In a recent post, Nathan Martin shared some interesting observations by Os Guinness about the state of Evangelicalism. It is a thought-provoking post. It made me realize that for all the years I’ve been reading about, and studying, Evangelicalism, self-understanding and self-definition remain, at least as far as I can tell, ever-elusive. What is that? And, for that matter, on this blog site, called, Evangel, do the contributors to this blog site share a common understanding or hold to a common definition of what Evangelicalism is? I’d be very interested to hear what this understanding and definition is.
Mr. Stott, as pointed out by Justin Taylor, has a great essay making an attempt to answer the question. But, I’m still left wondering: what book, or books, could a person point to and say, “Here is the core beliefs of Evangelicals.” Or is such such precision of definition impossible? As a Lutheran, it would be my impression that there are some doctrinal tenets shared in common, but then again would be hard pressed to point to one source for such doctrinal definition, as we Lutherans have it in our Book of Concord.
So, what is Evangelicalism? What does it mean? Where is it found? How is it done?
December 29th, 2009 | 9:16 am | #1
Instead of “what is it” I might ask “what was it” and “what happened to it”? Or does it amount to nothing more than a theological conversation and not a movement, since it seems to have become (to some extent) a theology without an ecclesia?
December 29th, 2009 | 9:41 am | #2
Paul, my first take based on Nathan’s article was to go re-read the Evangelical Manifesto. I was hard-pressed to find anything there with which I disagreed.
December 29th, 2009 | 10:57 am | #3
This is something I don’t worry about as much as I used to because I’ve just about concluded that it will never admit of a complete answer. And that’s OK, as long as, for the most part, we can “know an evangelical when we see one.” There are all kinds of similar questions that don’t admit of complete answers. What is a Republican? a Democrat? a liberal? a conservative? Even in the Catholic Church, we might say we have a definite answer to “What is a Catholic?” But when I hear liberal Catholics rejecting out of hand some very important church teachings (or when I hear a few conservative Catholics trying to be more Catholic than the Pope), I wonder if there is a complete answer there either.
Which is not to say “Evagelicalism doesn’t exist” (though I fear it might not in a decade or two) or “Anything goes.” It’s just, “What is an evangelical?” is not necessarily easy to answer completely in words, and there are alot of similar questions that give us the same problem.
December 29th, 2009 | 11:09 am | #4
So, what is Evangelicalism? What does it mean? Where is it found? How is it done?
A Passion For Truth, by Alister McGrath.
Great Book. Of course as an Anglican he is a heretic to the Truly Reformed (as all Anglicans are), but if you can lay aside your bigotry and read it rather than being blinded by your zealotry, it is a great book about Evangelicalism, answering all three questions.
December 29th, 2009 | 11:43 am | #5
I would say “Evangelicalism” is more the common emphasis on preaching the gospel that emerged in the Protestant revivalism of the 1700s and the first Great Awakening. This seems to be what Guinness has in mind although I could be wrong.
Evangelicalism is really more a form of Protestant spirituality than a theology as I see it. It is what emerged in the face of such stiff theological and ecclesiological disagreements between folks like Wesley and Edwards, and even between congregational Reformed folks like Edwards and Anglican Reformed folks like Whitfield.
This does not mean that there are no common theological commitments among Evangelicals like the uniqueness of Christ, etc., but these commitments are really in the service of a spirituality that emerged from the shared pietism and revivalism of a Wesley, Whitfield, and an Edwards.
The Evangelical Manifesto attempts to articulate the theological impulses that form the shared spirituality.
My problem is that many Reformed folks–whether Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, or Anglicans–try to co-opt the term Evangelical and equate it with Reformed soteriology. For example, Wayne Grudem claims that penal substitutionary theory is orthodox for Evangelicals. I would say, no it’s not although Reformed folks think that it is the best way to understand the atonement.
December 29th, 2009 | 12:01 pm | #6
I need to add something about the Lutheran dimension. It seems to me that German Pietism is how Lutherans enter into and find a home within the early 18th-century revivalism of a Wesley and Whitfield.
The pietist streak runs deep within Lutheranism if one follows the Luther-Arndt-Spener axis.
December 29th, 2009 | 12:19 pm | #7
“Evangelicalism is really more a form of Protestant spirituality than a theology as I see it.”
I think that’s basically right. Evangelicalism strikes me as more of a pre-critical impulse than a carefully reasoned position. That explains the theological diversity of (plain) evangelicals, and why we can seriously talk about Evangelical Anglicans, Evangelical Catholics, etc.
December 29th, 2009 | 1:58 pm | #8
Evangelicalism is the catchall label for protestants who wish to be members of a larger ecclesial body than their current ecclesial organization.
December 29th, 2009 | 2:02 pm | #9
As the decades move on (hey, we are passing into another one in a couple of days!), this probably becomes quite difficult to define. Typically, to be evangelical meant you believed in a handful of things as central to the faith, as maybe these 5 detail: 1) the Bible as the 100% true and faithful word of God, 2) salvation is solely through grace by faith alone, 3) personal belief in Jesus Christ as necessary for salvation, 4) the Trinity, 5) the importance of sharing/proclaiming the gospel to others. And maybe there are a few more.
But, while I am not against those 5 listed above, it is interesting to consider what those things actually mean today. They are real and true, but how are they real and true in a 21st century, postmodern world? You know, kind of like considering how we make the faith real to people in the culture and age we live in, instead of trying to live out the faith as if it is still 1954 or 1982 (not to mention how to make it real in other cultures outside of America).
Another thing to note is that evangelicalism is usually viewed through the very lens of American Christianity. But Christianity is more rampant in the third-world, not forgetting the faith has to be made real to us living in western Europe (as well as eastern Europe, etc).
I am sure we all heard of InternetMonk’s articles on the collapse of evangelicalism, which probably links back into the ‘American idea’ of evangelicalism. They were interesting articles that even a Christianity Today article says it was one of the top 10 theology stories of 2009. You can read the articles here.
