The Definition of ‘Evangelical’
Sep 25, 2012
James R. Rogers
I recall watching Richard John Neuhaus address the National Association of Evangelicals when still a Lutheran pastor. He intoned in his sonorous voice at the start of his talk, “We evangelicals . . .” all the time smiling like a Cheshire cat. 
Neuhaus’ grin came to mind recently when reading American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, by Robert Putnam and David Campbell. The scholars analyze the results from surveys they created to help them describe and understand American religion. As with any survey, the results of Putnam and Campbell’s polls can be received with confidence only if the sample size of the surveys is large enough to assure the researchers that the results reflect the underlying population. So Putnam and Campbell needed to aggregate members of religious groups in order to get a large enough sample so that they, and their readers, have some confidence in the statistical results they publish. One of the categories they created is the category of “evangelical Protestant.”
Putnam and Campbell include in this group churches as diverse as the Assemblies of God (charismatic), the Christian Reformed Church (Calvinist), Church of the Nazarene (Wesleyan), Four Square Gospel Church (fundamentalist), Southern Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist, Pentecostal Churches, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and many more. They distinguish this set of churches from Mainline Protestant, Black Protestant, and Catholic.
A couple of thoughts on the category.
First, I have no complaint with Putnam and Campbell’s category; they had to come up with some way of defining and grouping evangelical churches. The only alternative to grouping would be to increase the size of the sample they took significantly, which would have increased their costs significantly. So they need to aggregate across denominational lines. Nonetheless, their grouping of churches they include as “evangelical” is arresting. It raises the question both of the description of “evangelical” as well as its use as a category in explaining religious behavior in the U.S.
While the group of evangelical churches identified by Putnam and Campbell generally shares a consensus on a set of basic doctrines—the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, his deity, his virgin birth, his second coming, etc.—there nonetheless is also significant variation in belief and practice among this set of churches. Yet for all the variation, churches in this group do share an underlying commonality in orientation toward reading the scriptures that allows for cross-denominational identity and communication.
For the most part, any member of one of these churches could sit down with a member of another church in the group, open the Bible, and share a lucid conversation (even if not arriving at a common conclusion). I particularly enjoy chatting with members of the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the unrelated United Church of Christ). In my experience, members of that church have the highest average level of Bible literacy of any evangelical church in the U.S.
Some observers criticize these churches for what they call “Biblidolatry.” And yet in my experience the only reason for according the Bible high regard is because it records the revelation of God to humanity. They take the Bible seriously because of their love for God.
For the most part, the evangelical churches on Putnam and Campbell’s list reject infant baptism. They’re either big-b Baptist churches—such as the Southern Baptist Convention—or they are what I call small-b baptist churches, in that they do not identify as big-B Baptist churches, but still reject infant baptism. The Church of Christ and most charismatic and Pentecostal churches fall into this category.
For many members of baptistic churches, the difference between mainline churches and evangelical churches turns on the question of infant baptism. “Believing” churches that also practice infant baptism serve as real puzzles to Baptists (and “baptists”). I have more than once overheard a group of earnest young evangelicals puzzling over Missouri Synod Lutherans, “They worship like Catholics and they baptize babies, but they also seem to believe the Gospel!”
Yet paedobaptism does seem to align with other differences as well. While I know in some parts of the country robust Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, and Presbyterian prison ministries exist, in my experience, the bulk of in-prison volunteers come from baptistic churches. To be sure, that could result from the sheer number of Baptists in some areas of the country. But even taking that into consideration, my sense is that volunteers from baptistic churches are overrepresented in the population of prison volunteers relative to their distribution in the religious population.
It could also be the correlation between infant baptism and other attributes. The LCMS, for example, continues to struggle with habits borne of its beginning in the U.S. as a German-speaking immigrant church. Learning to turn outward in mission is still a novelty in some congregations.
Third, but related to the above point, contrary to Matthew Arnold’s argument that “hole and corner” Christian churches dissipate their energies in empty doctrinal disputes, my casual observation suggests that the more sectarian, “hole and cornerish” churches predominate in service as well. Not in absolute terms, but as a proportion of the population in those churches.
I’m entirely open to the possibility that I’m overgeneralizing based on a sample limited to my own experience, but I’ve wondered why it is that the most sacramentally oriented churches (and I’m including the LCMS in this group) seem to be less represented among volunteers in prison and other similarly oriented ministries than “hole and corner” churches. It’s always seemed to me that the opposite should be the case given the sacramental realism in which these churches engage. Some pastors from these traditions suggest that their congregants simply take seriously their own forgiveness. That’s fair enough, but forgiveness is the starting point of the Christian life, not the end. Christ frees us to live new lives in him. As a result of this liberty, service is something that Christians “get” to do rather than something that Christians “got” to do.
Putnam and Campbell’s book is full of results that confirm casual observation as well as challenge it. For all the eclecticism of their “evangelical” category, their empirical results suggests that there is a “there, there,” as they demonstrate a host of both striking differences and striking similarities between evangelical, mainline, Catholic, and Black churches.
James R. Rogers is department head and associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University. He leads the “New Man” prison ministry at the Hamilton Unit in Bryan, Texas, and serves on the Board of Directors for the Texas District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
9.25.2012 | 2:43pm
patricksarsfield says:
Being a Catholic who proclaims the truth of the Catholic Faith, I am as much an "evangelical" as any protestant of any stripe. I certainly believe in the dogmas cited by the author as "evangelical" (viz., "the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, his deity, his virgin birth, his second coming" plus the balance of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed). My church is also evangelical in the sense of preaching the gospel to all the World. It has been doing that for the past two thousand years.
It would seem the supposedly critical distinction must be "paedobaptism." To me though a policy of refusal to baptize children seems callous in the extreme. I could never have forgiven my parents if they did not share with me the truth of the Catholic Religion and have me baptized for the forgiveness of sins. If that made them "paedobaptists," then "there they stood; they could do no other." How utterly neglectful they would have been leaving baptism to some day that never might have come. If they didn't think it important enough, why should I? Thanks to their spiritual kindness toward me, I have been a member of Christ's Church since as long as I can remember and it has been my "Mater et Magistra." Thank God.
It would seem the supposedly critical distinction must be "paedobaptism." To me though a policy of refusal to baptize children seems callous in the extreme. I could never have forgiven my parents if they did not share with me the truth of the Catholic Religion and have me baptized for the forgiveness of sins. If that made them "paedobaptists," then "there they stood; they could do no other." How utterly neglectful they would have been leaving baptism to some day that never might have come. If they didn't think it important enough, why should I? Thanks to their spiritual kindness toward me, I have been a member of Christ's Church since as long as I can remember and it has been my "Mater et Magistra." Thank God.
9.25.2012 | 2:45pm
Ferde Rombola says:
James Rogers has equated 'Biblidolatry' with " according the Bible high regard," acknowledging it as divine revelation and taking Scripture seriously because of a love of God.
My understanding of 'Biblidolatry' is, it is the worship of Scripture as the sole rule of faith, the only means of divine revelation and that any Christian is empowered to read and interpret Scripture for himself and to form his own opinion about what it means. All that while each of them understands they have no central, recognized and agreed-to authority to guide them to the truth of Scripture, nor would they accept such an authority. As noted by Rogers, there are many disagreements among the big and small 'B' churches about what Scripture actually says and what it means, and none of them seem to care. I would hardly consider that taking the Bible seriously.
As a Catholic I am offended by Rogers' presumptions in assigning biblical authority to any Protestant church, much less to a group of them. The Catholic Church not only accords the Bible high regard, acknowledges it as divine revelation and takes the Bible seriously, the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, compiled the Sacred Text, declared it inspired by God and was the first Christian Church to take it seriously, and not for a sentimental love of God, but because the Bible teaches the truth of Christian doctrine. It was the Catholic Church who brought the Bible to the 16th Century, where various ex-Catholics proceeded to chop it up, discard existing doctrines, invent new ones, alter the text and then watched as their new religions began to divide and split like mutant cells in a petri dish. This might be the place to add, it was the Catholic Church who gave the present Protestant entities the doctrines about which they are in agreement.
