the Southern Baptist Church. In my experience, most of these churches use the Lord's Prayer quite often, including when it is set to music. So, while evangelicals believe that extemporaneous prayer should be the norm, I don't see an aversion to using prayers received from scripture. Many baptist churches use prayers handed down by saints and other past Christians; where we differ is probably more in the frequency and emphasis put on this kind of praying.
Like other commenters, I am a bit disturbed by your tone. Unfortunately, I can see someone who reads this thinking that churches are fraudulent where: some people pray using "just" (which I've always taken as a sign or humility or as a rawness towards God); there is an altar call (as you note, the Holy Spirit compels all of us differently, but the person who's been convicted during a service may want to talk to a minister right away); and a prayer of commitment is suggested as a gateway to Christian life (certainly there is no magic "sinner's prayer," but, as with the altar call, many people require an immediate and outward marker). Certainly a few of these things are annoying, but they are not signs of unChristianity.
Another unfortunate, but predictable, trend on this website is the Catholic howling over red meat. Wouldn't it be better to edify brothers than to laugh in their face? While much of what Mr. Carter says is true at some level, the carping really isn't necessary and doesn't add a thing to the discussion (other than the temptation for evangelicals and protestants to air their grievances about Catholicism).
The largest denomination of evangelicals is the Southern Baptist Church. In my experience, most of these churches use the Lord's Prayer quite often, including when it is set to music. So, while evangelicals believe that extemporaneous prayer should be the norm, I don't see an aversion to using prayers received from scripture. Many baptist churches use prayers handed down by saints and other past Christians; where we differ is probably more in the frequency and emphasis put on this kind of praying.
Like other commenters, I am a bit disturbed by your tone. Unfortunately, I can see someone who reads this thinking that churches are fraudulent where: some people pray using "just" (which I've always taken as a sign or humility or as a rawness towards God); there is an altar call (as you note, the Holy Spirit compels all of us differently, but the person who's been convicted during a service may want to talk to a minister right away); and a prayer of commitment is suggested as a gateway to Christian life (certainly there is no magic "sinner's prayer," but, as with the altar call, many people require an immediate and outward marker). Certainly a few of these things are annoying, but they are not signs of unChristianity.
Another unfortunate, but predictable, trend on this website is the Catholic howling over red meat. Wouldn't it be better to edify brothers than to laugh in their face? While much of what Mr. Carter says is true at some level, the carping really isn't necessary and doesn't add a thing to the discussion (other than the temptation for evangelicals and protestants to air their grievances about Catholicism).
10.13.2010 | 6:52pm
mk says:
T B finds "I tell you the truth" in John tiring. I don't know what translation he is quoting; when reading the Bible in English, I use either King James or the Douay. I used to have a Revised Standard Version, American edition, but it seems to have disappeared. As I recall, Fr Neuhaus preferred it.
I'm not sure, but I wonder if TB was speaking tongue in cheek. Having been involved in a protestant/catholic debate for months now, I can tell you that a sticking point is how often Jesus say AMEN, AMEN...this is TRUE! when speaking of the Eucharist. Might have been a sneaky way of getting that in there... just a thought.
I'm not sure, but I wonder if TB was speaking tongue in cheek. Having been involved in a protestant/catholic debate for months now, I can tell you that a sticking point is how often Jesus say AMEN, AMEN...this is TRUE! when speaking of the Eucharist. Might have been a sneaky way of getting that in there... just a thought.
10.13.2010 | 7:25pm
Barry Arrington says:
I infer that most of the commenters so far have not been subjected to #6 (the altar call) or more of them would have written lamentations regarding that particular horror. I have endured (and I use that word advisedly) many and hope to never endure another. For those who are unfamiliar with the practice, let me describe it.
A typical order of service in an evangelical church might be: Opening prayer, 2-3 hymns, “special music,” passing the plate for an offering, announcements, sermon, altar call, closing prayer and dismissal. Everything up to the sermon usually takes about 30 minutes; the sermon is usually around 30-45 minutes but can be up to an hour. Then, the alter call.
It goes like this: The preacher closes his sermon, and then almost invariably he says something along the lines of “now I would like for every head to be bowed and every eye to be closed.” When all heads are duly bowed and all eyes are duly closed, the song director leads the congregation in a special altar call hymn that everyone knows by heart. “Just as I Am” and “I Surrender All” are especial favorites. And while the congregation sings the preachers harangues them over and over to come down to the altar to be converted or, if not that, to repent from their sins. If he is still haranguing when the hymn ends, there is nothing for it but to sing it again and again and again. Finally, mercifully, the preacher decides he has harangued enough, and to the vast relief of every person in the church, he closes the service.
It is sheer torture. There was no need for the CIA to waterboard those terrorists. All they needed to do was force them to sit through one altar call, and I guarantee you they would wet their pants and spill their guts at the merest threat of being forced to sit through another. On second thought, some things are too heinous even for terrorists.
A typical order of service in an evangelical church might be: Opening prayer, 2-3 hymns, “special music,” passing the plate for an offering, announcements, sermon, altar call, closing prayer and dismissal. Everything up to the sermon usually takes about 30 minutes; the sermon is usually around 30-45 minutes but can be up to an hour. Then, the alter call.
It goes like this: The preacher closes his sermon, and then almost invariably he says something along the lines of “now I would like for every head to be bowed and every eye to be closed.” When all heads are duly bowed and all eyes are duly closed, the song director leads the congregation in a special altar call hymn that everyone knows by heart. “Just as I Am” and “I Surrender All” are especial favorites. And while the congregation sings the preachers harangues them over and over to come down to the altar to be converted or, if not that, to repent from their sins. If he is still haranguing when the hymn ends, there is nothing for it but to sing it again and again and again. Finally, mercifully, the preacher decides he has harangued enough, and to the vast relief of every person in the church, he closes the service.
It is sheer torture. There was no need for the CIA to waterboard those terrorists. All they needed to do was force them to sit through one altar call, and I guarantee you they would wet their pants and spill their guts at the merest threat of being forced to sit through another. On second thought, some things are too heinous even for terrorists.
10.13.2010 | 7:32pm
"As a former atheist who became a Christian as an adult, I found overt attempts to "broach the subject of salvation" to be a positive deterrent to a serious consideration of God and salvation."
Holly Ordway, while that was true for your particular case and experience, it can't be generalized and extrapolated as normative for other people. It's not one size fits all.
God uses a variety of approaches and people to convey His Love and His Gospel to them.
Thanks.
Holly Ordway, while that was true for your particular case and experience, it can't be generalized and extrapolated as normative for other people. It's not one size fits all.
God uses a variety of approaches and people to convey His Love and His Gospel to them.
Thanks.
10.13.2010 | 7:41pm
Anthony Mator says:
#5
Finally! Someone who feels the same way I do about testimonies! I've been asked to give those when applying for jobs too, and I never know what to say. I understand why it's done, but it is awkward in all kinds of ways, and frankly my personal life doesn't make as good of as story as I can tell by simply describing the object of my faith.
Finally! Someone who feels the same way I do about testimonies! I've been asked to give those when applying for jobs too, and I never know what to say. I understand why it's done, but it is awkward in all kinds of ways, and frankly my personal life doesn't make as good of as story as I can tell by simply describing the object of my faith.
10.13.2010 | 9:14pm
David Gress says:
donald todd:
Those Evangelicals you met, who said that the Lord's Prayer is no model for prayer, because we are all saved, are perhaps good people, but utterly misguided.