December 29th, 2009 | 4:04 pm | #10
Dale, your comment “The Pietist streak runs deep within Lutheranism” needs some very serious qualification. In fact, Lutheran Pietism is responsible for nearly single-handedly destroying authentic confessing Lutheranism, since it eschewed dogmatics, doctrine, the means of grace, the office of the ministry, and so forth. It would be a very serious misinterpretation of Martin Luther to think that he was a Pietist.
December 29th, 2009 | 4:29 pm | #11
The best answer, IMO, is the 2 volume “Essentials of Evangelical Theology” by Donald Bloesch.
December 29th, 2009 | 5:33 pm | #12
Paul,
I did not mean to imply that German Pietism has not had a troubled history within Lutheranism. Nor did I intend to claim that Luther himself was a Pietist. Instead, I intentionally put Arndt and Spener down because Arndt certainly thought he was propagating Luther’s experiential emphasis in On the Freedom of a Christian, and, of course, Spener’s Pia Desideria was originally a preface to Arndt.
However, my real point was to say that there is still an emphasis on experiential piety within Lutheranism. The Lutheran charismatics that I know draw on this stream and will even talk about the synergism of a Melanchthon. Most Lutherans will simply talk about the sacraments as encounters with God because of real presence.
All of this sort of reinforces the point that it’s easier to talk about Lutheran, Reformed, Pentecostal, than it is to talk about Evangelical, which is why I said it’s a spirituality.
December 29th, 2009 | 6:32 pm | #13
Dale, there is no “Lutheranism,” as it is properly understood and defined, apart from the confessions of the Lutheran Church, as contained in the Book of Concord. “Lutheran charismatics” is an oxymoron. It’s just a bunch of bored Lutherans dabbling with 20th century American Pentecostalism. The Lutheran Church firmly rejected Melanchthon’s errors on several key points.
December 29th, 2009 | 7:21 pm | #14
OK Paul. I’m not going to get into a debate with you about the proper way to define Lutheranism, whether historically or doctrinally. Suffice it to say that your refusal even to allow me to call Spener or Arndt who both thought they were Lutheran as Lutheran belies your Missouri Synod credentials. I mean just read Oberman on Luther and the experiential dimension comes out. And as for Melanchthon, well, I won’t go there. . . .
December 29th, 2009 | 7:26 pm | #15
Rev. McCain,
As someone largely ignorant of modern Lutheranism I might be out of place in asking this, but isn’t it called the “Evangelical Lutheran Church”? At least, my prof. from Sweden insists regularly that we’ve coopted the term from the Swedish Lutherans…
To your main point, Roger Olson in his History of Evangelical Theology gives this as a (rather windy) definition:
Within this broad definition falls the whole spectrum of Christianity, Arminian, Calvinist, premillinialist, amillinialist, paedobaptists, credobaptists, etc.
Olson then goes on to discuss four roots and three influences that have created modern Evangelicalism (all primarily Protestant):
Root 1) Pietism
Root 2) Revivalism
Root 3) Puritanism
Root 4) Wesleyanism
Influence 1) 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings
Influence 2) The Old Princeton Theology
Influence 3) The Holiness/Pentecostal Movement
Influence 4) Fundamentalism
I think Olson’s got a decent definition, if a bit complicated. I would just want to additionally stress three further points (which he does make, I just don’t think he makes them strongly enough):
1) The Protestant nature of Evangelicals. Despite the odd Catholic evangelical push (one of the guys in my Bible study regularly insists that he is a “Catholic Evangelical”, I claim ignorance of whether this exists in EO or not), evangelicalism remains a solidly Protestant movement.
2) The amount of engagement with the culture. Unlike Fundamentalists (with whom evangelicals have many things in common), the premise the society is fallen does not automatically lead to the conclusion that we ought to withdraw from it, or create our own. Rather, Evangelicals attempt on at least some level to stay involved in schools, arts, politics, etc. (Though an argument could probably be made that this is changing in modern evangelicalism.)
3) The historical nature of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism did not spring full grown out of the head of Billy Graham, it is a part (a “stream”, J.I. Packer called it) of traditional Christianity, embracing the historical creeds and confessions of faithful Christians through the centuries. I don’t have the historical knowledge to speak more to this, but I suspect that we Evangelicals are lazy when it comes to church history, particularly to the Patristic and Medieval stuff. After all, we -at least, I- argue, why should we put time and energy into reading the church fathers when that same time and energy could be spent reading the Puritans? Or Calvin? Or Luther? Or any of the great modern writers out there? When something’s got to give, it usually ends up being the earlier Christians. I suspect to our great discredit…
And wow, that turned out to be much longer than I thought it would. Apologies for the long-windedness!
December 29th, 2009 | 7:31 pm | #16
Thanks for adding to the interesting responses on this post.
December 29th, 2009 | 7:35 pm | #17
Dale, the error you are making here is trying to squeeze Lutheranism into the “renewal” interest and concern that you represent. The charismatic movement has very little to do with anything resembling historic and classic Lutheranism, but it’s emphasis on ecstatic speaking, and experiences, was soundly rejected by Martin Luther and historic Lutheranism.
December 29th, 2009 | 7:44 pm | #18
Oh, and for the record, I never said Arndt and Spener were not Lutherans. What I’m doing is rejecting Dale’s premises which are born of his identification with the modern phenomenon known as the charismatic movement, which is always striving to justify itself by pulling as many theologies, movements and persons into its orbit as possible.
December 29th, 2009 | 10:17 pm | #19
Yes, that was my original intention behind composing the two or three lines about German pietism in a post about evangelicalism. I really wanted to justify the charismatic movement because God knows that a global movement with around 600 million people needs a little more justification from me.
I’m not trying to squeeze Lutheranism into any mold other than suggesting that the pietist strain of Lutheranism has some affinity with the revivalism of the 1700s. And there are clear historical links that make this point. I tried to suggest such links by noting the clear theological line (in terms of the history of ideas) from Luther to Spener and beyond. I did not mention the later developments at Halle or raise the ghost of Schleiermacher and so many other German Lutheran theologians who were born in the fires of pietism. All I wished to do was draw a historical connection in the early 1700s.