James Rogers may think he takes the Bible seriously, but I see no evidence of it in this essay.
My understanding of 'Biblidolatry' is, it is the worship of Scripture as the sole rule of faith, the only means of divine revelation and that any Christian is empowered to read and interpret Scripture for himself and to form his own opinion about what it means. All that while each of them understands they have no central, recognized and agreed-to authority to guide them to the truth of Scripture, nor would they accept such an authority. As noted by Rogers, there are many disagreements among the big and small 'B' churches about what Scripture actually says and what it means, and none of them seem to care. I would hardly consider that taking the Bible seriously.
As a Catholic I am offended by Rogers' presumptions in assigning biblical authority to any Protestant church, much less to a group of them. The Catholic Church not only accords the Bible high regard, acknowledges it as divine revelation and takes the Bible seriously, the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, compiled the Sacred Text, declared it inspired by God and was the first Christian Church to take it seriously, and not for a sentimental love of God, but because the Bible teaches the truth of Christian doctrine. It was the Catholic Church who brought the Bible to the 16th Century, where various ex-Catholics proceeded to chop it up, discard existing doctrines, invent new ones, alter the text and then watched as their new religions began to divide and split like mutant cells in a petri dish. This might be the place to add, it was the Catholic Church who gave the present Protestant entities the doctrines about which they are in agreement.
James Rogers may think he takes the Bible seriously, but I see no evidence of it in this essay.
9.25.2012 | 4:59pm
Adam Baum says:
"They take the Bible seriously because of their love for God."
Many Christian communities "may take it (the Bible) seriously", but not so seriously that they would stop to believe that proper exigesis (Biblical literacy) requires some prerequisite learning or understanding, or that it was the Catholic Church that compiled and preserved the Scriptures for over a millenium before there was a Luther or a printing press.
Hence, we have 30,000 plus denominations all subscribing to the idea of "sola scriptura", but who are in wild disagreement on a variety of doctrines but united by their disdain for Catholicism. I note this sentiment contained in this essay: "They worship like Catholics and they baptize babies, but they also seem to believe the Gospel!”.
That any needs to spend the time developing a taxonomy of Christianity is a testament to the scandal of division.
Many Christian communities "may take it (the Bible) seriously", but not so seriously that they would stop to believe that proper exigesis (Biblical literacy) requires some prerequisite learning or understanding, or that it was the Catholic Church that compiled and preserved the Scriptures for over a millenium before there was a Luther or a printing press.
Hence, we have 30,000 plus denominations all subscribing to the idea of "sola scriptura", but who are in wild disagreement on a variety of doctrines but united by their disdain for Catholicism. I note this sentiment contained in this essay: "They worship like Catholics and they baptize babies, but they also seem to believe the Gospel!”.
That any needs to spend the time developing a taxonomy of Christianity is a testament to the scandal of division.
9.25.2012 | 5:09pm
Naturallawyer says:
There are a few straw men in the comments above. First, the fact that Rogers finds that "evangelicals" deem themselves to take the Bible seriously does not mean that Catholics don't, and the fact that evangelicals call themselves "evangelicals" does not mean that Catholics or mainline protestants aren't evangelical (in a different sense, lest we equivocate on the word itself).
Additionally, Patrick, it is not "utterly neglectful" not to baptize infants if one believes that such baptism would be inappropriate without prior belief (in other words, a "sponsor" stating an affirmation of faith on behalf of the infant is pure fiction and an empty ceremony in the "paedobaptist's" mind). To the contrary, it would be an at least problematic violation of conscience. While baptism some day might never might have come, likewise a Catholic's belief, confirmation, or faithfulness to the Church might not come or remain. Clearly, baptist parents believe baptism is "important enough", and the reason one should get baptized is because Christ commands believers to get baptized (in their interpretation). Placing Catholic assumptions on evangelicals' actions and then accusing them of callousness is weak at best.
Finally, Ferde, the fact that evangelicals disagree on interpretations of Scripture does not mean that they do not care about those disagreements any more than Catholics who disagree on the application of various teachings in the Catechism. Can the occurrence of such disagreements amount to not caring about the Catechism? Of course not. If anything, it proves the opposite. Evangelicals care very much about the appropriate interpretation of Scripture. Whether they've got it or not is a different question...
Additionally, Patrick, it is not "utterly neglectful" not to baptize infants if one believes that such baptism would be inappropriate without prior belief (in other words, a "sponsor" stating an affirmation of faith on behalf of the infant is pure fiction and an empty ceremony in the "paedobaptist's" mind). To the contrary, it would be an at least problematic violation of conscience. While baptism some day might never might have come, likewise a Catholic's belief, confirmation, or faithfulness to the Church might not come or remain. Clearly, baptist parents believe baptism is "important enough", and the reason one should get baptized is because Christ commands believers to get baptized (in their interpretation). Placing Catholic assumptions on evangelicals' actions and then accusing them of callousness is weak at best.
Finally, Ferde, the fact that evangelicals disagree on interpretations of Scripture does not mean that they do not care about those disagreements any more than Catholics who disagree on the application of various teachings in the Catechism. Can the occurrence of such disagreements amount to not caring about the Catechism? Of course not. If anything, it proves the opposite. Evangelicals care very much about the appropriate interpretation of Scripture. Whether they've got it or not is a different question...
9.25.2012 | 5:16pm
Corey says:
As is typical of the Catholic commenters here whenever a writer mentions anything about protestants, particularly non-mainline protestants, small details are being picked out and the point of the piece is ignored. First, evangelicals refuse nothing to the infant when they do not baptize it, because the infant can have no understanding of the meaning of that baptism. Only later, when they have grown up in the Church and when they are confirmed, does that baptism take on meaning. It is at that point, when the Catholic child, baptized in infancy, is confirmed, that the evangelical child may choose to become part of the Church because he has accepted the gift of salvation. If, patricksarsfield fears, the day of baptism never did come, then what is the meaning of baptism of the infant, for the adult who has rejected the gift of grace? Rather than baptizing the infant, and rather than being neglectful, the faithful evangelical family brings their child up in the Church fervently praying and teaching them so that they might one day, too, accept Jesus Christ and live life redeemed. Please do note how similar this is, if not in order than in faith, to what Catholics think they are doing.
As for 'Biblidolatry,' Ferde Rombola has become so offended by the suggestion that protestants might hold the Bible in high regard, that he has missed both the very real danger of 'Biblidolatry' and the nature of the protestant criticism of some Catholics' use of the Bible. First, we should say that making an idol of the Bible goes beyond merely "according the Bible high regard," and indeed, Prof. Rogers doesn't quite equate the two. What he says is that what some see as "Biblidolatry" among evangelicals is, in fact, reverence for the "revelation of God to humanity." So Rombola is correct to criticize those who would impose whatever interpretation they like on the Bible, or those who would refuse to accept any authority other than their own in interpretation, but he would probably be surprised how little of this goes on among evangelicals- in part because of their very reverence of the Bible. I think this is especially true among the more established churches, like LCMS or the Southern Baptists (who are the nation's second largest Christian denomination, after Roman Catholics).
Evangelicals are exhorted to read the Bible (just as many Catholics are) with the guidance provided by their pastors and their churches, and they have proven to be the Christians who are most knowledgeable of the Bible. This brings me to the problem that many evangelicals see in Catholicism: too many Catholics are thoughtlessly accepting Church authority, going through the motions of the sacraments, and never really reading the Bible. I can attest to this, as more than a few members at Southern Baptist churches where I have been a member are Catholics who say they have never really read the Bible beyond whatever the prescribed reading was for Mass. So while I certainly do not believe that Catholicism does not take the Bible seriously, Catholicism suffers from many Catholics who do not seem to. As a reader of this site, and a student of the Church fathers, I have often joked with friends that I would like to meet a real Catholic, although I have met many people who were baptized and confirmed in the Church. But that really isn't funny- it's tragic.