The Lord instituted that prayer as the fundamental prayer of his disciples, which we all hope to be. In this life you are never saved unless you work for it. There is no "now I'm saved, so I can do what I like." Sorry to sound Catholic here. But there is no free pass. The "Our Father," as we call it, is the fundamental prayer, to be said always and everywhere.
Again, I have never found spontaneous prayer, however well meant, to have a fraction of the force of the great prayers evolved over centuries by our forefathers. I don't have their inspiration or their sanctity, why try to compete? My own poor words can never match theirs.
Many have mentioned testimony or witness. May I remind you of Matthew 6,1, which I render here from the Greek, not having an English Bible to hand: "Be alert, that you do not display your righteousness before men, so that you shall be seen by them, lest you receive no mercy from your Father, Who is in heaven."
The Word of the Lord.
Those Evangelicals you met, who said that the Lord's Prayer is no model for prayer, because we are all saved, are perhaps good people, but utterly misguided.
The Lord instituted that prayer as the fundamental prayer of his disciples, which we all hope to be. In this life you are never saved unless you work for it. There is no "now I'm saved, so I can do what I like." Sorry to sound Catholic here. But there is no free pass. The "Our Father," as we call it, is the fundamental prayer, to be said always and everywhere.
Again, I have never found spontaneous prayer, however well meant, to have a fraction of the force of the great prayers evolved over centuries by our forefathers. I don't have their inspiration or their sanctity, why try to compete? My own poor words can never match theirs.
Many have mentioned testimony or witness. May I remind you of Matthew 6,1, which I render here from the Greek, not having an English Bible to hand: "Be alert, that you do not display your righteousness before men, so that you shall be seen by them, lest you receive no mercy from your Father, Who is in heaven."
The Word of the Lord.
10.13.2010 | 9:26pm
Irene says:
Haha, yes, all of them are quite true. I would add that testimonies can not only be a waste of energy (time that could have been spent talking about God, but confusing as well, especially to young people. I remember having the impression for a while that it would have been better to have become addicted to drugs, partied a lot, and been angry with God for a while and to have come back than simply to have stayed in the church -- because as it was people sometimes seemed a bit suspicious of whether I was an actual convert (and by extension an actual Christian) -- what had I converted from, after all?
10.13.2010 | 9:56pm
JO RIVER says:
Did you know that the word “evangelism” comes from the Greek word transliterated “martyr” which meant “witness” before it came to denote “the witness who sealed his/her testimony with his/her blood”? “Witness”?! What a far cry from what is being said and done today! What a far cry from all these televangelists who supposedly “win souls” for Christ through greed, covetous lust and humanistic entrapments!
Plenty of sweat and tears with those guys (crying over your/their finances), but no blood. True evangelism is the telling of Jesus’ life, death, and RESURRECTION (never the one without the other): these formed the focus of the early Church’s message. Now Jesus is presented as a sex-pervert (homo), an adulterer (for the heteros), a business man (for the greedy), a “funster” (for the fair-weather folks), etc. But this Jesus who tasted death for every man (Jn. 3:16) did not die so we could be wealthy and popular. The Holy Spirit was not poured out so that He would become the Church’s “glorified” errand boy. True Christianity is much more than this. The longing of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and others had been finally fulfilled in the inauguration of this New Testament Covenant, wherein the Holy Spirit became resident within every born-again believer...to be their Counselor/Helper/Advocate in their Christian walk. A Crucified Messiah and a Risen Savior/Lord is what Christianity is all about; us dying to self and carrying our crosses till the end is what Christianity is all about. But the “Emergent Church,” with its “New Way Forward,” has taken preeminence in these modern times. Idolatry and adultery are now accepted while judging sin and the sinner is out. To put it bluntly: “Sin is in; denial is out.”
Now, as General Jim always says, “Enough said.” JOIN THE ARMY THAT SHEDS NO BLOOD—REBEL AGAINST HELL!
Plenty of sweat and tears with those guys (crying over your/their finances), but no blood. True evangelism is the telling of Jesus’ life, death, and RESURRECTION (never the one without the other): these formed the focus of the early Church’s message. Now Jesus is presented as a sex-pervert (homo), an adulterer (for the heteros), a business man (for the greedy), a “funster” (for the fair-weather folks), etc. But this Jesus who tasted death for every man (Jn. 3:16) did not die so we could be wealthy and popular. The Holy Spirit was not poured out so that He would become the Church’s “glorified” errand boy. True Christianity is much more than this. The longing of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and others had been finally fulfilled in the inauguration of this New Testament Covenant, wherein the Holy Spirit became resident within every born-again believer...to be their Counselor/Helper/Advocate in their Christian walk. A Crucified Messiah and a Risen Savior/Lord is what Christianity is all about; us dying to self and carrying our crosses till the end is what Christianity is all about. But the “Emergent Church,” with its “New Way Forward,” has taken preeminence in these modern times. Idolatry and adultery are now accepted while judging sin and the sinner is out. To put it bluntly: “Sin is in; denial is out.”
Now, as General Jim always says, “Enough said.” JOIN THE ARMY THAT SHEDS NO BLOOD—REBEL AGAINST HELL!
10.13.2010 | 10:34pm
Paul says:
Perhaps my Catholic friends will correct me, but I'm a little uneasy with David Gress's response to Donald Todd. It is at least open to Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian interpretations. As I understand it, both Catholics and Protestants agree that salvation is by grace rather than works--though they disagree about how the grace that saves works. It's one thing to say there is no salvation without works (which even Luther said). It's another to say we must work to attain it, which sounds like the doctrine condemned at Arles. I'm also entirely unsure as to how the quote from Matthew functions in Mr. Gress's argument. He seems to think he has scored a major point with that quote. But the point he thinks he has made is entirely opaque to me. But perhaps I'm alone in missing the connection.
10.13.2010 | 11:11pm
TimH says:
@ john twinem I would imagine that when the apostles were being chased out of cities and acting as backstops for rocks that it wasn't because they were simply living the gospel in front of the neighbours who knew them well.
I'm not really sure that this applies to the majority of the laity, at least not in the severest sense.
Tell me if you think that I am wrong but doesn't Matthew 28:19 (Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them) apply more to the organized Church while 1 Peter 3:15 (always be ready) apply more to the individual Christian?
I think many evangelicals take some of Jesus' statements which were applicable more to the Church than to ordinary Christians and try to apply these statements to themselves individually. An apostle is one who is sent forth as a messenger while a disciple is a follower. That is the problem with most Evangelicals I have met; they are all trying to be apostles instead of disciples.
Most Christians are called to marriage, to jobs, to ordinary lives of humility and obedience, quiety raising families, going to work and to Church and living out rule of Christian life in love to neighbor. St. Josemaria Escriva understood this well. The apostles and their successors however are not ordinary Christians. They were and are chosen by God for this special mission. Some were even called to martyrdom and this is not every Christian's vocation.
I am reminded of Tertullian who said, "See how they love on another!" I don't think every Christian is called to be a backstop for rocks.
-Tim-
I'm not really sure that this applies to the majority of the laity, at least not in the severest sense.
Tell me if you think that I am wrong but doesn't Matthew 28:19 (Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them) apply more to the organized Church while 1 Peter 3:15 (always be ready) apply more to the individual Christian?
I think many evangelicals take some of Jesus' statements which were applicable more to the Church than to ordinary Christians and try to apply these statements to themselves individually. An apostle is one who is sent forth as a messenger while a disciple is a follower. That is the problem with most Evangelicals I have met; they are all trying to be apostles instead of disciples.