I’m not the one who had an allergic reaction to the mention of German Pietism or any mention of Lutheran charismatics as though these folks just simply cannot exist without complete contradiction; or who felt the need to provide a short statement on genuine Lutheranism. I mean every statement I make about Lutheranism you feel the need to correct or revise in light of some precisely defined and properly nuanced understanding.
I don’t care about trying to incorporate Lutheranism into any part of the charismatic movement although I try to help Lutheran charismatics make some connection to their own tradition. However, as a historian, neither do I wish to rewrite Lutheran history through a narrowly defined doctrinal lense.
It’s funny that these posts are occurring. I thought by making the statements I could make some connection with where you were Paul. Obviously I failed miserably at that effort and have ended up alienating you further. It just reminds me of the severe limitations of this kind of communication. If we were in a room having a discussion I doubt such misunderstandings would emerge, but maybe I’m wrong there too.
December 29th, 2009 | 11:32 pm | #20
Interestingly enough, there is a group “The Evangelical Catholic,” about which you can read here: http://www.evangelicalcatholic.com/
I’ve published my own reflections on this in my book Return to Rome ( http://returntorome.com ) as well as in an excerpt of the book recently published in the Josephinum Journal of Theology, “Evangelical and Catholic,” which you can find on my website here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/JJT.pdf
December 29th, 2009 | 11:38 pm | #21
Here are the last two paragraphs of the article I reference in my prior post:
December 30th, 2009 | 8:03 am | #22
[...] E. Sagers Fred Sanders Justin Taylor Frank Turk David Wayne Jared C. Wilson Recent Comments What is Evangelicalism? (21)Francis Beckwith: Here are the last two paragraphs of the article I reference in my prior… What is [...]
December 30th, 2009 | 9:11 am | #23
Dale, the reason I feel the need to correct your comments is not due to a need to “precisely” define or “properly nuance” your remarks, but simply to correct the fundamental errors inherent in your remarks. Simply put, you are misinterpreting history and Lutheranism.
December 30th, 2009 | 10:29 am | #24
It would seem then that the “problem” of nailing down what “it” is comes from the fact that each individual believer regards himself as the ultimate interpretive authority about Scripture, a right relationship with God and the proper practical “therefore” applications of th same.
Thus while a knowledge of various historical groups and their beliefs is important, there’s no attempt to justify one doctrine’s organic growth from time to time and place to place over another doctrine. Each man seems to have freedom to pick and choose, cut and paste.
Without a church with men endowed with authority to bind and lose as well as creeds or constitutions agreed upon as binding now and forever, each generation and each individual becomes a world unto himself.
In such an evironment how could there be a universally acceptible definition of what Evangelicalism is (like via a creed that some authoritative body would need to promulgate and regulate), and who therefore can call himself one?
You say belief in scripture is essential. I ask, how do we know these books and not others are in fact, “scripture”? On whose authority was the canon made?
Which brings us back essentially to the very presuppositions of the Reformation itself in the idea of sola scritura which necessarily de-couples a believer from history and a person to person link to the Apostles and the Church to whom Jesus promised His Spirit and his authority to make disciples of all the nations.
Still, despite this hobbling a priori idea of sola scritura, the human heart yearns for a kingdom, a church, an authority outside our own heart and mind, a sense of belonging to a cloud of witnesses. Thus we get occasional groups, colleges, churches even that rise up only to disintegrate over another disagreement about what the Bible says, means, or how best to apply this or that.
As a professional philosopher my heart weeps for the confusions men and groups get into by skipping their first principles, first presuppositions and a prioris and jumping into topics that only have potential if laid on a solid foundation. The Reformation was not built on rock which is why groups continue to disintegrate on all sides. If you don’t know where the bible came from and on whose authority…. seems to me that you’d better put some attention into THAT question first.
December 30th, 2009 | 11:13 am | #25
Post #25 is a perfect example of someone’s a priori at work. The assumption is that whatever it was that the Reformation set in motion by Luther accomplished, it was Divinely inspired, authorized, and/or ‘true’ Christianity.
And what was the reformation about if not at least 3 core ideas? The bible, not the church is the sole authority for a disciple….faith (whatever that means) and not “works”(what ever that means) saves (whatever that means) a soul and that grace (what ever that means) and not human cooperation is the sole mover in anyone’s life.
Now, presumably these core ideas are all biblical. Presumably there are solid reasons for believing them to be ‘true’ Christianity, clearly taught by Jesus’ own words, by the actions of the Apostles and earliest Christian leaders….right?
And that therefore every subsequent individual leader’s theological understanding or doctrine based on these assumptions ought to be studied in depth to tease out how one idea lead organically to another up to the current situation. A family tree if you will.
Once the tree of thought is laid out, then we can decide (based on what criteria?) which idea or theory is ‘true Christianity’ and which isn’t. Presumably all while infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit since we’re just going to skip 1400 years of history.
Has this never occured to you to be a rather large set of assumptions to make?
If you assume Mohammed really saw an angel of the Lord and the Koran really was God’s last message to humanity, then inevitably you must become a Muslim of some type or other.
If you assume Karl Marx’s grasp of economics, history, and metaphysics was right, you inevitably will become a atheistic materialist who believes that utopia is the state.
If you assume Luther’s insights or teachings are true and one may jettison the previous 1400 years of Christian history….likewise you’re operating on a massive assumption that needs grounding.
First principles gentlemen. Brass tacks. No matter what definition you develop for anything can and will be challenged by another self-described believer and there’s no final authority to arbitrate.
December 30th, 2009 | 11:49 am | #26
Oh, ok, I’ll play along. John, where is that final authority to arbitrate? Is it that “final authority” that has concocted myths into doctrine? LIke Papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary? Or is there another “final authority” you have in mind?
December 30th, 2009 | 11:54 am | #27
John,
You mention post #25. Did you mean my post on Lutheranism? I can assure you that I hold no such inspired view of the Reformation if so. My only point was a historical one, not a theological one.