As for 'Biblidolatry,' Ferde Rombola has become so offended by the suggestion that protestants might hold the Bible in high regard, that he has missed both the very real danger of 'Biblidolatry' and the nature of the protestant criticism of some Catholics' use of the Bible. First, we should say that making an idol of the Bible goes beyond merely "according the Bible high regard," and indeed, Prof. Rogers doesn't quite equate the two. What he says is that what some see as "Biblidolatry" among evangelicals is, in fact, reverence for the "revelation of God to humanity." So Rombola is correct to criticize those who would impose whatever interpretation they like on the Bible, or those who would refuse to accept any authority other than their own in interpretation, but he would probably be surprised how little of this goes on among evangelicals- in part because of their very reverence of the Bible. I think this is especially true among the more established churches, like LCMS or the Southern Baptists (who are the nation's second largest Christian denomination, after Roman Catholics).
Evangelicals are exhorted to read the Bible (just as many Catholics are) with the guidance provided by their pastors and their churches, and they have proven to be the Christians who are most knowledgeable of the Bible. This brings me to the problem that many evangelicals see in Catholicism: too many Catholics are thoughtlessly accepting Church authority, going through the motions of the sacraments, and never really reading the Bible. I can attest to this, as more than a few members at Southern Baptist churches where I have been a member are Catholics who say they have never really read the Bible beyond whatever the prescribed reading was for Mass. So while I certainly do not believe that Catholicism does not take the Bible seriously, Catholicism suffers from many Catholics who do not seem to. As a reader of this site, and a student of the Church fathers, I have often joked with friends that I would like to meet a real Catholic, although I have met many people who were baptized and confirmed in the Church. But that really isn't funny- it's tragic.
9.25.2012 | 6:37pm
Jimmy Rushing says:
An Evangelical is someone who can sit through the movie Flywheel.
9.25.2012 | 6:56pm
Ferde Rombola says:
Naturallawyer said, "First, the fact that Rogers finds that "evangelicals" deem themselves to take the Bible seriously does not mean that Catholics don't,"
That may be true, but I didn't catch that sentiment in Professor Rogers' message. What I read was Evangelicals are superior to the rest of us because they love the Bible and God.
To the question of infant baptism, I don't recall the Lord telling Nicodemus one must be cognizant and accepting of Christian doctrine in order to make a baptism valid. He said as I recall, unless we are reborn of water and the Spirit, heaven is not in our future. Sadly, infants die from time to time, as do young children. Would 'adult-only baptism' parents ever get a good night's sleep if they withheld baptism from their child and the child died at age 3? Adult only baptism is a man-made doctrine. Interesting how sola scriptura adherents find ways to add to Scripture when it suits them.
If evangelicals care about their disagreements about the meaning of Scripture. what are they doing about it? Catholic disagreements about what's in the Catechism is inapposite. Catholic doctrine is binding on all Catholics. Dissenters are allowed to dissent, but our doctrine remains what it is and their opinions are error. And, yes, their opposition to Catholic doctrine means just that they don't care about what's in the Catechism. They care about themselves.
Finally, I hate to put it like this, but if Evalgelicals really cared about the truth of Christian doctrine, they'd be Catholics. Sounds a little snobbish, but we've been around a lot longer than they and we're pretty sure we have it right.
Corey, I'm not offended that evangelicals hold he Bible in high regard, I'm offended that they don't. Making Sacred Scripture a play pen, where every man can make of it what he will is not holding the Bible in high regard, no matter what Professor Rogers claims for them. You can say very little of private interpretation 'goes on' among evangelicals, but where the rubber meets the road, try talking one of them out if his peraonal beliefs.
Finally, from what ex-Protstants tell me, one of the reasons they left Protestantism is precisely because of private interpretation -- the private interpretation of the pastor who pushes it every Sunday.
That may be true, but I didn't catch that sentiment in Professor Rogers' message. What I read was Evangelicals are superior to the rest of us because they love the Bible and God.
To the question of infant baptism, I don't recall the Lord telling Nicodemus one must be cognizant and accepting of Christian doctrine in order to make a baptism valid. He said as I recall, unless we are reborn of water and the Spirit, heaven is not in our future. Sadly, infants die from time to time, as do young children. Would 'adult-only baptism' parents ever get a good night's sleep if they withheld baptism from their child and the child died at age 3? Adult only baptism is a man-made doctrine. Interesting how sola scriptura adherents find ways to add to Scripture when it suits them.
If evangelicals care about their disagreements about the meaning of Scripture. what are they doing about it? Catholic disagreements about what's in the Catechism is inapposite. Catholic doctrine is binding on all Catholics. Dissenters are allowed to dissent, but our doctrine remains what it is and their opinions are error. And, yes, their opposition to Catholic doctrine means just that they don't care about what's in the Catechism. They care about themselves.
Finally, I hate to put it like this, but if Evalgelicals really cared about the truth of Christian doctrine, they'd be Catholics. Sounds a little snobbish, but we've been around a lot longer than they and we're pretty sure we have it right.
Corey, I'm not offended that evangelicals hold he Bible in high regard, I'm offended that they don't. Making Sacred Scripture a play pen, where every man can make of it what he will is not holding the Bible in high regard, no matter what Professor Rogers claims for them. You can say very little of private interpretation 'goes on' among evangelicals, but where the rubber meets the road, try talking one of them out if his peraonal beliefs.
Finally, from what ex-Protstants tell me, one of the reasons they left Protestantism is precisely because of private interpretation -- the private interpretation of the pastor who pushes it every Sunday.
9.25.2012 | 7:24pm
Adam Baum says:
@Corey:
"This brings me to the problem that many evangelicals see in Catholicism: too many Catholics are thoughtlessly accepting Church authority, going through the motions of the sacraments, and never really reading the Bible. "
This brings ME to the PROBLEMS I see in Evangelicals.
In many times and places, this prescription was impossible. For most of history, one or more of these conditions applied: before the assembly of the canon, where there was (is) illiteracy, prior to economical distribution of textual matter (i.e., before the printing press) or in the presence of state suppression of Christianity-all these conditions make personal Biblical access, let alone exegesis impossible. Given the state of the world, it's not impossible for these conditions to re-emerge. Of course, if you attend Mass faithfully for three years-you'll get the fullest survey of the Scriptures-not whatever inspires the minister that week. In short, the assumptions of Sola Scriptura -literacy, availability, capacity, sanction -were absent from much of history.
So it is that the Scriptures provide for authority and even prescribes methods for the resolution of disputes-by authorities-not by individuals engaging in bibliomachy. Where is the Biblical injunction to defy authority? There isn't. Where is the injunction that the Bible has relevant, specific text on every matter-there isn't-the Scriptures specifically assert incompleteness. The "Rapture"? A Nineteenth century interpretative invention. Declaring yourself "saved"? The Bible speaks of working your salvation with fear and trembling-not confidence. Group "Bible studies"? A recent tradition, not found in the Bible. (I have no objection)
Yet, Evangelicals don't lack for the thoughtless following of "authorities". So it is we have mega-churches with pastors clad in thousand dollar suits in stadia masquerading as churches but no personal contact with congregants. Tremendous celebration, without the slightest hint of solemnity? Radio personalities who simply ignore the Bible and tell us they know the time and hour of the end of the world.
Now we can really examine the effects (you shall know them by their fruits) of a novelty of the reformation-Luther's declaration that marriage was an affair to be regulated by the state-rather than a Sacrament the state could merely recognize and record. (Too be fair he has had had the help of a former opponent-in the form of an English monarch). This has worked wonderfully, hasn't it? Yet how many Evangelicals sincerely rightly offended by "gay marriage" ever think that this is a result of Luther's idea?