Most Christians are called to marriage, to jobs, to ordinary lives of humility and obedience, quiety raising families, going to work and to Church and living out rule of Christian life in love to neighbor. St. Josemaria Escriva understood this well. The apostles and their successors however are not ordinary Christians. They were and are chosen by God for this special mission. Some were even called to martyrdom and this is not every Christian's vocation.
I am reminded of Tertullian who said, "See how they love on another!" I don't think every Christian is called to be a backstop for rocks.
-Tim-
10.14.2010 | 12:57am
Mike Linton says:
Wow, Joe. First, those prayers you don’t like much aren’t addressed to you. When you and I stand before the Lord in the glory of His presence perhaps we can ask Him if He found some folks’ prayer syntax annoying. Of course I don’t know yet, but I think we will have other things on our minds.
About the altar call: I entered into eternal life with my Savior upon hearing an altar call. I was nine years old. I walked down the aisle and in public, of my own decision, accepted God’s offer of salvation through the gift of His Son. Joe, you call this “harmful”? Barry Arrington, you call this “torture”? That invitation which began my road to Paradise you ridicule with comments about urination?
And the testimony, the Busskampf; it’s a problem if it’s part of a job interview (since it can’t be trusted since it’s being delivered in the context of possible financial gain), but the matter of giving an account for the faith within us is a basic characteristic of a Christian’s life. We’re always giving our testimonies. I’m giving mine now. You’re giving your’s when you blog.
About converts: one of my best friend’s parents were missionaries in mainland China before WWII. There went there to make converts, to be agents of conversion. During the war my friend’s mother was interned by the Japanese who broke both her legs. I never once heard her complain about her crippled legs but only of how she wished for her jailors to come to Christ. To convert. This lady freely gave her testimony. And she came to Christ in an altar call.
Testimonies, altar calls, converts, spontaneous prayers by the ineloquent, even—as some have noted here—tracts; Joe, you really think that these things harm. No, I don’t think so.
Oh, and TimH. Every Christian is called to be a backstop for rocks (or bullets or axes, as some Christians in Pakistan found out this week), just not all are in the right spot at the right time.
About the altar call: I entered into eternal life with my Savior upon hearing an altar call. I was nine years old. I walked down the aisle and in public, of my own decision, accepted God’s offer of salvation through the gift of His Son. Joe, you call this “harmful”? Barry Arrington, you call this “torture”? That invitation which began my road to Paradise you ridicule with comments about urination?
And the testimony, the Busskampf; it’s a problem if it’s part of a job interview (since it can’t be trusted since it’s being delivered in the context of possible financial gain), but the matter of giving an account for the faith within us is a basic characteristic of a Christian’s life. We’re always giving our testimonies. I’m giving mine now. You’re giving your’s when you blog.
About converts: one of my best friend’s parents were missionaries in mainland China before WWII. There went there to make converts, to be agents of conversion. During the war my friend’s mother was interned by the Japanese who broke both her legs. I never once heard her complain about her crippled legs but only of how she wished for her jailors to come to Christ. To convert. This lady freely gave her testimony. And she came to Christ in an altar call.
Testimonies, altar calls, converts, spontaneous prayers by the ineloquent, even—as some have noted here—tracts; Joe, you really think that these things harm. No, I don’t think so.
Oh, and TimH. Every Christian is called to be a backstop for rocks (or bullets or axes, as some Christians in Pakistan found out this week), just not all are in the right spot at the right time.
10.14.2010 | 2:45am
Brad says:
The Packer quote is horrendous and smacks of hyper-Calvinism. Someone should go tell Finney (and the thousands upon thousands of souls saved at his meetings) that he had it all wrong.
10.14.2010 | 2:45am
Brad says:
The Packer quote is horrendous and smacks of hyper-Calvinism. Someone should go tell Finney (and the thousands upon thousands of souls saved at his meetings) that he had it all wrong.
10.14.2010 | 5:06am
Wolf Paul says:
I will stay out of all the controversy in these comments and just say that while "just" may be Southern US or earlier in provenance, the phenomenon exists in other variants of English and even in other languages: German Evangelicals use "einfach" (simply).
Other constructs in prayer are similarly irritating: "Lord, we would ask ..." -- well, are you asking? Or would you just ask? Whatever.
Other constructs in prayer are similarly irritating: "Lord, we would ask ..." -- well, are you asking? Or would you just ask? Whatever.
10.14.2010 | 9:24am
Maria V. says:
In the above what seems to be meant as a rather jovial article and the informative comments , is not the preceived division between works and faith just that - in our preceptions !
Catholics are urged to 'work ' , to augment the faith that help them to participate in the Liturgy with reverence and recieve the Eucharist with trusting love , 'worthily' ...and in turn also to trust in the absolving power given to tthe priests , in confession ...
In a world that works relentlessly to damage faith , evidence of same in lukewarmness is seen by the few that frequent His Presence , in Catholic churches ...even when , for any who would come in even with a mustard seed of faith , the rewards of just being with Him ...reading the Word ...just sharing our heart ..with no pressure to belong , in a formal manner , to the church ..lot of freedom there !
Catholics are urged to 'work ' , to augment the faith that help them to participate in the Liturgy with reverence and recieve the Eucharist with trusting love , 'worthily' ...and in turn also to trust in the absolving power given to tthe priests , in confession ...
In a world that works relentlessly to damage faith , evidence of same in lukewarmness is seen by the few that frequent His Presence , in Catholic churches ...even when , for any who would come in even with a mustard seed of faith , the rewards of just being with Him ...reading the Word ...just sharing our heart ..with no pressure to belong , in a formal manner , to the church ..lot of freedom there !
10.14.2010 | 9:31am
Paul says:
@ Mike,
I must say I find your criticism of Joe rather strident. I found the first part of the bit on prayer humorous and the point of that section--which is about how our prayers (perhaps because of the pressure to come up with only prayers that are our own--which then all sound like each other anyway)--quite on point. Can't we laugh at ourselves or be self-critical to any degree.
As well, your post seems to conflate the means God uses to do something with what he does. We should always be thankful for God's grace and forgiveness and for being drawn to the message of the gospel which is the announcement of the Kingdom of Christ (or of the Heavens, as He so frequently put it). That doesn't mean that every way by which one comes to Christ is a good one. But Joe's point was really more about how some things, perhaps fine in some contexts, become normative. And while the abuse of a thing may not be an argument against its rightful use, as someone who has been an Evangelical all my life, I can tell you about just how often I've seen the altar call done in a way that is psychologically manipulative. Not every altar call I've seen has been so done. But many have. I remember one preacher from childhood days who, while everyone had their head bowed and eyes closed, with music playing, would refuse to let the Congregation go until someone came forward--God, after all, had told the minister that some person or persons was supposed to.
I must say I find your criticism of Joe rather strident. I found the first part of the bit on prayer humorous and the point of that section--which is about how our prayers (perhaps because of the pressure to come up with only prayers that are our own--which then all sound like each other anyway)--quite on point. Can't we laugh at ourselves or be self-critical to any degree.