As a medievalist, I certainly think that the church was quite alive and well prior to the Reformation.
The concept of sola scriptura is quite slippery in early Reformation. I think it ultimately only makes sense in a strongly predestinarian framework where the elect have the right interpretation by virtue of their election. This is how at least Zwingli thought of sola scriptura functioning within the visible church as a mixed body. Scripture can stand in authority over the visible church because the invisible body of elect will always ensure that the visible body has the correct understanding. I don’t agree with this perspective, but it helps me to understand what early Reformers like Zwingli and Bucer thought sola scriptura was.
The idea of sola fide was really a rejection of the scholastic idea of an infused habitus. Faith was really an affective movement captured in the Latin term fiducia (heartfelt reliance) rather than an infused disposition enlivened by the habit of charity.
And thus “works” were ruled out by magisterial Reformers on the basis of a divine monergism in which the Spirit generated new affective impulses. This is why early Reformed thinkers talk about the faith that alone saves is never alone. The affective movement of faith is part of a series of movements the Spirit generates and these internal impulses give rise to human activity (works). Some Reformers like Melanchthon start to give a more prominent place for human activity by endorsing synergism.
This is obviously an oversimplification, but I hope it helps you get a sense for some of the issues.
December 30th, 2009 | 12:15 pm | #28
Thanks for the clarifications Dale. However, I note you use and appreciate the title ‘magisterial’ reformers…. this begs the question as to how they came to claim teaching authority in the first place.
As for “Rev” Paul…please, let’s do play! The bible didn’t drop out of the sky. And there were plenty of other letters and gospels floating around in the first and second centuries AD.
So how did the New Testament come to be compiled, by whom, and through what mechanism was this compilation of books accepted as “scripture”? I would say, based on my reading of many of the early Church fathers as well as the Gospels, Acts, and the epistles that it’s pretty clear that Jesus founded a Church, gave its leaders his authority and mandated them to make disciples of all the nations.
Thus the scriptures were written by these Church leaders, and the canon was approved by their successors continuing their charism of guiding the flock of Christ.
The liturgy, the moral doctrine, the interpretive authority…all resides in that group of men whom Jesus picked and to whom he promised the permanent assistance of his Spirit until the end of time.
Absent a living group of men who can give the up or down interpretation of scripture, there can be no ‘final’ word on what any line means. After all, the Lord didn’t just give the people the stone tablets ‘alone’ did He? No, he always had leaders explaining, chiding, recalling, and bringing the people back to the original intent of the Sinai covenant.
Likewise, Our Lord commanded no one to write anything down, but to preach, make disciples, cast out demons, etc. it was on their own initative that letters were written to the various communities and on their successor’s initative that these letters were considered on par with the Old Testament as “scripture”.
Thus, for me, as a believer in the 21st century, to be “true” to Jesus’ commands, I can’t rely on my own lights and insights while reading the bible, I need to make sure – like Paul! – that my ideas conform with that of the community of believers of all times – and of those who have succeeded the apostles. For Jesus didn’t say “everyone” is leader and everyone may bind and lose.
So that’s my play. I think it’s far more respectful of both scripture and history and the need to conform oneself to the cloud of witnesses than YOUR idea of an ahistorical Christianity that ignores the first 1400 years and conjures up some mythical ‘early Christianity’ that was non-hierarchical, non-creedal, non-sacramental or liturgical all the evidence to the contrary be damned.
I only believe the Bible is true because the Church says it is. What’s your excuse?
December 30th, 2009 | 12:25 pm | #29
As a quick clarification, I only intended ‘magisterial’ as a historical marker that identifies Lutheran and Reformed wings of the Protestant Reformation as opposed to Anabaptism or even what’s happening in England.
I did not intend in any technical sense of having teaching authority over the church.
I tend to agree with your read of early Christianity although I would not quite put it in terms of the church saying the Bible is true. If, as you indicated, it is charisms that guide this whole historical process, then the Spirit who bestows the charisms in the first place bear witness through human agents to the truthfulness of Christianity, whether that truthfulness be expressed in its biblical form or in the ongoing teaching of the church.
I would also say that since the same Spirit was bestowed upon you in baptism, you can rely upon your insights to the extent that the Spirit causes you to grow in the truth. Certainly, the Fathers became Fathers precisely because the Spirit enabled them to see the truth more clearly. However, I see your point about the Spirit’s operation in the individual must be linked to the Spirit’s operation in the church through her teaching authority.
I would think that Paul, with his emphasis on the Book of Concord as basically having teaching authority for Lutheranism, would agree with you.
December 30th, 2009 | 1:18 pm | #30
Yes, and the Church fathers that the Spirit moved to call the council that decided the canon of scripture from which we now argue the meaning of….was a Church that had already determined the Creed, many Christological, Trinitarian, Marian, Ecclesial, liturgical, disciplinary and moral doctrines as ‘true’ too…..
By the mid-300′s they already had bishops, priests and deacons. 7 Sacraments and liturgies. Clerical celibacy and nascient orders of monks and virgins. Relics and prayers to martyrs and saints… in short, the group of believers who decided on the canon of scripture which we must believe were so inspired by the Holy Spirit were not proto-Protestants but Catholics. And that’s not my opinion or spin, that’s the historical record.
Thus while superficial applications of the Gospel in various times and places, ethnicities, languages, and socio-political situations have come and gone, the ‘deposit of faith’ which includes the Scripture has endured along with the institution’s body of men who have inherited the charism via the direct laying on of hands from Apostle to successor and so on.
St Irenaeus of Lyon in the 2nd century was a disciple of St Polycarp, who was a disciple of St John the Apostle… and already only 3 generations from Our Lord, we see a self-understanding of the fellowship as being ‘Catholic’, sacramental, hierarchical, etc. They preached from ‘scripture’ even though the canon hadn’t been decided on, but then their authority to do so was determined not by scripture but by person to person aprobation from others with the charism of leadership via the laying on of hands….