Finally, I have to ask how do you know anything about the personal habits of Catholics? The most enduring memory of my grandmother I'll have when she succumbs (now 100 and failing) will be from a decade ago, when she spent warm summer afternoons reading her Bible, then praying her Rosary. But you'd have thought of her, "thoughtlessly accepting Church authority, going through the motions of the sacraments, and never really reading the Bible." You would not doubt be appalled at my willful submission to the judgment of a confessor in conformity with the injunction of Scripture, but seem uninhibited at imposing your judgment without consent.
"This brings me to the problem that many evangelicals see in Catholicism: too many Catholics are thoughtlessly accepting Church authority, going through the motions of the sacraments, and never really reading the Bible. "
This brings ME to the PROBLEMS I see in Evangelicals.
In many times and places, this prescription was impossible. For most of history, one or more of these conditions applied: before the assembly of the canon, where there was (is) illiteracy, prior to economical distribution of textual matter (i.e., before the printing press) or in the presence of state suppression of Christianity-all these conditions make personal Biblical access, let alone exegesis impossible. Given the state of the world, it's not impossible for these conditions to re-emerge. Of course, if you attend Mass faithfully for three years-you'll get the fullest survey of the Scriptures-not whatever inspires the minister that week. In short, the assumptions of Sola Scriptura -literacy, availability, capacity, sanction -were absent from much of history.
So it is that the Scriptures provide for authority and even prescribes methods for the resolution of disputes-by authorities-not by individuals engaging in bibliomachy. Where is the Biblical injunction to defy authority? There isn't. Where is the injunction that the Bible has relevant, specific text on every matter-there isn't-the Scriptures specifically assert incompleteness. The "Rapture"? A Nineteenth century interpretative invention. Declaring yourself "saved"? The Bible speaks of working your salvation with fear and trembling-not confidence. Group "Bible studies"? A recent tradition, not found in the Bible. (I have no objection)
Yet, Evangelicals don't lack for the thoughtless following of "authorities". So it is we have mega-churches with pastors clad in thousand dollar suits in stadia masquerading as churches but no personal contact with congregants. Tremendous celebration, without the slightest hint of solemnity? Radio personalities who simply ignore the Bible and tell us they know the time and hour of the end of the world.
Now we can really examine the effects (you shall know them by their fruits) of a novelty of the reformation-Luther's declaration that marriage was an affair to be regulated by the state-rather than a Sacrament the state could merely recognize and record. (Too be fair he has had had the help of a former opponent-in the form of an English monarch). This has worked wonderfully, hasn't it? Yet how many Evangelicals sincerely rightly offended by "gay marriage" ever think that this is a result of Luther's idea?
Finally, I have to ask how do you know anything about the personal habits of Catholics? The most enduring memory of my grandmother I'll have when she succumbs (now 100 and failing) will be from a decade ago, when she spent warm summer afternoons reading her Bible, then praying her Rosary. But you'd have thought of her, "thoughtlessly accepting Church authority, going through the motions of the sacraments, and never really reading the Bible." You would not doubt be appalled at my willful submission to the judgment of a confessor in conformity with the injunction of Scripture, but seem uninhibited at imposing your judgment without consent.
9.25.2012 | 8:28pm
Bo Grimes says:
"I’ve wondered why it is that the most sacramentally oriented churches (and I’m including the LCMS in this group) seem to be less represented among volunteers in prison and other similarly oriented ministries than “hole and corner” churches. "
My own casual observation as a member of the ELCA is that so-called mainline Protestants put their energy and advocacy into governmental solutions, assigning to the State the role of the Church and believing the way we should "love our neighbor" is to create a more socially just economic and political system.
For all the criticism heaped on maligned Christian "conservatives" for attempting to impose a theocracy because of their opposition to abortion and gay marriage, I think Christian "progressives" are far more guilty of the charge because they want to encode their understanding of Biblical principles of social justice into law.
My own casual observation as a member of the ELCA is that so-called mainline Protestants put their energy and advocacy into governmental solutions, assigning to the State the role of the Church and believing the way we should "love our neighbor" is to create a more socially just economic and political system.
For all the criticism heaped on maligned Christian "conservatives" for attempting to impose a theocracy because of their opposition to abortion and gay marriage, I think Christian "progressives" are far more guilty of the charge because they want to encode their understanding of Biblical principles of social justice into law.
9.25.2012 | 8:54pm
Russell Belding says:
Some catholic commenters here are IMO overreacting. "patricksarsfield" (an alias?) shares common ground with us outside the Catholic church then takes moral high ground saying it is callous to neglect to baptize a child and thereby have the child's sins forgiven. A baptist (small b intended) reading of scripture understands he forgiveness of sins is a transaction managed by our Lord who judges sin. A reading of history suggests Augustine contributed momentum to switching from believers baptism to infant baptism out of fear that unbaptised infants would not have their sins forgiven and suffer because of the omission. I am confident of our Lord's kindness towards children and support our baptist practice to baptise believers. In the baptist church I am a member of in NZ we bless children with their parents and friends and baptise confessing believers.
This discussion suggests how far we have to go to achieve even civil conversation between those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord.
On the other hand progress is unlikely to be made in asking catholics who claim exclusivity to the Christian franchise to package their deep feelings in politically correct prose.
This discussion suggests how far we have to go to achieve even civil conversation between those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord.
On the other hand progress is unlikely to be made in asking catholics who claim exclusivity to the Christian franchise to package their deep feelings in politically correct prose.
9.25.2012 | 8:56pm
Bo Grimes says:
Both Baum and Rombola credit the Catholic Church (by which I take them to mean the Roman Catholic Church) with compiling and preserving Scripture when that was done prior to the break between Rome and Constantinople.
While one can not reduce the Schism simply to the Filioque that dispute seems very similar to me to many of the criticisms leveled at Protestant disagreement.
As a Lutheran I regard myself as an "evangelical Catholic" (probably an offensive term to both evangelicals and Catholics), but I have a great deal of (and have been deeply influenced by both--as well as Orthodox) regard for both. However, if I were ever to "swim a river" it would be the Bosporus and not the Tiber because I truly think the Orthodox understanding of the Bishop of Rome as a first among equals is probably closer in alignment with Ante-Nicene ecclesiology, and, as much as I love Augustine, I believe both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology has been inordinately shaped by his thought.
That said, I am always amazed when Roman Catholics speak of Protestant disagreement, as if doctrinal conflict were a 16th century development, and as if another branch of Christianity (the Orthodox) wasn't around prior to 1054.
While one can not reduce the Schism simply to the Filioque that dispute seems very similar to me to many of the criticisms leveled at Protestant disagreement.
As a Lutheran I regard myself as an "evangelical Catholic" (probably an offensive term to both evangelicals and Catholics), but I have a great deal of (and have been deeply influenced by both--as well as Orthodox) regard for both. However, if I were ever to "swim a river" it would be the Bosporus and not the Tiber because I truly think the Orthodox understanding of the Bishop of Rome as a first among equals is probably closer in alignment with Ante-Nicene ecclesiology, and, as much as I love Augustine, I believe both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology has been inordinately shaped by his thought.
That said, I am always amazed when Roman Catholics speak of Protestant disagreement, as if doctrinal conflict were a 16th century development, and as if another branch of Christianity (the Orthodox) wasn't around prior to 1054.
9.26.2012 | 7:23am
Wolf Paul says:
The reason paedobaptism serves as such a differentiator is because, in my experience, paedobaptism is generally practiced by churches which view it as an effective sacrament. Most credobaptists view it as a symbolic ordinance.
Consequently paedobaptists baptize infants in hope that one day they will make a personal decision to follow Christ, while credobaptists only baptize people mature enough to have already made such a personal decision.
An unintendend, but in my experience almost unavoidable consequence of the paedobaptist practice is people who view themselves as Christians by virtue of their baptism but with widely varying degrees of spiritual vitality. Of course, this problem also exists in the credobaptist camp, but tends to be more pronounced among paedobaptists, especially where the denomination has drifted theologically and no longer emphasizes the need for a personal conversion/commitment.