As well, your post seems to conflate the means God uses to do something with what he does. We should always be thankful for God's grace and forgiveness and for being drawn to the message of the gospel which is the announcement of the Kingdom of Christ (or of the Heavens, as He so frequently put it). That doesn't mean that every way by which one comes to Christ is a good one. But Joe's point was really more about how some things, perhaps fine in some contexts, become normative. And while the abuse of a thing may not be an argument against its rightful use, as someone who has been an Evangelical all my life, I can tell you about just how often I've seen the altar call done in a way that is psychologically manipulative. Not every altar call I've seen has been so done. But many have. I remember one preacher from childhood days who, while everyone had their head bowed and eyes closed, with music playing, would refuse to let the Congregation go until someone came forward--God, after all, had told the minister that some person or persons was supposed to.
10.14.2010 | 10:08am
Paul says:
@ Brad,
One more thing . . . Some of think that while some may have genuinely come to Christ through the ministry of Charles Finney, nevertheless, the theology of the man was horrendous in many respects. For instance, Finney seems to have denied the doctrine of original sin, subscribed to both by Catholics and orthodox Protestants. Indeed, Finney's doctrine may even go further, to the point of rejecting the account of the fall and its consequences subscribed to by the Eastern Orthodox. Finney's account of post lapsarian human nature seems at least Semi-Pelagian. Moreover, Finney's denial of Christ's substitutionary atonement seems to deny any ontological connection between Christ's death and our salvation. Finney sees the death of Christ on the cross rather more as a moral example, conveying a moral lesson, than anything else. But for Protestants and Catholics, Christ suffered on our behalf, bearing the penalty (or chastisement) for our sins upon his shoulders. Christ didn't merely die, as Finney seems to have thought, to show us a better way.
So some came to Christ through Finney's work. Well and good. It seems also likely that some were led astray. Moreover, Finney's emphasis on coming to Christ meaning have the sort of personal experience that he had when he went into the woods to confirm his own salvation seems more than a reach too far. Generations of kids growing up in the Evangelical world have been trying to to secure or confirm their salvation by achieving a similar personal experience. One nowhere described as connected to salvation anywhere in Scripture or int he teaching of the Church.
One more thing . . . Some of think that while some may have genuinely come to Christ through the ministry of Charles Finney, nevertheless, the theology of the man was horrendous in many respects. For instance, Finney seems to have denied the doctrine of original sin, subscribed to both by Catholics and orthodox Protestants. Indeed, Finney's doctrine may even go further, to the point of rejecting the account of the fall and its consequences subscribed to by the Eastern Orthodox. Finney's account of post lapsarian human nature seems at least Semi-Pelagian. Moreover, Finney's denial of Christ's substitutionary atonement seems to deny any ontological connection between Christ's death and our salvation. Finney sees the death of Christ on the cross rather more as a moral example, conveying a moral lesson, than anything else. But for Protestants and Catholics, Christ suffered on our behalf, bearing the penalty (or chastisement) for our sins upon his shoulders. Christ didn't merely die, as Finney seems to have thought, to show us a better way.
So some came to Christ through Finney's work. Well and good. It seems also likely that some were led astray. Moreover, Finney's emphasis on coming to Christ meaning have the sort of personal experience that he had when he went into the woods to confirm his own salvation seems more than a reach too far. Generations of kids growing up in the Evangelical world have been trying to to secure or confirm their salvation by achieving a similar personal experience. One nowhere described as connected to salvation anywhere in Scripture or int he teaching of the Church.
10.14.2010 | 10:28am
TimH says:
@ Mike Linton "Oh, and TimH. Every Christian is called to be a backstop for rocks (or bullets or axes, as some Christians in Pakistan found out this week), just not all are in the right spot at the right time."
Your saying so leaves me unconvinced that it is my, or even most other Christian's vocation is to die a martyr's death.
Willing to do so? I pray to God for the strength if it comes to that. Called to do so? I think rather I have been called to raise my children in the faith, to live as an example to my coworkers in humility and, if the opportunity presents itself, to bring other's to Christ quiety, man to man, by becoming that man's friend first.
Again, that is one of the problems with Evangelical Christianity - the belief that we are all priests of God, equal in calling and practice to the pope or that we are all evangelists equal in calling and practice St. Paul or John the Baptist. Again I state that most Christians are called to sanctrify the earth through ordinary life - through family, work and friendship within the people whome God has placed in their presence.
Most Catholics can't even describe the Trinity or communicate the theological or biblical basis for any Church doctrine. Half the Catholics I have met have never even opened the Catechism. Most of the laity ought to be worried about getting to Mass on time they dare expect to be called to take an axe to the back of the neck for Christ.
-Tim-
Your saying so leaves me unconvinced that it is my, or even most other Christian's vocation is to die a martyr's death.
Willing to do so? I pray to God for the strength if it comes to that. Called to do so? I think rather I have been called to raise my children in the faith, to live as an example to my coworkers in humility and, if the opportunity presents itself, to bring other's to Christ quiety, man to man, by becoming that man's friend first.
Again, that is one of the problems with Evangelical Christianity - the belief that we are all priests of God, equal in calling and practice to the pope or that we are all evangelists equal in calling and practice St. Paul or John the Baptist. Again I state that most Christians are called to sanctrify the earth through ordinary life - through family, work and friendship within the people whome God has placed in their presence.
Most Catholics can't even describe the Trinity or communicate the theological or biblical basis for any Church doctrine. Half the Catholics I have met have never even opened the Catechism. Most of the laity ought to be worried about getting to Mass on time they dare expect to be called to take an axe to the back of the neck for Christ.
-Tim-
10.14.2010 | 11:19am
CKG says:
I realize that I'm late to the party here, but I've always thought of The Prayer of the 'Just' as an outgrowth of 60s-era 'casualism', as it joined with the idea of 'having a personal relationship with Jesus' - talking to God like you would with your favorite uncle. Or more like sitting on your daddy's knee, telling him what you want for Christmas. . .
10.14.2010 | 1:32pm
Paul Shonk says:
The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a ticket into heaven because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the “sinner’s prayer.” I’ve searched through the entire New Testament and can’t find an example of anyone who was “saved” after reciting such a prayer.
I don't know what the "Sinner's Prayer" means in evangelical circles, but it sounds like the prayer uttered by the Good Thief, which did in fact elicit an assurance of salvation from the Lord. It also sounds a lot like the prayer of the publican, who is described in the parable as going home "more justified" than the Pharisee.
Mr. Carter does acknowledge that the prayer is "not worthless" and "can be used by the Holy Spirit." But this strikes me as a condescending description of something with such deep roots in Christian tradition.
I don't know what the "Sinner's Prayer" means in evangelical circles, but it sounds like the prayer uttered by the Good Thief, which did in fact elicit an assurance of salvation from the Lord. It also sounds a lot like the prayer of the publican, who is described in the parable as going home "more justified" than the Pharisee.
Mr. Carter does acknowledge that the prayer is "not worthless" and "can be used by the Holy Spirit." But this strikes me as a condescending description of something with such deep roots in Christian tradition.
10.14.2010 | 2:06pm
PJ says:
@ Paul (10-13-10 7:34pm)
I'm afraid that I am not familiar with David Gress, however, I can do my best to explain what is going on in the Catholic perspective of grace. First, as I understand, the Protestant vision of grace is one of a change of spiritual status. One is saved or not saved, and that is that. There may be controversies on atonement theology, predestination, and the nature of apostasy, but in the end Protestantism focuses on the end result nearly exclusively.
The Catholic perspective on grace does admit to the end result being heaven or hell. Even so, the perspective is vastly different from the focus on judgment. Rather, the Catholic is primarily concerned with an integration of body, blood, soul, and divinity with Christ. The Catholic view concerning the Body of Christ demands a degree of intimacy that is difficult even for many Catholics to accept.