So it’s not whose smartest or smoothest, or the best preacher or richest, or has the best hair… it’s not the most ‘charismatic’ that’s endowed with magisterium, but he to whom it’s been given – which could be a Peter or an Andrew or a Paul….
Impecability and omniscience are not part of the charism as both Luther and a host of Catholic saints like Catherine of Sienna have made most clear. But as flawed as many of these leaders have been, they have received the charism of leadership and the proof seems to be their holding fast to it if only in their public capacity and not always their private lives.
Still, one may rebuke Peter’s successor as “Paul’s successor” for actions one thinks are wrong without breaking communion with Peter successor’s authority to bind and lose or with all his predecessors’ and the councils’ witness about Jesus and the Gospel as applied in various times and places.
But all of us, if we’re honest and believe to be inspired by the Spirit of Jesus, must seek out those to whom this charism has been given for it wasn’t given to anyone merely because they were baptised – as is evident in Acts of the Apostles with the situation in Samaria and Simon the Magician or in the epistles of Paul or John warning some local leader from the bad example of another or of ‘wolves’ coming in to preach new doctrines on their own authority and not in communion with that of the apostles….
Truly, how does one read Acts of the Apostles and not see a single hierarchical church expanding globally, sharing a common gospel, prayers and liturgies, a common moral doctrine and a common sense of belonging in organic and historical continuity with the ancient patriarchs & prophets?
How does one read of Peter’s decision to baptize pagans on the premise of his own vision and his own insight/inspiration and not his quoting scripture and not conclude that he’s giving an example of ‘extra-biblical’ guidance of the Spirit leading the Church “in all truth”?
Obviously Our Lord said and did more than was recorded in the Gospels and obviously the apostles’ doctrines and what structures they developed came from those ‘other sayings’…which is why sola scritura simply can’t be the way Jesus wanted his followers to come to know and try to follow him to the Father!
Of course, if one was backed into a corner as Luther was, and it was the Church on one side and no one else on the other, naturally a good German is going to say “you are ALL wrong, as was the last 1400 years, and I’m right, because I say so.” And everyone ELSE will look at Luther and apply the same argument and thus, we’ll never be able to say who is and is NOT a “true believer” since there could not possibly be any final authority on the matter other than ourselves.
And this….is not “biblical”. It’s sad and one hopes those with ears to hear will hear.
December 30th, 2009 | 1:38 pm | #31
Yikes, I totally do not want to get in the middle of this disagreement between Rev. McCain and Dale, but I was wondering if I could get a quick clarification on Dale’s first comment regarding penal substitutionary atonement being a Reformed soteriological doctrine. I was under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church holds to it and not simply the Reformed and that it’s mainly the EO church that does not. Could you clarify briefly if you get a chance? Other than that bit, I thought your description of Evangelicalism was essentially on the mark.
December 30th, 2009 | 1:40 pm | #32
Well, the historical record is not quite a clean cut as you imply John.
First, as far as I know, there never was a council that determined the canon. In fact, I don’t think a final canon was ever determined until Trent. Just compare these four lists: Athanasius’ Festal Letter; Synod of Carthage; Augustine’s list in De doctrina Christiana; and Jerome’s lists in the prefaces to his Latin translation. You find divergences in all of them. And this does not even begin to talk about the canonical lists you find in Armenia, which, as you know, was the first kingdom to become Christian in circa 312.
Luther and early Protestants just elected to go with Jerome’s list over Augustine and others in the early church. The Tridentine Fathers recognized that no definitive list had been drawn up so they set about doing just that.
Also, I don’t think you can simply single out Irenaeus’ attempt to formulate some sort of direct line of succession in response to Gnosticism as an indication of how the entire early church thought about those issues. Some historians these days do not think there was a sole bishop in Rome until the third decade of the third century. Also, Montanism or the New Prophecy was fairly prevalent in Asia Minor and it had a version in North Africa. Just think about Tertullian’s attempt to say that the new prophecies of Montanism were in line with the rule of faith as he understood it.
There is no single hierarchical church in the first century. Just compare Paul’s house churches with Acts and even Matthew’s or the Didache’s warnings about itinerant prophets and you’ll see. Or, simply think about the authority of the anonymous prophet John who authored the book of Revelation or Hermas the prophet who authored the Shepherd, which was accepted as authoritative in some sense even by Athanasius. Hermas was not a bishop, elder, or anything of that type.
Also, they did not have clerical celibacy as some requirement by the 300s. To claim that would be to discount the entire Orthodox Church, which still does not have clerical celibacy. All you need to do is read some of the letters from priests against the Gregorian Reforms in the mid-11th century and you’ll see that southern Italy (which was controlled by Byzantium) still had married priests.
While I tend to agree the basic theological point you’re making, the historical record is much less clear than you suggest.
December 30th, 2009 | 1:52 pm | #33
Albert,
As I see it, Anselm of Canterbury developed an understanding of the atonement in terms of satisfaction. He did this in response to a Western version of Christus Victor, which said that Christ’s death liberated humanity from the devil who had a legal right to enslave humanity (Devil’s Rights theory). Anselm did not exclude entirely the idea that Jesus’ death was a victory over the devil, but he did suggest that this death was primarily to satisfy the justice of God.
Penal substitution was largely articulated by Reformed thinkers like John Calvin as the Reformation intensification of Anselm’s theory. But most historians will tell you that they are not the same.
However, Anselm’s satisfaction account was taken up by other medieval thinkers like Aquinas and placed within a more comprehensive understanding of the atonement.
So basically Anselm’s notion of satisfaction spun out a family of theories on the atonement, and you could put penal substitution within that family. But it’s a different branch on the tree.
And Christus Victor is still prevalent in the medieval church through folks like Julian of Norwich and others, not least because Augustine himself held to a version of it.
December 30th, 2009 | 4:14 pm | #34
Dale, again, thanks. Most illuminating. I appreciate your scholarship.
A couple of notes though. Firstly, while it’s true there are differences in canons and nothing globally ‘definitive’ until Trent (by which time of course Lutherans et al rejected Church authority entirely…), still it remains that it was not self-proclaimed leaders or individual believers who determined what was “the bible”, pace the Fathers who listed their sources…it was councils. Individuals floated theories all the time (hence all the heresies!) Some of the fathers’ ideas were later rejected, some were simply based on factual errors or mistakes.