In German, this phenomenon is called "Volkskirche", with the underlying assumption that everyone in a, for example, Catholic country (a Catholic "Volk") has been baptized as an infant and is therefore a Christian. Yes, there is confirmation which would be a splendid occasion to mark that personal decision to follow Christ, but it has often become a cultural rite of passing into adulthood without any need for religious commitment. I have yet to hear of a bishop here in Austria denying confirmation to any 14-year-old for lack of spiritual commitment, just as one rarely hears of people being denied communion.
One result of that, because people rarely reflect on the fact that others' experiences may not match their own, someone with this mindset will often assume that anyone in a Christian country is a Christian, or if not, that s/he has chosen not to be, and there is no point reaching out to them. In other words, the notion of being a Christian almost from birth tends to disincline people to the idea of evangelism.
Lest anyone thinks that I am writing this in an holier-than-thou attitude, I realize that in some SBC churches in parts of the American South getting baptized somewhere around adolescence is just as much a cultural rite of passing as confirmation in my country ...
Regarding Bible reading: I didn't read Mr Rogers comments on that as a claim that Evangelicals read the Bible more than Catholics or others, but rather as a defence against the frequent charge leveled at Evangelicals and "fundamentalists" of being bibliolaters, worshippers of the Bible. He points out that they view the Bible as God's revelation, and that their attitude to the Bible as God's revelation reflects their attitude to God. No assertion about anyone else seemed to be intended.
Ferde Rombola, apart from misunderstanding Roger's intent (he wasn't defining bibliolatry, but defending Evangelicals against the charge) your attitude to Protestants strikes me as diametrically opposed to the conciliatory tone and attitude of the current and the last pope. I have never heard the "sola scriptura" of the Reformation equated with bibliolatry as you seem to be doing. And of course Orthodox Christians would dispute your claim that it was the Catholic Church which brought us the Bible.
Finally, to avoid the confusion mentioned by patricksarsfield, I tend to capitalize "Evangelical" when it refers to the tradition represented by the NAE, etc., just as I tend to capitalize "Catholic" when it refers to the churches in communion with the Pope, and "Orthodox" when it refers to the churches of the East in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. And since I claim for myself and my faith the term "catholic" as used in the Creeds, I would be the last to deny Catholics the use of the term "evangelical" as pertaining to the "evangel", the gospel.
Consequently paedobaptists baptize infants in hope that one day they will make a personal decision to follow Christ, while credobaptists only baptize people mature enough to have already made such a personal decision.
An unintendend, but in my experience almost unavoidable consequence of the paedobaptist practice is people who view themselves as Christians by virtue of their baptism but with widely varying degrees of spiritual vitality. Of course, this problem also exists in the credobaptist camp, but tends to be more pronounced among paedobaptists, especially where the denomination has drifted theologically and no longer emphasizes the need for a personal conversion/commitment.
In German, this phenomenon is called "Volkskirche", with the underlying assumption that everyone in a, for example, Catholic country (a Catholic "Volk") has been baptized as an infant and is therefore a Christian. Yes, there is confirmation which would be a splendid occasion to mark that personal decision to follow Christ, but it has often become a cultural rite of passing into adulthood without any need for religious commitment. I have yet to hear of a bishop here in Austria denying confirmation to any 14-year-old for lack of spiritual commitment, just as one rarely hears of people being denied communion.
One result of that, because people rarely reflect on the fact that others' experiences may not match their own, someone with this mindset will often assume that anyone in a Christian country is a Christian, or if not, that s/he has chosen not to be, and there is no point reaching out to them. In other words, the notion of being a Christian almost from birth tends to disincline people to the idea of evangelism.
Lest anyone thinks that I am writing this in an holier-than-thou attitude, I realize that in some SBC churches in parts of the American South getting baptized somewhere around adolescence is just as much a cultural rite of passing as confirmation in my country ...
Regarding Bible reading: I didn't read Mr Rogers comments on that as a claim that Evangelicals read the Bible more than Catholics or others, but rather as a defence against the frequent charge leveled at Evangelicals and "fundamentalists" of being bibliolaters, worshippers of the Bible. He points out that they view the Bible as God's revelation, and that their attitude to the Bible as God's revelation reflects their attitude to God. No assertion about anyone else seemed to be intended.
Ferde Rombola, apart from misunderstanding Roger's intent (he wasn't defining bibliolatry, but defending Evangelicals against the charge) your attitude to Protestants strikes me as diametrically opposed to the conciliatory tone and attitude of the current and the last pope. I have never heard the "sola scriptura" of the Reformation equated with bibliolatry as you seem to be doing. And of course Orthodox Christians would dispute your claim that it was the Catholic Church which brought us the Bible.
Finally, to avoid the confusion mentioned by patricksarsfield, I tend to capitalize "Evangelical" when it refers to the tradition represented by the NAE, etc., just as I tend to capitalize "Catholic" when it refers to the churches in communion with the Pope, and "Orthodox" when it refers to the churches of the East in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. And since I claim for myself and my faith the term "catholic" as used in the Creeds, I would be the last to deny Catholics the use of the term "evangelical" as pertaining to the "evangel", the gospel.
9.26.2012 | 11:25am
patricksarsfield says:
Russell Belding defends the Baptist refusal to baptize their children as follows:
"I am confident of our Lord's kindness towards children and support our baptist practice to baptise believers. In the baptist church I am a member of in NZ we bless children with their parents and friends and baptise confessing believers."
Non-baptism for the forgiveness of sins whent he parents don't bring the babies to Him?
Likewise, Corey and Naturallawyer support RB's position and claim that the Catholic baptizand's sponsor's statement of faith is "pure fiction and meaningless" and that the efficacy of baptism depends on the baby's (then non-existent) "understanding" of the significance of baptism.
UNBIBLICAL. Brother Mark teaches us explicitly that sins CAN be forgiven due to the faith of others. C&V? Mark 2:3-5, when the four men brought the paralytic to Jesus:
"Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Jesus did not look for a declaration of faith from the paralytic, he forgave the paralytic his sins based specifically on the faith of those who brought the paralytic to him.
"I am confident of our Lord's kindness towards children and support our baptist practice to baptise believers. In the baptist church I am a member of in NZ we bless children with their parents and friends and baptise confessing believers."
Non-baptism for the forgiveness of sins whent he parents don't bring the babies to Him?
Likewise, Corey and Naturallawyer support RB's position and claim that the Catholic baptizand's sponsor's statement of faith is "pure fiction and meaningless" and that the efficacy of baptism depends on the baby's (then non-existent) "understanding" of the significance of baptism.
UNBIBLICAL. Brother Mark teaches us explicitly that sins CAN be forgiven due to the faith of others. C&V? Mark 2:3-5, when the four men brought the paralytic to Jesus:
"Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Jesus did not look for a declaration of faith from the paralytic, he forgave the paralytic his sins based specifically on the faith of those who brought the paralytic to him.
9.26.2012 | 11:34am
Ferde Rombola says:
Paul Wolf said: "Ferde Rombola, apart from misunderstanding Roger's intent (he wasn't defining bibliolatry, but defending Evangelicals against the charge) your attitude to Protestants strikes me as diametrically opposed to the conciliatory tone and attitude of the current and the last pope. I have never heard the "sola scriptura" of the Reformation equated with bibliolatry as you seem to be doing. And of course Orthodox Christians would dispute your claim that it was the Catholic Church which brought us the Bible."
Mr. Wolf, I didn't ''misunderstand' Rogers' intent. I posted my reaction to his statement. I may (or may not) have over-reacted, but it was an honest reaction. I am not opposed to the conciliatory tone of our recent popes, I simply don't employ it. I spend a lot of time debating very hostile, anti-Catholic Protestants on the internet and the experience is reflected in my style.