By accepting transubstantiation, Catholics consume and incorporate the substance of Jesus into themselves. In this way, grace by faith is necessary, as otherwise the incorporation into the Body of Christ is impossible. Likewise, works are a continuation of conformity to Christ as opposed to earning salvation.
Thus, the understanding of heaven becomes a timeless gaze of love upon Love, and hell a flight in shame and false autonomy.
In the end, a Catholic believes to be judged as part of Christ or not, with heaven and hell as the resultant effect.
P.S. Of course, if one seriously considers the above theology, such things as purgatory and saints begin to mesh, rather than seeming like absurd and unrelated appendages to an absurd system of belief.
I'm afraid that I am not familiar with David Gress, however, I can do my best to explain what is going on in the Catholic perspective of grace. First, as I understand, the Protestant vision of grace is one of a change of spiritual status. One is saved or not saved, and that is that. There may be controversies on atonement theology, predestination, and the nature of apostasy, but in the end Protestantism focuses on the end result nearly exclusively.
The Catholic perspective on grace does admit to the end result being heaven or hell. Even so, the perspective is vastly different from the focus on judgment. Rather, the Catholic is primarily concerned with an integration of body, blood, soul, and divinity with Christ. The Catholic view concerning the Body of Christ demands a degree of intimacy that is difficult even for many Catholics to accept.
By accepting transubstantiation, Catholics consume and incorporate the substance of Jesus into themselves. In this way, grace by faith is necessary, as otherwise the incorporation into the Body of Christ is impossible. Likewise, works are a continuation of conformity to Christ as opposed to earning salvation.
Thus, the understanding of heaven becomes a timeless gaze of love upon Love, and hell a flight in shame and false autonomy.
In the end, a Catholic believes to be judged as part of Christ or not, with heaven and hell as the resultant effect.
P.S. Of course, if one seriously considers the above theology, such things as purgatory and saints begin to mesh, rather than seeming like absurd and unrelated appendages to an absurd system of belief.
10.14.2010 | 3:47pm
Warren says:
I am a former evangelical, now Roman Catholic, and I take issue with the first point you raise.
Making converts for an evangelical, when I was an evangelical, is a sine-qua-non of being an evangelical. And as you point out, evangelism is connected to being an evangelical. What, pray tell, do you mean by "evangelism", if conversion of hearts and minds is outside the scope of it?
I am amazed when I meet those who claim the name "evangelical", or even "Christian" of any kind, and who think that "attempts at conversion" are something deserving of a downward or sneering glance.
If you don't believe in hell, or you believe in a universalism of some kind, then I question whether you are in fact, anything like an Evangelical at all. Or rather, may I say, that the word evangelical seems to be a bit of nonsense then, with no fixed meaning. Whatever Humpty Dumpty says it means, is what it means.
Warren Postma
Toronto Canada
Making converts for an evangelical, when I was an evangelical, is a sine-qua-non of being an evangelical. And as you point out, evangelism is connected to being an evangelical. What, pray tell, do you mean by "evangelism", if conversion of hearts and minds is outside the scope of it?
I am amazed when I meet those who claim the name "evangelical", or even "Christian" of any kind, and who think that "attempts at conversion" are something deserving of a downward or sneering glance.
If you don't believe in hell, or you believe in a universalism of some kind, then I question whether you are in fact, anything like an Evangelical at all. Or rather, may I say, that the word evangelical seems to be a bit of nonsense then, with no fixed meaning. Whatever Humpty Dumpty says it means, is what it means.
Warren Postma
Toronto Canada
10.14.2010 | 3:54pm
Paul says:
So, PJ, would you then agree that Mr. Gress's post above admits of a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian interpretation, something rejected by both orthodox Protestants and orthodox Catholics?
10.14.2010 | 5:11pm
andrew says:
someone above asked for a similar list for catholics.
in this very website a few weeks ago was a list of the top 10 worst catholic hymns.... it may be worth digging it up.
in this very website a few weeks ago was a list of the top 10 worst catholic hymns.... it may be worth digging it up.
10.14.2010 | 6:39pm
David Gress says:
I can assure Paul that I am no Pelagian. I merely hold that the feeling or experience of being saved once and for all is no free pass to act as you will the rest of your life, because, after all, you have an ironclad guarantee of God's forgiveness.
I quoted Matthew 6,1 to make the point that making "testimony" or "witnessing" can become a form of, yes, Pelagianism: see me, I am so good, I witness, therefore God loves me more than He does those who don't witness. In Matthew 6,1 Jesus is saying that you don't want to display your piety, for that is vanity.
Someone, I think St. Augustine, said that we are "God's co-workers". That is, God offers grace, but we are free to take or refuse it. This is contrary to strict Calvinism, which holds that grace is irresistible to those to whom it is granted. But human free will is real. We really can turn our backs on God.
I quoted Matthew 6,1 to make the point that making "testimony" or "witnessing" can become a form of, yes, Pelagianism: see me, I am so good, I witness, therefore God loves me more than He does those who don't witness. In Matthew 6,1 Jesus is saying that you don't want to display your piety, for that is vanity.
Someone, I think St. Augustine, said that we are "God's co-workers". That is, God offers grace, but we are free to take or refuse it. This is contrary to strict Calvinism, which holds that grace is irresistible to those to whom it is granted. But human free will is real. We really can turn our backs on God.
10.15.2010 | 10:51am
Bill Huber says:
Having spent nearly half of my life in the South, I have become very familiar with evangelical prayer styles, eyes closed, extemporaneous, and as you point out, punctuated with multiple "we just"s. These personal prayers can be powerful and can focus us on the direct role that God plays in our lives, but so too prayers in the gospel, the psalms, the creeds and many of the beautiful prayers of the saints. One thing that has always puzzled me is that Protestants reject the sign of the cross prior to praying. This seems illogical, as certainly there can be no theological objection among Creedal Christians to praying "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", and this gesture serves to focus our attention prior to beginning a prayer. It seems that the Protestant rejection to the sign of the cross is purely cultural as in "we can't do anything that is too Catholic." Am I wrong?
10.16.2010 | 12:55am
Patrick says:
Paul @ 10.14.2010 | 12:54pm
I try not to read too deeply into the motivations of other peoples' posts. As an internet forum, answers are often "on the fly" and terse in nature.
As far as I can see, both Catholic and Protestant Christians declare that Scripture is inerrant. As such, an orthodox answer must lie within both Paul and James. To my knowledge, both Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to address James as they developed their theology on justification by faith.
As for David's response, it does manage to clear things up. As I have suggested, there is still quite a bit of controversy over the matter of predestination in Protestant circles, and it must continue as the primary theological focus was and is on the final outcome.
I, myself, believe that the current "free pass" salvation of modern, strict Calvinism would not go over well in 16th century Geneva.
I try not to read too deeply into the motivations of other peoples' posts. As an internet forum, answers are often "on the fly" and terse in nature.
As far as I can see, both Catholic and Protestant Christians declare that Scripture is inerrant. As such, an orthodox answer must lie within both Paul and James. To my knowledge, both Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to address James as they developed their theology on justification by faith.
As for David's response, it does manage to clear things up. As I have suggested, there is still quite a bit of controversy over the matter of predestination in Protestant circles, and it must continue as the primary theological focus was and is on the final outcome.
I, myself, believe that the current "free pass" salvation of modern, strict Calvinism would not go over well in 16th century Geneva.