But who called them “Fathers” again? The Church. At Councils. Of bishops. Who grappled with serious arguments over what was and was not ‘true’ to the Gospel message.
And yes, Rome wasn’t corporate HQ. And a city of several million souls may have possibly had several bishops. But there WERE bishops and correspondence and consultation between them did occur regularly in the first centuries AD…and the believers under them gave no sign of doubting that Bishops did indeed have authority…not absolute, but real nonetheless. And all the while the growing communities of Christians were going to Mass, praying for the dead, venerating relics….
So how could this be simply cast aside in the 1500s as superfluous or unbiblical? Just because some Germans didn’t quite understand it so assumed it was baseless? I know alot of teens who assume Mom and Dad are wrong because they ‘don’t understand’.
Secondly, I did not say (but perhaps was unclear) that celibacy was mandatory, only that it was already present in the early centuries. As were the other signs and doctrines that are much more Catholic than Protestant, such as the hierarchy itself, sacraments, relics, devotions to martyrs and saints, intercessory prayer, liturgies and the greater doctrines on the nature of Christ, Mary as Mother of God, and other things.
Sure there was a widespread difference in HOW the Gospel was lived and practiced and HOW explained (and in what language to what audience and under what socio-political situation). Thus sure, in Paul’s time all the communities started out meeting in private homes… but that didn’t last very long as the numbers grew! At other times believers met in the underground catacombs or woods. Surely space for adaptation is allowable without reading into this some sort of “therefore it’s got to be that way and not another”.
One thing Evangelicals (and other Protestants) could learn from is precisely this lost 1400 years worth of the insights and theories of these believers. They didn’t appear to have any issue with Marian doctrine, Papal primacy within a framework of local patriarchs and bishops with vast autonomy and the regular council meetings of hundreds of these men…
So don’t read too much into the real differences of details. Keep in mind the bigger context and actual praxis too. You can’t tell me that there were major centers of folk back then who simultaneously avoided Christological heresies and yet also held Reform era ideas about authority, the bible alone, faith, etc.
Or maybe you’ve found some evidence of them. I haven’t. And that surely ‘means something’ for a modern believer seeking to found his faith on something more than his own lights.
Finally, we need to again look at the extra-biblical…. Jesus said and did more than what’s recorded. One is not reaching to assume that the apostles and earliest disciples and successors’ actions and subsequent teachings (liturgy, theology, moral discipline, ecclesiology and Marian devotion) was based on this corpus of teaching that wasn’t written down.
Luke and Matthew obviously got their childhood narative material from an eye witness. One could hardly expect the earliest Christians to NOT venerate the Mother of Our Lord and teach their children to follow suit.
December 30th, 2009 | 4:27 pm | #35
John,
Truly, how does one read Acts of the Apostles and not see a single hierarchical church expanding globally, sharing a common gospel, prayers and liturgies, a common moral doctrine and a common sense of belonging in organic and historical continuity with the ancient patriarchs & prophets?
Quite easily. As Christianity spreads, there are clearly numerous locally-run churches spreading throughout the region, and eventually through the world. As the church spreads, the Gospel message gets twisted (intentionally or otherwise), some local morals are accepted and some are rejected, and the sense of historical continuity with the patriarchs and prophets is questioned (especially as it related to the issue of circumcision). If there were unity amongst the various churches, we wouldn’t have much of the New Testament (cf especially Galatians and the epistles to the Corinthians- Paul wasn’t writing to congratulate them on their conformity to the church hierarchy, nor was that his proposed remedy).
How does one read of Peter’s decision to baptize pagans on the premise of his own vision and his own insight/inspiration and not his quoting scripture and not conclude that he’s giving an example of ‘extra-biblical’ guidance of the Spirit leading the Church “in all truth”?
I don’t know if I can say this without being sarcastic to the point of rudeness, so if I offend, I do apologize. But need I point out the irony of where you’re drawing this authoritative story from?
Yes, and the Church fathers that the Spirit moved to call the council that decided the canon of scripture from which we now argue the meaning of….was a Church that had already determined the Creed, many Christological, Trinitarian, Marian, Ecclesial, liturgical, disciplinary and moral doctrines as ‘true’ too…..
I assume you’re referring to the Synod of Carthage? In which case I would make two points:
1) As I understand it, this Synod was called to confirm the canon already in use against that of the Novatians, though my history here is a bit rusty and I’m too lazy to pull Schaff off the shelf and look it up, so take that for what it’s worth.
2) The fact that a Council (or any group of people, for that matter) decreed something about Scripture does not automatically lead to the conclusion that such an entity has any sort of right to do so.
And I suspect this difference is much more fundamental than a difference over the historical development of a doctrine like sola scriptura (even if Augustine meant what we modern Protestants mean by it when he first said it). This is really a fundamental difference over the place of Scripture in the life of a believer. From the Protestant perspective, Scripture and Scripture alone is where God reveals Himself most fully in an intimate and personal way. Of course we can learn general truths about God other places (nature, the family, the Imago Dei in man, tradition, politics, etc), but we don’t get the personal message of salvation and reconciliation without going to where God is most revealed. To us Protestants, “the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8) is not mere poetic whimsy, but must be an absolute truth because God’s Word is so tied to His character that it can never fail. And as the only thing in all of creation with those qualities, we must make it central. I suspect that such an understanding of the nature of Scripture is absent from most RC and EO theology, despite its being held by many of those whom RCs claim as “doctors of the church.”
December 30th, 2009 | 6:12 pm | #36
John,
Truly, how does one read Acts of the Apostles and not see a single hierarchical church expanding globally, sharing a common gospel, prayers and liturgies, a common moral doctrine and a common sense of belonging in organic and historical continuity with the ancient patriarchs & prophets?