Style aside, I always strive to tell the truth. Toward that end, the compilation of the Bible text is not subject to any claim I make. It's subject to the facts of history, as is the relationship between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. Regarding the Bible, there were no Orthodox Christians in the 5th Century. There were orthodox Christians, certainly. They were called Catholics.
BTW, sola scriptura IS biblidolatry.
Paul Wolf said: "And since I claim for myself and my faith the term "catholic" as used in the Creeds,"
The term 'catholic' as used in the creeds doesn't refer to individuals, it refers to a Church, 'the one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.' There is one such Church and only one.
Bo Grimes says:
Both Baum and Rombola credit the Catholic Church (by which I take them to mean the Roman Catholic Church) with compiling and preserving Scripture when that was done prior to the break between Rome and Constantinople.
Just asking, but who do you credit with compiling and preserving Scripture?
Bo Grimes: While one can not reduce the Schism simply to the Filioque that dispute seems very similar to me to many of the criticisms leveled at Protestant disagreement.
But it's not. The filioque dispute is more one of semantics and regional pride. Compared to Protestant disagreement, it's a tempest in a teapot.
Catholics, East and West, share common doctrines of Sacraments, Orders and Apostolic Succession. That's all it takes to be part of the one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, semantic and cultural differences aside.
Bo Grimes: That said, I am always amazed when Roman Catholics speak of Protestant disagreement, as if doctrinal conflict were a 16th century development, and as if another branch of Christianity (the Orthodox) wasn't around prior to 1054.
It should be noted, of the five original Apostolic Sees, only one remains in a Christian society. The separation of the Eastern Church from the West was compelled by the Muslim overlords of the Eastern Church, not with their free consent. The Orthodox Church did not exist until well after that time.
The most egregious, most damaging doctrinal conflict affecting the Body of Christ was what you call 'the reformation.' There can be no doubt it is the Great Apostasy Protestants often refer to. The damage has caused hundreds of millions of souls to be separated from Christ's Church, damage which continues to increase by the hour. Differences within the Catholic Churches are insignificant by comparison.
Mr. Wolf, I didn't ''misunderstand' Rogers' intent. I posted my reaction to his statement. I may (or may not) have over-reacted, but it was an honest reaction. I am not opposed to the conciliatory tone of our recent popes, I simply don't employ it. I spend a lot of time debating very hostile, anti-Catholic Protestants on the internet and the experience is reflected in my style.
Style aside, I always strive to tell the truth. Toward that end, the compilation of the Bible text is not subject to any claim I make. It's subject to the facts of history, as is the relationship between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. Regarding the Bible, there were no Orthodox Christians in the 5th Century. There were orthodox Christians, certainly. They were called Catholics.
BTW, sola scriptura IS biblidolatry.
Paul Wolf said: "And since I claim for myself and my faith the term "catholic" as used in the Creeds,"
The term 'catholic' as used in the creeds doesn't refer to individuals, it refers to a Church, 'the one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.' There is one such Church and only one.
Bo Grimes says:
Both Baum and Rombola credit the Catholic Church (by which I take them to mean the Roman Catholic Church) with compiling and preserving Scripture when that was done prior to the break between Rome and Constantinople.
Just asking, but who do you credit with compiling and preserving Scripture?
Bo Grimes: While one can not reduce the Schism simply to the Filioque that dispute seems very similar to me to many of the criticisms leveled at Protestant disagreement.
But it's not. The filioque dispute is more one of semantics and regional pride. Compared to Protestant disagreement, it's a tempest in a teapot.
Catholics, East and West, share common doctrines of Sacraments, Orders and Apostolic Succession. That's all it takes to be part of the one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, semantic and cultural differences aside.
Bo Grimes: That said, I am always amazed when Roman Catholics speak of Protestant disagreement, as if doctrinal conflict were a 16th century development, and as if another branch of Christianity (the Orthodox) wasn't around prior to 1054.
It should be noted, of the five original Apostolic Sees, only one remains in a Christian society. The separation of the Eastern Church from the West was compelled by the Muslim overlords of the Eastern Church, not with their free consent. The Orthodox Church did not exist until well after that time.
The most egregious, most damaging doctrinal conflict affecting the Body of Christ was what you call 'the reformation.' There can be no doubt it is the Great Apostasy Protestants often refer to. The damage has caused hundreds of millions of souls to be separated from Christ's Church, damage which continues to increase by the hour. Differences within the Catholic Churches are insignificant by comparison.
9.26.2012 | 12:07pm
Adam Baum says:
@Bo Grimes:
"Both Baum and Rombola credit the Catholic Church (by which I take them to mean the Roman Catholic Church) with compiling and preserving Scripture when that was done prior to the break between Rome and Constantinople."
Yes, it was the Roman Catholic Church that compiled and preserved the Scriptures. It is not a matter of our attribution, it is a matter of fact-and even if, for the sake of argument I accept your premise of WHEN the canon was compiled-it was still done by the Church, not Aryans or Manicheans or Lutherans. In addition, it didn't procreate, nor was it mechanically copied. Each copy was made by a Catholic (probably a cleric), who needed the time and learning not generally available when survival was the prime order of the day.
"As a Lutheran I regard myself as an "evangelical Catholic" (probably an offensive term to both evangelicals and Catholics)."
Not offensive, just incorrect. I can regard myself as an NFL linebacker because I'm 6-1 and 240, but the disregarded differences -age, slowness of foot-matter more than the conspicuous similarities. Words have meaning. The extension of this logic is that we all get to define our own realities-welcome to the world of gay marriage and polygamy.
"That said, I am always amazed when Roman Catholics speak of Protestant disagreement, as if doctrinal conflict were a 16th century development, and as if another branch of Christianity (the Orthodox) wasn't around prior to 1054. "
And your amazement amazes me. In 1500 years there was one significant break -just one-and even Jesus didn't have perfection among his apostles. But since 1517 there have been tens of thousands of breaks and even those communities that claim specific "reformers" as their intellectual forefathers have not adhered to their theology. How many Protestants reject Marian devotion (in spite of all the Scripture passages, specifically Luke 1:48) that make her unique and worthy of veneration because they want to reject anything "Catholic"? Moreover, the Protestant novelties of Sola Scriptura, Faith Alone, Predestination are not present in the Orthodox Church and as I understand it, they do believe in the real presence.
Hence the arrogation of theological discourse to the individual whose sole and unexamined reasoning becomes the arbiter of truth. If you have the means of compulsion or the charisma for popular persuasion, your view becomes legitimate.
At some point you have to accept the fact that Luther (and Henry) uncorked a new and potent bottle of division and confusion. I have heard that he once quipped there are "as many doctrines as heads" and whether or not it was an expression of surprise, it was truth. By the time Adolph Harnack came along, division was seen as a benefit: "When we are reproached with our divisions and told that Protestantism has as many doctrines as heads, we reply: "So it has, but we do not wish it otherwise; on the contrary, we want still more freedom". In that freedom you get all sorts of novelties and deviations-so why should I listen to Luther, instead of Zwingli, Calvin, the Wesleys or for that matter Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard-or just disavow all of them and initiuate my own new
@Wolf Paul says: "Most credobaptists view it as a symbolic ordinance.", but where is the Scriptural support for that? Christ is recorded in John 3:5 as clearly NOT regarding Baptism as a "symbolic" ordinance, but as an absolute necessity. Who then should deny this to a child on the presumption that the child will have enough earthly days to grow to some indefinite, extrabiblical point of maturity to thoughtfully accept this necessity? Even today many children face short lives-even if they live in a time and please where medical miracles are commonplace.
"Both Baum and Rombola credit the Catholic Church (by which I take them to mean the Roman Catholic Church) with compiling and preserving Scripture when that was done prior to the break between Rome and Constantinople."
Yes, it was the Roman Catholic Church that compiled and preserved the Scriptures. It is not a matter of our attribution, it is a matter of fact-and even if, for the sake of argument I accept your premise of WHEN the canon was compiled-it was still done by the Church, not Aryans or Manicheans or Lutherans. In addition, it didn't procreate, nor was it mechanically copied. Each copy was made by a Catholic (probably a cleric), who needed the time and learning not generally available when survival was the prime order of the day.