10.16.2010 | 1:57pm
Luther Was Wrong says:
well said, at least from a so-called "evangelical"...whatever that is.
10.17.2010 | 11:53am
Barbara says:
I never consciously identified the "we just" convention until I heard a youth leader instructing, gently, the young Episcopalians in her charge that they, as Episcopalians, never said "jeezus-weejus" prayers. I admit, I laughed out loud.
I looked up the Chick Lit site and was appalled. Especially the part about Catholics not being Christian. Decency, not to mention the Lord's prayer ("that we all may be one") demands that we be generous toward our brethren, even in disagreement.
I looked up the Chick Lit site and was appalled. Especially the part about Catholics not being Christian. Decency, not to mention the Lord's prayer ("that we all may be one") demands that we be generous toward our brethren, even in disagreement.
10.17.2010 | 1:01pm
Patrick says:
Barbara,
I agree. But how does someone get to that point?
Well, first, Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants of a non-Calvinist perspective apply the word "Christian" to those who are baptized and profess faith in the Triune God as described in the Nicene Creed. That means that say, a Jehovah's Witness, who believes Jesus was only an angel, would not be called a Christian.
On the other hand, those who embrace Calvinism, _generally_ describe a Christian as one who is _saved_. Since a Catholic believes that faith alone is insufficient to justify, as I have described in a previous post, a Catholic cannot be saved according to Calvinism. As such, it would be absurd to describe a Catholic as Christian.
As such, someone like Jack Chick is appalled that a Catholic would remain as such, because Catholicism leads to certain damnation. As such, he must make every effort to convert them from damnation. As he is already saved, he has no fear of damnation himself if he goes too far and commits false witness.
Of course, do not worry yourself overmuch, for it is not Jack Chick who will judge the living and the dead. Also, it is exposure to similar hatred which has brought me back from a life of selfishness and sin to Christ in the Catholic Church.
I agree. But how does someone get to that point?
Well, first, Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants of a non-Calvinist perspective apply the word "Christian" to those who are baptized and profess faith in the Triune God as described in the Nicene Creed. That means that say, a Jehovah's Witness, who believes Jesus was only an angel, would not be called a Christian.
On the other hand, those who embrace Calvinism, _generally_ describe a Christian as one who is _saved_. Since a Catholic believes that faith alone is insufficient to justify, as I have described in a previous post, a Catholic cannot be saved according to Calvinism. As such, it would be absurd to describe a Catholic as Christian.
As such, someone like Jack Chick is appalled that a Catholic would remain as such, because Catholicism leads to certain damnation. As such, he must make every effort to convert them from damnation. As he is already saved, he has no fear of damnation himself if he goes too far and commits false witness.
Of course, do not worry yourself overmuch, for it is not Jack Chick who will judge the living and the dead. Also, it is exposure to similar hatred which has brought me back from a life of selfishness and sin to Christ in the Catholic Church.
10.17.2010 | 4:06pm
patricksarsfield says:
Stephen Barr wrote:
"
One more thing: when Catholics or Protestants use the expression "the gospel" without qualification or modifiers, in most contexts they mean "the gospel message". "
As a cradle-born Catholic with 60+ years in the Una Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia, I disagree that Catholics use the expression "the gospel" to mean the gospel message. Catholics normally use the term "the gospel" to refer to a specific gospel. I know Protestants use the term to mean some formulation which they say synopsizes the Saving Message of Jesus, but we don't think the good news of Jesus Christ can be formulated in a single sentence. Even the Nicene Creed is at best a bare-bones formulation of Christ's good news.
In all events, if I had to come up with a single sentence that captures Christ's message in a single sentence for us Catholics, it would have nothing to do with salvation. Rather, it would be the exhortation: "take up your cross and follow Me." What is at the end of that course? God only knows, but we can trust in His Justice and Mercy.
"
One more thing: when Catholics or Protestants use the expression "the gospel" without qualification or modifiers, in most contexts they mean "the gospel message". "
As a cradle-born Catholic with 60+ years in the Una Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia, I disagree that Catholics use the expression "the gospel" to mean the gospel message. Catholics normally use the term "the gospel" to refer to a specific gospel. I know Protestants use the term to mean some formulation which they say synopsizes the Saving Message of Jesus, but we don't think the good news of Jesus Christ can be formulated in a single sentence. Even the Nicene Creed is at best a bare-bones formulation of Christ's good news.
In all events, if I had to come up with a single sentence that captures Christ's message in a single sentence for us Catholics, it would have nothing to do with salvation. Rather, it would be the exhortation: "take up your cross and follow Me." What is at the end of that course? God only knows, but we can trust in His Justice and Mercy.
10.17.2010 | 5:35pm
Swam for it says:
I grew up in a devout evangelical household (best described as sola scriptura baptist). My experience of these ten traits played a significant role in my conversion to Catholicism after an extended period of college agnosticism.
In reference to #8: I often felt that many of these spontaneous prayers were often aimed more at those listening to the prayer than to God.
In reference to #8: I often felt that many of these spontaneous prayers were often aimed more at those listening to the prayer than to God.
10.17.2010 | 9:49pm
Barbara says:
@Patrick,
Well, I start with the Nicene Creed. It seems to be a logical point of concurrence for most and it was very early in the history of the Church. I realize that there are some sects, like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness, who reject the Nicene Creed, but then it's really up to them to come up with a really really convincing argument as to their own authenticity. It's also true that Mormonism is generally trying to look more like normative Christianity, but the self-identification of Mormons as Christians is a fairly recent development. When I was young, and I had many Mormon neighbors and friends, they didn't.
But with respect to the major divisions in Western Christianity, I think it undermines the actual Christianity of adherents to say a creed but say that others who also say (and ascribe to) the same creed are not their brothers in Christ. It is, as a friend of mine (and surely others) put it, the biggest counter-witness to our faith. It denies our common history and our common community, which includes so many who lived and died for our faith.
Well, I start with the Nicene Creed. It seems to be a logical point of concurrence for most and it was very early in the history of the Church. I realize that there are some sects, like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness, who reject the Nicene Creed, but then it's really up to them to come up with a really really convincing argument as to their own authenticity. It's also true that Mormonism is generally trying to look more like normative Christianity, but the self-identification of Mormons as Christians is a fairly recent development. When I was young, and I had many Mormon neighbors and friends, they didn't.
But with respect to the major divisions in Western Christianity, I think it undermines the actual Christianity of adherents to say a creed but say that others who also say (and ascribe to) the same creed are not their brothers in Christ. It is, as a friend of mine (and surely others) put it, the biggest counter-witness to our faith. It denies our common history and our common community, which includes so many who lived and died for our faith.
10.18.2010 | 4:01am
Mackenzie says:
As a Quaker, I find your definition of "testimony" very unusual. It seems to mean "conversion story" to you. Is that right?
To me, it's the foundation of witness. There are four main testimonies in Quakerism: peace, truth, equality, and simplicity. These are witnessed in:
Peace:
Refusing the draft, working against war and other fighting, and sometimes even refusing to pay the portion of taxes that go to war. (I think this is what Quakers are best-known for. Back when I was a Roman Catholic, the only thing I knew about Quakers was that they were conscientious objectors to all war)
Truth:
No taking of oaths because it sets a separate standard for truth, as though the truth told every day were not true enough. Remember "let your yes be yes, and your no be no"? Historically barred acting, though this is no longer the case (people can understand "now this is just pretend...")
Equality:
No use of titles, full equality of the sexes (women ministers since 1650s!), no separation between lay and clergy (everyone is a minister equally able to receive a message from the Inner Light), historical work against slavery (ran the Underground Railroad) and for the education of freed slaves. Additionally , many Meetings of the RSoF have been allowing same sex couples to join themselves for decades and marry themselves where legal (and pushing for legalisation where it is still banned). Oh, yes, thats "join themselves" -- no separate clergy means when a couple wishes to wed, they recite promises to each other without being told "repeat after me..." Historically, plain speech was part of this, since the word "you" was originally only for plurals but at some point started to be used for "higher ups" in society. Quakers found the idea of "higher ups" to be unequal so refused to refer to singular people as "you," sticking with "thee" (the correct singular second person pronoun in English) well into the 20th century.
Simplicity:
Historically involved plain dress and plain speech, now it's more against ostentatiousness. Has moved toward stewardship in most interpretations. That is, live simply so as not to waste resources. Following fashion means wasting that which is still usable (but out of style), so it should not be done. Quakers used to wear lots of grey as part of plain dressing, but some of that was to do with slave labour producing coloured dyes.
To me, it's the foundation of witness. There are four main testimonies in Quakerism: peace, truth, equality, and simplicity. These are witnessed in:
Peace:
Refusing the draft, working against war and other fighting, and sometimes even refusing to pay the portion of taxes that go to war. (I think this is what Quakers are best-known for. Back when I was a Roman Catholic, the only thing I knew about Quakers was that they were conscientious objectors to all war)
Truth:
No taking of oaths because it sets a separate standard for truth, as though the truth told every day were not true enough. Remember "let your yes be yes, and your no be no"? Historically barred acting, though this is no longer the case (people can understand "now this is just pretend...")
Equality:
No use of titles, full equality of the sexes (women ministers since 1650s!), no separation between lay and clergy (everyone is a minister equally able to receive a message from the Inner Light), historical work against slavery (ran the Underground Railroad) and for the education of freed slaves. Additionally , many Meetings of the RSoF have been allowing same sex couples to join themselves for decades and marry themselves where legal (and pushing for legalisation where it is still banned). Oh, yes, thats "join themselves" -- no separate clergy means when a couple wishes to wed, they recite promises to each other without being told "repeat after me..." Historically, plain speech was part of this, since the word "you" was originally only for plurals but at some point started to be used for "higher ups" in society. Quakers found the idea of "higher ups" to be unequal so refused to refer to singular people as "you," sticking with "thee" (the correct singular second person pronoun in English) well into the 20th century.
Simplicity:
Historically involved plain dress and plain speech, now it's more against ostentatiousness. Has moved toward stewardship in most interpretations. That is, live simply so as not to waste resources. Following fashion means wasting that which is still usable (but out of style), so it should not be done. Quakers used to wear lots of grey as part of plain dressing, but some of that was to do with slave labour producing coloured dyes.
10.19.2010 | 2:09pm
LadyGAGA1 says:
Joe,
Could you please expand on the difference between convert and disciple?
Could you please expand on the difference between convert and disciple?
10.19.2010 | 2:16pm
Joe Carter says:
Could you please expand on the difference between convert and disciple?
A convert is someone who has adopted a religion as their own, rather for cultural, societal, or personal reasons (i.e., they believe it to be true). It merely requires mental assent and a basic allegiance to the religion.
A disciple, in contrast, is someone who it attempting to become like a master—in this case, Jesus Christ. Discipleship requires a lifelong commitment and dedication that is not required of a mere convert.
(Conversion, of course, is necessary for discipleship. But too often, it is the ending point rather than the beginning of a believer's journey.)
A convert is someone who has adopted a religion as their own, rather for cultural, societal, or personal reasons (i.e., they believe it to be true). It merely requires mental assent and a basic allegiance to the religion.
A disciple, in contrast, is someone who it attempting to become like a master—in this case, Jesus Christ. Discipleship requires a lifelong commitment and dedication that is not required of a mere convert.
(Conversion, of course, is necessary for discipleship. But too often, it is the ending point rather than the beginning of a believer's journey.)
10.20.2010 | 4:55pm
Corey says:
Bill- On the sign of the cross, I think there is some rejection of what many protestants see as authoritarian, and extra-Biblical, Catholicism. On the other hand, there isn't any prohibition of the sign of the cross when praying. You have to remember that the only traditions evangelical protestants always follow are those explicitly laid out in the Bible. Therefore, while a Southern Baptist might make the sign of the cross before praying (very likely not), he will see no necessity in it because he is expected to be making the prayer in the name of the triune God anyway.
This, I think, goes to the fundamental difference between protestantism and Catholicism: whether extra-Biblical traditions are necessary for Christian life and belief, or whether only the meanings of those traditions is important.
This, I think, goes to the fundamental difference between protestantism and Catholicism: whether extra-Biblical traditions are necessary for Christian life and belief, or whether only the meanings of those traditions is important.
10.22.2010 | 7:30pm
Joseph D'Hippolito says:
Joe, I'm assuming that you meant the column as humor and not as a serious exploration of Evangelical culture.
I think a lot of people here, regardless of their theological perspective, have missed that point.
Popular piety (which I think Joe is addressing), theology and faith are three different things that don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. As someone who was raised as a Catholic (and now views that church with considerable suspicion), I can cite much of the activity surrounding the Virgin Mary to make my point. The popular fervor surrounding Marian intercession, in some cases, goes far beyond what the theology might allow (hence the Vatican's long wait about approving Medjugorje). By the same token, belief in Christ as Savior is not supposed to contradict Mary's role as an intercessor, but it's sometimes hard to tell the difference where popular piety is concerned.
In all Christian denominations, people need to distinguish between the three.
I think a lot of people here, regardless of their theological perspective, have missed that point.
Popular piety (which I think Joe is addressing), theology and faith are three different things that don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. As someone who was raised as a Catholic (and now views that church with considerable suspicion), I can cite much of the activity surrounding the Virgin Mary to make my point. The popular fervor surrounding Marian intercession, in some cases, goes far beyond what the theology might allow (hence the Vatican's long wait about approving Medjugorje). By the same token, belief in Christ as Savior is not supposed to contradict Mary's role as an intercessor, but it's sometimes hard to tell the difference where popular piety is concerned.
In all Christian denominations, people need to distinguish between the three.
10.24.2010 | 7:03pm
Kevin D. Johnson says:
Joe,
To be fair, I think you ought to write one of these for every communion.
For example, I offer you a few for Rome:
1) Making Converts. Oh wait. Evangelicals aren't the only guilty ones on this front. In fact, there's a whole cottage industry of Roman Internet apologists out there pretending the only way to the Father is by booking a passage on the Cruise Ship Tiber. This is ludicrous, of course, and the "convert" language employed by folks who buy what these hucksters are selling ought to make us at least as sick as anything else trinket-carrying evangelicals come up with.
2) Ave Maria. If I see one more Yucca plant in Arizona shaped like the Virgin on the Evening News because a Catholic anchor can have just that amount of influence, or yet another set of Rosary beads hanging down from the rear view mirror of someone who obviously doesn't take his faith seriously but likely deals drugs all week long, or yet another American Catholic pretend they can have their sophisticated and delicately crafted understanding of Communio Sanctorum while half of those other Catholics on the American continents are bound up in a pseudo-Christian folk religion that revolves around the Blessed Mother, I just don't know what I'll do.
3) Hagiography. Do Roman Catholics really trade saint cards like kids used to do with baseball cards? How many indulgences have you read on the back of those things and the promises that if you just pray to this or that saint, you'll be doing just fine and you might actually make it to heaven one day. Of course, no one ever puts things so crudely, but I remember my last Catholic neighbor on selling our home some years ago insisted on burying a statue of some saint to make the sale go well. She didn't realize that classical Protestants like us just don't understand that kind of rock solid logic. Odd that our home sold in just days that year and at approximately 125% of its original value all without the help of the little statue in question.
4) Eucharistic Craziness. I'm sorry, but the sum total of the faith does not revolve around transubstantiation, what happens at the Mass, or the Mass itself. And yet, how many Catholics live a moderately incapable Christian life and are as apathetic about anything Christian until it comes to that obligatory Mass that they just must attend or Heaven and Earth will completely pass away? It's a sort of misguided and uninformed piety that rivals the Lutherans in its more excessive forms.
5) Pilgrimages. Mary supposedly touches down in Yugoslavia and now it's a place to go visit in order to strengthen one's faith? How about just obeying the Commandments God gave us (Micah 6:6-8)? Not enough time for that when you're organizing the details to travel halfway across the world in order to confirm your faith? Ah. Too bad. Guess you'll just have to do more than the Lord requires to really make it as a good Catholic.
6) Overexcited Episcopal Enthusiasm Syndrome. I suppose this is what allows Catholic bishops to ride around in limousines and Pope Mobiles as well as the ability to act virtually unchecked in almost any endeavor (as Cardinal Law made quite clear some years ago). It's the same sort of disregard for the full calling and work of the laity coupled with an idolatrous bowing down to a clerical authority that historically is completely unjustified. But, hey, it keeps us all excited watching and waiting for the next great clerical abuse problem in the church, sexual or otherwise.
What?!? I've come up with six already? Surely Joe can come up with four more.
Hopefully, the point made here is that all our communions have issues and I find it a bit out of form for such criticism to be given on the eve of the 2010 Lausanne meeting in Cape Town. But, hey, I'll be happy to let Joe take the above points forward along with four more the next time the whole world waits in awe for the white smoke. After all, there's nothing more important in Roman Catholicism than the coming of a new Pope. Given that, I'll take dispensational 'tribulationism' and the waiting for the actual Messiah over yet another man any day of the week. Call me crazy.
To be fair, I think you ought to write one of these for every communion.
For example, I offer you a few for Rome:
1) Making Converts. Oh wait. Evangelicals aren't the only guilty ones on this front. In fact, there's a whole cottage industry of Roman Internet apologists out there pretending the only way to the Father is by booking a passage on the Cruise Ship Tiber. This is ludicrous, of course, and the "convert" language employed by folks who buy what these hucksters are selling ought to make us at least as sick as anything else trinket-carrying evangelicals come up with.
2) Ave Maria. If I see one more Yucca plant in Arizona shaped like the Virgin on the Evening News because a Catholic anchor can have just that amount of influence, or yet another set of Rosary beads hanging down from the rear view mirror of someone who obviously doesn't take his faith seriously but likely deals drugs all week long, or yet another American Catholic pretend they can have their sophisticated and delicately crafted understanding of Communio Sanctorum while half of those other Catholics on the American continents are bound up in a pseudo-Christian folk religion that revolves around the Blessed Mother, I just don't know what I'll do.
3) Hagiography. Do Roman Catholics really trade saint cards like kids used to do with baseball cards? How many indulgences have you read on the back of those things and the promises that if you just pray to this or that saint, you'll be doing just fine and you might actually make it to heaven one day. Of course, no one ever puts things so crudely, but I remember my last Catholic neighbor on selling our home some years ago insisted on burying a statue of some saint to make the sale go well. She didn't realize that classical Protestants like us just don't understand that kind of rock solid logic. Odd that our home sold in just days that year and at approximately 125% of its original value all without the help of the little statue in question.
4) Eucharistic Craziness. I'm sorry, but the sum total of the faith does not revolve around transubstantiation, what happens at the Mass, or the Mass itself. And yet, how many Catholics live a moderately incapable Christian life and are as apathetic about anything Christian until it comes to that obligatory Mass that they just must attend or Heaven and Earth will completely pass away? It's a sort of misguided and uninformed piety that rivals the Lutherans in its more excessive forms.
5) Pilgrimages. Mary supposedly touches down in Yugoslavia and now it's a place to go visit in order to strengthen one's faith? How about just obeying the Commandments God gave us (Micah 6:6-8)? Not enough time for that when you're organizing the details to travel halfway across the world in order to confirm your faith? Ah. Too bad. Guess you'll just have to do more than the Lord requires to really make it as a good Catholic.
6) Overexcited Episcopal Enthusiasm Syndrome. I suppose this is what allows Catholic bishops to ride around in limousines and Pope Mobiles as well as the ability to act virtually unchecked in almost any endeavor (as Cardinal Law made quite clear some years ago). It's the same sort of disregard for the full calling and work of the laity coupled with an idolatrous bowing down to a clerical authority that historically is completely unjustified. But, hey, it keeps us all excited watching and waiting for the next great clerical abuse problem in the church, sexual or otherwise.
What?!? I've come up with six already? Surely Joe can come up with four more.
Hopefully, the point made here is that all our communions have issues and I find it a bit out of form for such criticism to be given on the eve of the 2010 Lausanne meeting in Cape Town. But, hey, I'll be happy to let Joe take the above points forward along with four more the next time the whole world waits in awe for the white smoke. After all, there's nothing more important in Roman Catholicism than the coming of a new Pope. Given that, I'll take dispensational 'tribulationism' and the waiting for the actual Messiah over yet another man any day of the week. Call me crazy.
8.25.2011 | 2:38am
Ursula Wailes says:
I realize that I'm late to the party here, but I've always thought of The Prayer of the 'Just' as an outgrowth of 60s-era 'casualism', as it joined with the idea of 'having a personal relationship with Jesus' - talking to God like you would with your favorite uncle. Or more like sitting on your daddy's knee, telling him what you want for Christmas. . . Having spent nearly half of my life in the South, I have become very familiar with evangelical prayer styles, eyes closed, extemporaneous, and as you point out, punctuated with multiple "we just"s. These personal prayers can be powerful and can focus us on the direct role that God plays in our lives, but so too prayers in the gospel, the psalms, the creeds and many of the beautiful prayers of the saints. One thing that has always puzzled me is that Protestants reject the sign of the cross prior to praying. This seems illogical, as certainly there can be no theological objection among Creedal Christians to praying "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", and this gesture serves to focus our attention prior to beginning a prayer. It seems that the Protestant rejection to the sign of the cross is purely cultural as in "we can't do anything that is too Catholic." Am I wrong?
I'm so happy to hear that someone else is reflecting on the use of "just" in Evangelical prayers. I'm curious if you, Joe, or anyone else has any opinion about what this "just" means, or where it comes from.
It might be used mainly to imply sincerity of request--if so, perhaps this reflects an attitude that the kind of 'faith' that gets prayers granted is linked up to an emotional state??? I've had a couple of other hypotheses about this in the past, but right now I can't think of them. Whatever the reason, I fear that noticing this linguistic phenomenon does me more harm than good. Just as I cannot hear the substantive content of an oration liberally punctuated with "like," so also I cannot usually agree with a prayer punctuated with "we just want to," "I just ask," and "We just praise."