Huh? I guess because when you read Acts you don’t see any semblance of a hierarchical organization whatsoever. There is no common prayer, no liturgies. The better question would be how do you read Acts and come away with Roman Catholicism?
December 30th, 2009 | 6:55 pm | #37
John,
Thanks again for your response and clarification. I actually think we’re closer than you realize. You’re fighting hard against Luther and I don’t really have a dog in that fight (to borrow an old Southernism).
First, I’m with you on the insight from the whole of the history of Christianity. While I am a Protestant I want to claim it all and give Tradition an authoritative role here. I don’t see sola scriptura as excluding Tradition, but as emphasizing the centrality of scripture within Tradition with which I assume you would concur.
Second, I take your point about celibacy. It was affirmed at least by some in the third century and became the alternative way of living (the sold out for Jesus kind) in the late third and early fourth centuries with the emergence of monasticism.
But third, in response to your statements about the episcopacy, I really don’t see what historians call monepiscopacy as universally in early Christianity until the middle of the third century. In the first century, I see the structure as fairly loose and comprising a number of different “leaders” depending on the location. For example, James was the leader in Jerusalem until 70 CE, and his leadership is attested to by Paul in Galatians and a saying in the Gospel of Thomas (one of your oral sayings of Jesus?), but he was not an apostle, bishop or even an elder. If there were bishops, these were presbyter-bishops and not bishops in the sense of the three-fold office that developed. Yes, presbyter-bishops had authority, but it had to be negotiated. I am reminded of the prophecy that Ignatius of Antioch gave to either the Trailians or Philadelphians about obeying the bishop, which suggests that they were not really listening to him.
Finally, I don’t think you appreciate the whole context of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. So, for example, sola scriptura was formulated in light of the university education of the time which required theologians to write a commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences that interacted with about three centuries of previous commentary. Sola scriptura was a way of saying that the commentary tradition of medieval scholasticism was unnecessary. Just think about the way Augustine responded to Pelagius. He did not cite a council because there was no council he could cite, but he appealed always directly to scripture. And Luther did not simply spring out the ground; he was first a Catholic reformer like his superior Staupitz was a reformer. There were plenty of Catholic reformers like Savonarola who was killed by the pope for his prophecies about Florence, and Erasmus and Thomas More, both of whom were humanists who did not have much time for scholastic theologians. I think you need to recognize that the Catholic church was in need of reform as many historians have pointed out. Trent was a reforming council.
December 31st, 2009 | 11:43 am | #38
Dale, I appreciate your thoughts. I was aware of differing models in the early Church of was “exactly” happened on Calvary, but I was under the impression that after Anselm, penal substitution (of some kind) was accepted as the central view for the Church (not to the exclusion of the other models).
I would expect that the precise formulations of Calvin and Anselm would differ by virtue of Calvin having the luxury of centuries more of doctrinal development; I was just surprised that the characterization of penal substitutionary atonement as a “Reformed” doctrine of soteriology. Double predestination, sure. But PSA, in light of its being held (not in exactly the same terms) in so much of the Western church since Anselm?
I think my tired brain might have been able to avoid being confused if something like this were written instead: “For example, Wayne Grudem claims that Calvin’s formulation of penal substitutionary theory is orthodox for Evangelicals. I would say, no it’s not although Reformed folks think that it is the best way to understand the atonement.”
One last thing: what do you think of John Stott’s treatment of the subject in The Cross of Christ?
December 31st, 2009 | 2:56 pm | #39
I have not read Stott’s work so I could not comment. Leon Morris’ book on the cross is a defense of penal substitution, and it’s true that most evangelicals hold to it.
I didn’t put it the way you suggested because Grudem does not say anything about Calvin. However, I need to do some more checking to see if the first generation of Reformed thinkers held to penal substitution. I said Reformed because it quickly becomes the model for Puritans and other Reformed thinkers.
I just always want to separate Anselm and the medieval scholastics understanding of satisfaction from penal substitionary theory.
Maybe I should have said that penal substitutionary theory is especially designed to fit forensic justification, which Anselm did not hold. Thus penal substitutionary theory sees the primary problem with humanity in terms of guilt rather than in terms of a an inherited condition.
I think Anselm’s satisfaction theory is more designed to address the lack of rectitude or uprightness in both humans and the universe, which means that Anselm stills see the big issue in terms of a condition. Rectitude is closely aligned to Anselm’s view of justice. So “satisfying” God’s justice is really about restoring rectitude so that humans can fulfill their original purpose of being both upright/just and happy.
December 31st, 2009 | 3:49 pm | #40
Dale, again, thanks.
It’s obvious that institutions and roles in the Church have changed over the years according to various organic developments of the believers, experience ad intra and experience ad extra.
So one would expect to find smaller local church communities first and later – a century or two later – large churches meeting not in homes but Bascillicas or other large meeting places… organic growth.
Similarly, one would expect there to be a plethora of leadership roles fleshed out, improved on, etc. So in Acts we do see first the apostles doing alot…then deciding on the role of Deacons to assist them. One sees Apollos career and the rise of local leaders like Titus or Timothy. In any event one also comes to Bishops and presbyters as well… not perhaps involed in the same ‘jobs’ or roles as modern ones, but there nevertheless.
And that was all lost at the Reformation as ‘unbiblical’…. and yet it wasn’t. It was biblical, and historic. And one would presume, the response by those early believers to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
As for the need for the Church to reform itself…yes, of course. I don’t believe the whole church has ever been in a perfect 100% unity of mind and heart since ever. There were always problems needing addressing. Leaders needed dressing down (Paul to Peter) and so did junior leaders or new disciples (Aquila to Apollos). But note in Acts that when there was a difference of opinion in Antioch, it was not resolved by the two parties quoting scripture to each other. It was resolved by a Council of the apostles in Jerusalem. Both scripture and practical need was cited and a solution worked out. But again the Church did not merely send a letter…. it wasn’t a “sola scritura” moment: they also sent two representatives to make sure that letter was interpreted and implemented correctly.