"As a Lutheran I regard myself as an "evangelical Catholic" (probably an offensive term to both evangelicals and Catholics)."
Not offensive, just incorrect. I can regard myself as an NFL linebacker because I'm 6-1 and 240, but the disregarded differences -age, slowness of foot-matter more than the conspicuous similarities. Words have meaning. The extension of this logic is that we all get to define our own realities-welcome to the world of gay marriage and polygamy.
"That said, I am always amazed when Roman Catholics speak of Protestant disagreement, as if doctrinal conflict were a 16th century development, and as if another branch of Christianity (the Orthodox) wasn't around prior to 1054. "
And your amazement amazes me. In 1500 years there was one significant break -just one-and even Jesus didn't have perfection among his apostles. But since 1517 there have been tens of thousands of breaks and even those communities that claim specific "reformers" as their intellectual forefathers have not adhered to their theology. How many Protestants reject Marian devotion (in spite of all the Scripture passages, specifically Luke 1:48) that make her unique and worthy of veneration because they want to reject anything "Catholic"? Moreover, the Protestant novelties of Sola Scriptura, Faith Alone, Predestination are not present in the Orthodox Church and as I understand it, they do believe in the real presence.
Hence the arrogation of theological discourse to the individual whose sole and unexamined reasoning becomes the arbiter of truth. If you have the means of compulsion or the charisma for popular persuasion, your view becomes legitimate.
At some point you have to accept the fact that Luther (and Henry) uncorked a new and potent bottle of division and confusion. I have heard that he once quipped there are "as many doctrines as heads" and whether or not it was an expression of surprise, it was truth. By the time Adolph Harnack came along, division was seen as a benefit: "When we are reproached with our divisions and told that Protestantism has as many doctrines as heads, we reply: "So it has, but we do not wish it otherwise; on the contrary, we want still more freedom". In that freedom you get all sorts of novelties and deviations-so why should I listen to Luther, instead of Zwingli, Calvin, the Wesleys or for that matter Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard-or just disavow all of them and initiuate my own new
@Wolf Paul says: "Most credobaptists view it as a symbolic ordinance.", but where is the Scriptural support for that? Christ is recorded in John 3:5 as clearly NOT regarding Baptism as a "symbolic" ordinance, but as an absolute necessity. Who then should deny this to a child on the presumption that the child will have enough earthly days to grow to some indefinite, extrabiblical point of maturity to thoughtfully accept this necessity? Even today many children face short lives-even if they live in a time and please where medical miracles are commonplace.
9.26.2012 | 12:24pm
patricksarsfield says:
Lutheran Bo Grimes writes:
"While one can not reduce the Schism simply to the Filioque that dispute seems very similar to me to many of the criticisms leveled at Protestant disagreement..... if I were ever to "swim a river" it would be the Bosporus and not the Tiber because I truly think the Orthodox understanding of the Bishop of Rome as a first among equals is probably closer in alignment with Ante-Nicene ecclesiology"
Two observations: First, I didn't think the Lutherans come down on the (resurrected) Orthodox side on the Filioque question.
Second, the Orthodox and Catholics were able to compose their differences on all outstanding issues (the Azymes as well as the Filioque, etc.) and reachieve unity as of the 1439 Ecumenical Council of Florence-Ferrara. The subsequent "resumption of hostilities" by the Eastern Church was not due to any formal decision of the Eastern Church to "do over" the decision achieved at the Council; indeed, the two churches were still united in May 1453 and the Pope's representative to the besieged City of Constantinople said Mass at Hagia Sophia shortly before its Fall.
What actually ended the Unity of the Eastern and Western Churches (and the return of the East to schism) was the seizure of the Patriarchate (known as the Phanar) by the Islamic Sultan who then imposed his will on the Patriarchate for hundreds of years in what even the Orthodox call the Tourkokratia (rule of the Phanar by non-Christian Sultans). Subsequent to the seizure, it gradually became clear that the Phanar and the Vatican were no longer together, but I have never found a clarion proclamation by the Orthodox acting in Synod that they had figuratively been crossing their fingers back in 1439.
Sure, Gennadius was appointed by the Sultan to be patriarch as one of his first acts upon seizure of the City, and Gennadius had become an opponent of the Reunion prior to the Conquest but when Gennadius had voted in synod at Florence he had supported the Reunion. So the real question should be: If the Filioque issue could be resolved in 1439, why is it such a big obstacle today?
"While one can not reduce the Schism simply to the Filioque that dispute seems very similar to me to many of the criticisms leveled at Protestant disagreement..... if I were ever to "swim a river" it would be the Bosporus and not the Tiber because I truly think the Orthodox understanding of the Bishop of Rome as a first among equals is probably closer in alignment with Ante-Nicene ecclesiology"
Two observations: First, I didn't think the Lutherans come down on the (resurrected) Orthodox side on the Filioque question.
Second, the Orthodox and Catholics were able to compose their differences on all outstanding issues (the Azymes as well as the Filioque, etc.) and reachieve unity as of the 1439 Ecumenical Council of Florence-Ferrara. The subsequent "resumption of hostilities" by the Eastern Church was not due to any formal decision of the Eastern Church to "do over" the decision achieved at the Council; indeed, the two churches were still united in May 1453 and the Pope's representative to the besieged City of Constantinople said Mass at Hagia Sophia shortly before its Fall.
What actually ended the Unity of the Eastern and Western Churches (and the return of the East to schism) was the seizure of the Patriarchate (known as the Phanar) by the Islamic Sultan who then imposed his will on the Patriarchate for hundreds of years in what even the Orthodox call the Tourkokratia (rule of the Phanar by non-Christian Sultans). Subsequent to the seizure, it gradually became clear that the Phanar and the Vatican were no longer together, but I have never found a clarion proclamation by the Orthodox acting in Synod that they had figuratively been crossing their fingers back in 1439.
Sure, Gennadius was appointed by the Sultan to be patriarch as one of his first acts upon seizure of the City, and Gennadius had become an opponent of the Reunion prior to the Conquest but when Gennadius had voted in synod at Florence he had supported the Reunion. So the real question should be: If the Filioque issue could be resolved in 1439, why is it such a big obstacle today?
9.26.2012 | 4:07pm
Russell Belding says:
In many years of attending christian services I cannot recall hearing the word "evangelical" mentioned. This is as it should be. We do not live in party bins but in the wonderful world God has made for us, the one anticipating renewal and waiting for us to begin renewal inside the christian family. King David has advice for us patricksarsfield "I will boast only in the Lord; let all who are helpless take heart. Come let us tell of the Lord's greatness; let us exalt his name together."
9.26.2012 | 6:47pm
patricksarsfield says:
Russell Belding writes (somewhat cryptically):
"In many years of attending christian services I cannot recall hearing the word "evangelical" mentioned."
I don't know what services Mr. Belding attends but evangelical is a common term that essentially means "good message." (eu plus angel) In its nominal form (evangelist), it is often used to describe one of the Johns. That great evangelical, St. Francis of Assisi promulgated the rules for his followers which included the three "evangelical counsels" of poverty, chastity and obedience which have been adopted by subsequent Catholic religious orders as well.
Significantly, those "evangelical counsels" were defined hundreds of years before Martin Luther was even a gleam in his father's eye! Martin, in turn, antedated the Baptists and other sects that would claim the "evangelical" title as their own.
"In many years of attending christian services I cannot recall hearing the word "evangelical" mentioned."
I don't know what services Mr. Belding attends but evangelical is a common term that essentially means "good message." (eu plus angel) In its nominal form (evangelist), it is often used to describe one of the Johns. That great evangelical, St. Francis of Assisi promulgated the rules for his followers which included the three "evangelical counsels" of poverty, chastity and obedience which have been adopted by subsequent Catholic religious orders as well.
Significantly, those "evangelical counsels" were defined hundreds of years before Martin Luther was even a gleam in his father's eye! Martin, in turn, antedated the Baptists and other sects that would claim the "evangelical" title as their own.
9.27.2012 | 3:46am
Russell Belding says:
Hi particksarsfield
Yes I know what the word means and also know the word and associated values arose before the time of Martin L. Nor PS, do I need a lesson in church history.
I am asking you PS, as the intelligent catholic christian you are, to focus more on common ground we share together. In our common confession of Jesus Christ as Lord there is much common ground. Lessons you want to share in church history can be done in books and articles you write. For example PS, your lesson above for "Lutheran Bo Grimes" is a tad pompous! In the rich faith we share in Christ can't you find some common ground? In this brief comment forum lets try to be friendly in Christ. Try treating your fellow christian's outside the catholic church as brothers and sisters not as rivals. I am not asking you to capitulate on your strongly held views about the catholic church. Look for common ground.
Yes I know what the word means and also know the word and associated values arose before the time of Martin L. Nor PS, do I need a lesson in church history.
I am asking you PS, as the intelligent catholic christian you are, to focus more on common ground we share together. In our common confession of Jesus Christ as Lord there is much common ground. Lessons you want to share in church history can be done in books and articles you write. For example PS, your lesson above for "Lutheran Bo Grimes" is a tad pompous! In the rich faith we share in Christ can't you find some common ground? In this brief comment forum lets try to be friendly in Christ. Try treating your fellow christian's outside the catholic church as brothers and sisters not as rivals. I am not asking you to capitulate on your strongly held views about the catholic church. Look for common ground.
9.27.2012 | 11:22am
patricksarsfield says:
Essentially arguing that we should not waste time on facts on this board, RB suggests:
"In our common confession of Jesus Christ as Lord there is much common ground. Lessons you want to share in church history can be done in books and articles you write. For example PS, your lesson above for "Lutheran Bo Grimes" is a tad pompous! In the rich faith we share in Christ can't you find some common ground."
Sorry, but it was Bo who poo-pooed the Western position on the Filioque (despite Lutheranism's profession of that doctrine alongside the Western Catholic Church) and who said he'd rather swim the Bosporus than the Tiber. I was simply pointing out that the Tiber (or was it the Arno?) had not been too wide for the Eastern Church to swim in 1439. If RB deems that "pompous" and antagonistic to the finding of common ground, I must disagree. The Council of Florence-Ferrara turned both the Bosporean strait and the Tiber River into crossable streams and they were definitively crossed for the remaining years of the Byzantine Empire. That Reunificatioon didn't last was not the fault of the Holy Roman Pontiff but of the very un-Christian Sultan of Rum and his patriarchal puppet. Unless that is understood, Protestants seeking to "stand where they do and go no other place" are going to continue wrongly to hold up purported Vatican perfidy as the cause for Eastern Intransigence. The little history I have supplied could cure that and get us to a common ground based on facts, not mythology.
"In our common confession of Jesus Christ as Lord there is much common ground. Lessons you want to share in church history can be done in books and articles you write. For example PS, your lesson above for "Lutheran Bo Grimes" is a tad pompous! In the rich faith we share in Christ can't you find some common ground."
Sorry, but it was Bo who poo-pooed the Western position on the Filioque (despite Lutheranism's profession of that doctrine alongside the Western Catholic Church) and who said he'd rather swim the Bosporus than the Tiber. I was simply pointing out that the Tiber (or was it the Arno?) had not been too wide for the Eastern Church to swim in 1439. If RB deems that "pompous" and antagonistic to the finding of common ground, I must disagree. The Council of Florence-Ferrara turned both the Bosporean strait and the Tiber River into crossable streams and they were definitively crossed for the remaining years of the Byzantine Empire. That Reunificatioon didn't last was not the fault of the Holy Roman Pontiff but of the very un-Christian Sultan of Rum and his patriarchal puppet. Unless that is understood, Protestants seeking to "stand where they do and go no other place" are going to continue wrongly to hold up purported Vatican perfidy as the cause for Eastern Intransigence. The little history I have supplied could cure that and get us to a common ground based on facts, not mythology.
9.28.2012 | 1:55pm
Aggiemom says:
Interesting questions posed by the article. I can't speak for Lutherans, who to my experience have often stayed aloof from other denominations in their work, and I think Wolf Paul is right, but my siblings and parents are all devout Reformed Presbyterian and seem to be preoccupied with doctrinal issues almost to the exclusion of ministry and service. Their reasoning, as far as I can tell, is that the church's mission is to teach and sustain those who have been sovereignly called. Not sure why...maybe they don't realize that the world's needs have changed since 17th c. Geneva.
"I GET to serve...how well put! I GET to read my Bible, pray, and help others. I enjoy the insights from the author's prison ministry to "the least of these." Gig 'em.
"I GET to serve...how well put! I GET to read my Bible, pray, and help others. I enjoy the insights from the author's prison ministry to "the least of these." Gig 'em.
10.3.2012 | 6:11am
Jim Taggart says:
The media connections of many prominent evangelicals associated with the rise of the
Religious Right in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Dobson, Falwell, Robertson,
Robison) along with the lurid headlines connected with the televangelist scandals
(Popov, Roberts, Swaggart, the Bakkers) of the late 1980s has created a pervasive
connection in the popular mind linking evangelicals with the electronic media. The world
of big-time televangelism is hardly reflective of the style, theology, or ethos of all
evangelicalism. However, it does reflect the importance of the movement's revivalistic
heritage as well as the very real fact that evangelicals have traditionally placed a major
emphasis on the utilization of print, broadcast-and now satellite and computer-
technology to reach others with the Gospel. Beginning in the late 18th-century
evangelicals successfully harnessed the printing press to flood America with
inexpensive tracts, pamphlets, newspapers, magazines, books and bibles. The arrival of
electronic-based media in the late 19th and early 20th-centures proved more
problematic, however, as phonographs, motion pictures, and radio cut perilously close
to the heart of traditional evangelical reservations about worldly entertainments. As time
passed, most evangelicals were eventually satisfied that these devices could be used to
teach their own and evangelize non-believers; a plethora of evangelical films, records,
and radio programs ensued.
Religious Right in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Dobson, Falwell, Robertson,
Robison) along with the lurid headlines connected with the televangelist scandals
(Popov, Roberts, Swaggart, the Bakkers) of the late 1980s has created a pervasive
connection in the popular mind linking evangelicals with the electronic media. The world
of big-time televangelism is hardly reflective of the style, theology, or ethos of all
evangelicalism. However, it does reflect the importance of the movement's revivalistic
heritage as well as the very real fact that evangelicals have traditionally placed a major
emphasis on the utilization of print, broadcast-and now satellite and computer-
technology to reach others with the Gospel. Beginning in the late 18th-century
evangelicals successfully harnessed the printing press to flood America with
inexpensive tracts, pamphlets, newspapers, magazines, books and bibles. The arrival of
electronic-based media in the late 19th and early 20th-centures proved more
problematic, however, as phonographs, motion pictures, and radio cut perilously close
to the heart of traditional evangelical reservations about worldly entertainments. As time
passed, most evangelicals were eventually satisfied that these devices could be used to
teach their own and evangelize non-believers; a plethora of evangelical films, records,
and radio programs ensued.
(I'd provide a link but don't want to risk incurring the wrath of the spam filter. You can find it easily in Google Scholar).
The authors were primarily relying on GSS data (which does not ask about infant baptism) but I happen to know most of the authors and can assure you that they have deep knowledge of these issues and belong to denominations with different views on the matter. I see their approach as entirely defensible when viewed from the perspective of social and political alignments. As Hunter (among others) has argued, such doctrinal issues as infant baptism, predestination, etc, have greatly decreased salience compared to how people line up on social attitudes. (The only major exception seems to be suspicion of LDS by people who agree with them about politics but disagree about doctrine, canon, etc).