And so we come back to Scripture vs. “The Gospel”. Jesus commanded his disciples to preach and make disciples. They took the inititive to write some of this preaching down which later became “scripture”. But it was imperative that a living soul inspired by the Spirit and endowed with authority to bind and lose (and interpret/test spirits) be present to keep all these far flung little communities from straying.
Else what are we to conclude? That the Galatians couldn’t read? Or that they could, but any letter or constitution or creed can be misinterpreted and twisted out of context and original intent both by accident and by malice.
Hence Jesus’ command to people to preach rather than write it all down and make a zillion copies for distribution….and his promise to be with them, the preachers, always.
So yeah, sure, absolutely, the Bible is vital. But neither in the first century or in our century is it “alone” sufficient for the believer to come to know the truth and live it as Jesus intended we do.
If only because in the first centuries they had sacraments and believed that Baptism was one, and Eucharist too, and Reconciliation and Annointing, and Confirmation…… while many Protestants jettisoned all that when they let go of the priesthood.
So here’s the thing…. from my perspective it’s not that you are all “wrong” as much as that you’re all fellow Christians who are not availing yourselves of the treasures of the Kingdom that is yours if only you recognized it. A treasure hidden in a field indeed!
Sure rubrics, the ‘how’ of sacraments have differed over the centuries and from place to place, but the ‘what’ and basis in both scripture and historical evidence is solid. So how does one just wave it all away as ‘not there’ in the way Jesus wanted to come to us when it was there from the beginning?
This isn’t to say Catholics haven’t botched the liturgy over the years or priests and bishops haven’t been sinners and bad examples in need of reform. Sure they have. Protestants too. But in the early Church there were sacraments so….. how could a modern Christian today not feel the need to regain them if the point is to be as Jesus originally intended us to be?
December 31st, 2009 | 4:53 pm | #41
“So here’s the thing…. from my perspective it’s not that you are all “wrong” as much as that you’re all fellow Christians who are not availing yourselves of the treasures of the Kingdom that is yours if only you recognized it. A treasure hidden in a field indeed!”
John, that’s one of the most charitable things you could say to me. And all I can say is pray for me that God would continue to guide me into the truth, and I will do the same for you. And may our journey to the truth one day find us together as no longer separated brothers, but united in the one kingdom of our Lord.
Until then, as you no doubt know, we’ll have to keep having these kinds of conversations. Because as soon as we all say, yes to sacraments, then we’ll have to talk about the presence of Christ in them. And as soon as we all say yes to councils then we’ll have to talk about what makes a council ecumenical. Is it ecumenical merely because a pope called it or because it has been sifted and ultimately vindicated as Nicaea was? And as soon as we all say yes to bishops, then we’ll have to talk about whether there is a bishop among bishops who has universal authority over all or whether the authority is in the college of bishops. And on and on. . . .
So let’s pray for one another and keep the conversations going.
December 31st, 2009 | 5:02 pm | #42
…and then, Dale, maybe after we discuss the authority of bishops, our secular executioners will interrupt us to ask if we have any final words and we’ll debate whether we ought to say “Viva Christo Rey!” or “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. ;-)
And maybe, just maybe some good will come of the debate among some young witnesses present…..sort of like the Vietnamese crowd who watched one of my ancestor’s, a young priest named Agustine, go happily to his death forgiving everyone and praising Jesus to his last…and thus so moved them that many converted.
Have a blessed new year. And Thanks. again.
January 1st, 2010 | 10:49 am | #43
There are a group of “Evangelicals,” in fact, the bunch first called Evangelicals, who very much believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the other sacraments.
You can be evangelical and catholic, in the best sense, or shall I say, “deeper impulses” of both of those terms.
Happy New Year!
From the token Lutheran.
January 1st, 2010 | 10:04 pm | #44
Dear all. I just discovered some singularly bad news about my health. I’ll probably not post again for a while. Please lift me up to the Lord in your prayers. I appreciate it. Sorry I can’t be specific.
January 2nd, 2010 | 9:21 am | #45
May God the Holy Spirit attend you, and your family, with every grace and mercy, supplying strength to endure this hardship, for the sake of Christ, our Lord.
January 2nd, 2010 | 4:23 pm | #46
The only thing going for Evangelicals is that they tend to not fall for the liberal movements as much as mainstrem protestants or roman catholics or orthodox. Granted, the orthodox are usually conservatve on the social issues but not other issues and some tend to be anti-western. Catholics while their leadership is against abortion and gay marriage take a liberal view against any war,even if it might be for defense or support liberal economic. The bad thing about modern evangelical thought is that its against the history of the church. It ignores some of the achievements and historical roots of the other movements.Without the middle ages, when Roman Catholics ruled christianity in the west and the Orthodox in the east, the modern christian world would not have developed.
January 6th, 2010 | 12:49 pm | #47
[...] evangelical but defies descriptions as either an elephant or gorilla. Paul McCain, the author of the post, is responding to an interview at Evangel with Os Guinness (yes, that Guinness – brilliant!). In [...]
January 6th, 2010 | 2:15 pm | #48
I like D.G. Hart’s definition: Someone who likes Billy Graham.
IOW – Evangelicalism is a hollow word. It doesn’t mean anything concrete.
January 6th, 2010 | 3:55 pm | #49
It may just be that simple. Bill Clinton was once asked to define a Democrat and a Republican. He said that if one thinks the 60s were mainly a good thing, a Democrat; if mainly a bad thing, a Republican.
A similar thumbnail here: if one thinks Billy Graham is mainly a good thing, an Evangelical; if mainly a bad thing, a Protestant.
January 6th, 2010 | 6:32 pm | #50
“If one thinks Billy Graham is mainly a good thing, an Evangelical; if mainly a bad thing, a Protestant
I take the point, but 1) I think it’s too much of an oversimplification- Billy Graham has had a complicated ministry, Evangelicalism is a complicated movement, and two aren’t always tied together; and 2) this assumes that there was no Evangelicalism before Billy Graham, and that there very possibly won’t be any after, both of which are clearly untrue. Unless you think that there was Evangelicalism before, and that Billy Graham was just so influential that he changed everything?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact