Somewhere in the previous orgy of comments I’ve had this week, someone asked me to write about “What do you see as the ideal evangelicalism?”
There is no ideal evangelicalism and there’s not going to be. It’s certainly not going to be ideal if I am the architect. So let’s not get out of hand here. I’m a blogger, which tells you about all you need to know on the subject of my credibility.
But that won’t stop me from answering the question in a slightly different form: “What would make for a much better evangelicalism?”
I promise the answers are going to be short.
1) Evangelicalism would be much better if it would admit that the Reformation and all subsequent divisions divided the one true church of Christ. None of those divisions created a new church or recreated the one, true church. All of Christianity today is the broken parts of what should be whole and entire.
2) Evangelicalism would be much better if it learned to see its own destructive, polluting entanglement in culture instead of trying to justify that entanglement as evangelism. Evangelicals have to live in culture, and I believe we should influence it, discern it and build admirable contributions to it, but the most essential attitude we should have toward it is to avoid the destructive, parasitic entanglements with culture that have sucked the life, power and distinctiveness from evangelicalism, especially in North America.
3) Evangelicalism would be better if it would admit and address its authority issue. Evangelicalism consists, to a large extent, of groups and individuals waving Bibles and shouting verses at one another. Evangelicals use terms like “Biblical Christianity” as if they could actually produce such a thing if asked. The assumption that our views are “based on the Bible” has produced a cacophony of contradictory, divisive and endless claims, counter-claims and wars. The evolution of evangelicalism seems destined to be toward the opposite poles of abandoning the concept of authority completely to the individual (usually the charismatic pastor) or creating an authoritarian hothouse where complete submission is obligatory to avoid exile or worse. Evangelicals have an authority problem. They will quite possibly never solve it as evangelicals, but they can make the situation considerably better by directly addressing the problems created in Protestantism and evangelicalism by our various approaches to authority and implementing serious measures to bring some coherence to the situation.
4) Evangelicalism would be better if it rid itself of every form of the prosperity Gospel and pursued spiritual formation and an imitation of Jesus that was consistent with what Jesus and the New Testament teach about money.
5) Evangelicalism would be better if it learned to see, in the various divisions of Christianity, the remaining diversity that once adorned the united church: liturgy, missions, evangelism, spiritual formation, theology, Biblical study, the work of the Holy Spirit, the power of the sacraments. Even if these divisions cannot be overcome, the visible remains of the once glorious body of Christ can still be seen and experienced, even in our broken condition. Evangelicalism should determine, like Merton said, to bring together in itself as many different aspects of the holistic church of Jesus as possible. As someone recently said, we are in a time when the basis of Christianity is being eroded in masse, yet we are still debating the issues of the 16th century divisions and ignoring how irrelevant these are to the world at large. I affirm with my own denomination the need for a Great Commission Resurgence, and it must encompass all Christian traditions, but especially evangelicalism.
6) Evangelicalism would be better if thousands of churches die and many thousands more are born via healthy church planting relationships.
7) Evangelicalism would be better if it brought out all of its riches of corporate worship and put them on display, rather than throwing out what seems old, selling out what seems out of fashion and denouncing what isn’t popular. Evangelicals have in the more ancient, broader, deeper, wider Christian tradition all those aspects and elements of worship that can not only end the worship wars, but bring the focus of worship clearly onto Christ being exalted in all things. Evangelicals are starving by the millions for Christ focused worship and gospel dominated spirituality, but at this crucial hour, we are determined to be trendy, innovative and to get more cars in the parking lot. A sad betrayal of all we know for the wisdom of the world. We’ll be very sorry in 20 years.
8. Evangelicals would be much better off if, as a movement, they had a common set of confessional/creedal/catechetical documents. Further, evangelicalism would be much better if it recognized a shared ordained ministry.
9) Evangelicals would be be much better off it they were poor and had to proceed, in every way, without the assumption that they can easily generate millions of dollars to do whatever they want to do. We need to embrace poverty for the sake of Christ, and repent of our idolatry of all things big, successful, wealthy and powerful. In the midst of this, we should repent of and renounce our dreams of political influence.
10) Evangelicals would be much better off if the Charismatic movement were to become a manistream part of every church, renewing and being renewed; giving and being nurtured itself. Christianity is not the dead, dry, dusty movement most of us see. It is alive with power and emotion; with human and divine energy. We should desire the full manifestation of the Holy Spirit and the continual empowering, freeing, healing, humbling work of the Spirit. Charismatic Christianity needs a Biblical/theological rescue, but mainstream evangelicalism desperately needs the spiritual movement that is at the heart of healthy third-wave and charismatic movements.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Good post, iMonk.
I’ll comment on No. 10, about the charismatic movement.
It would benefit greatly from inclusion amongst all denoms across Protestantism, as well as within Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
I can’t speak to the Orthodox Church and for that matter Catholicism, but within Protestantism, too often the spiritual gifts are treated like the bastard child of the family. Sometimes blasted as not part of the family, more often ignored or treated as if dead, sometimes allowed but shunted to the back room. A few members embrace it, but many of those have somewhat strange views of it.
We, of course, harm ourselves by ignoring that bastard child, who is a gift to us from the Lord Himself.
Also, the charismatic movement is probably the one movement within Protestantism most needy of good, sound theology and scholarship (inclusion within the larger body would remedy that).
LikeLike
I agree with every point made by Micheal, but ultimately who cares what I think anyway. Just one question, who has the authority to implement and impose these wonderful insights on the entire evangelical world? The fact that we all are questioning every point made, agreeing and disagreeing at times testifies of the universal impossibility of such a grand vision from coming fourth. Someone has to lead the others must follow. If we are leading ourselves we will only find unity with others we agree with, thus we are not following them but still following our own ideals, we just happen to agree.
LikeLike
I understand, Boethius, coming from the opposite direction. I feel it is one of the stregnths of the Church that it isn’t dependent on being a social club. Of course, modern American Catholics can be very social in Mass these days, and I don’t really have a problem with that. But it is nice that I can walk into any parish, anywhere in the world, and worship the triune God without having to be friends with the congregants. Visiting an Evangelical church one isn’t a member of can be socially awkward, and often a surreal experience with cliques. The more “welcoming” they try to be, the more awkward it tends to end up.
LikeLike
Sam Urfer:
I am not really into the hugging stuff. I was using humor. As a former RC, I rarely had any connection with people at mass. After converting, it was one of the most difficult things for me to adjust to, the “letting others from church into my life”, and of course, the whole hugging thing we do. I only brought it up to explain to Martha why so many Christians feel lost after losing their senior pastor. The community stuff is so much more intense outside of the RC church. I confess, I am still adjusting to it.
LikeLike
For those of you that have ever been through World Wide Marriage Encounter – the hugging thing is big – it took me, as a guy, some time to acclimate myself to this, and I still feel awkward – I think it’s a guy thing.
LikeLike
I have a big family so we all hold hands at the Our Father during Mass. It gives the kids a chance to give their siblings a good squeeze. There are times when I, like Patrick, like the quiet, but that just doesn’t happen with seven kids so…. I reserve that time for daily Mass when I can make it. I do like to harrass some of the parishioners after Mass though.
Martha: – No hugging in Ireland – then why do we wear “Kiss me I’m Irish” pins on Saint Paddy’s day here in the States?
Trailblazer: I guess it never occured to them that those dog walkers may have been Catholic and gone on Saturday night!
LikeLike
I’m with Sam.
I do like being quiet at church, and I prefer being quiet for awhile afterwards. I don’t really view the Mass as a part of my social life; it’s always been a time for something Else, for me.
Me personally, I need to give myself a while to unwind after Mass. I’ll buy myself a Yoo-hoo at the gas station and drive around for awhile. I prefer that ritual to having to wade through a sea of hand-shaking acquaintances on the way in and out the door. Since I don’t have to expect that every time I go to church, I feel like I get a chance to focus more on why I’m there.
Plus, people are friendlier with you if they know they don’t really have to be.
LikeLike
Why the obsession with touchy-feely stuff, Boethius (FANTASTIC name, by the way)? That was my least favorite part of being an Evangelical, the fake and cloying expectations of smiling friendliness fostered by churches. A sense of community is important, but my experiences in Evangelical churches (Baptist, CMA, Calvary Chapel, etc.) were not really positive from a community point of view. Indeed, I feel a much greater and more legitimate sense of community at my Catholic parish where people don’t talk to each other in Mass than I ever did when being glad-handed at a Baptist service.
LikeLike
Sam Urfer:
Thank you for the clarification but …
Patrick Lynch:
You need to like all of your 100 parisheners. Now, your assignment for next Sunday’s mass is to hug at least five people after mass. Or at least, go to the mid-week bingo game and hug somebody there 🙂
LikeLike
Boethius, he means he feels like he got a hug from Jesus.
LikeLike
Martha:
Thanks for the laugh. You always make me laugh.
Patrick Lynch:
At the end of Mass you feel like you could hug somebody you like? Don’t you like all of them? Do you think church unity requires community?
LikeLike
The following is a letter that was written in the North County Times newspaper by a ‘Christian’ living in Vista, CA. This letter prompted days of comments, all of them blasting Christians and siding with the ‘dog walker’. It’s little wonder we are all being painted as hypocrites.
___________________________________________________________
Residents putting dogs before church?
We had left the house and driven to a nearby intersection where we stopped to wait for the cross-traffic to clear. We were in our Sunday best. There was a woman dressed in typical sports casual at the same intersection holding two dogs, a scooper and a plastic bag to collect the droppings. I know that our church had mailed beautiful photographic invitations to every home in our area. I now know that, while I did not know her name, she must have received one of those cards.
For the short time we waited for the traffic to clear, we literally gazed at each other. She, in her sports casuals, and my wife and I, in our Sunday best. Without a word being spoken, we easily read each other’s minds. All three of us knew how we would utilize the next few hours. I now know that she had the memory of the invitational card and was embarrassed by the tools she carried.
During the rest of our drive, we saw eight dogs and their masters. Again, I know that every one of them did receive the same postcard because I can assume that the post office did their part. I would be interested in knowing how many placed doggie ahead of the invitation.
_____________________________________________________________
And Patrick Lynch, happy to see you again – Vox and all.
LikeLike
Martha, at the church my parents like, they do the hand-holding thing. Big church, holding slimy hands with hundreds of strangers: totally alienating. Hate that.
At the church I’ve been going to lately, there’s maybe 100 people any given Sunday, no hand-holding, but at the end of Mass you totally feel like you got a hug from somebody you like.
LikeLike
“Because I was raised RC, I was very reluctant to make tight connections with anyone at church. I hated it when people greeted me at the door and wanted to hug.”
Boethius, I’d hug you (except yeah, we don’t *do* that kind of thing).
Yes, I too would want to run a mile if anyone came up to me with a big grin, a pump-handle handshake, and a “Hi, new friend! I’m Ned Flanders, and I want to make you really, really welcome to our little get-together!” at church. I read descriptions of hand-holding during the ‘Our Father’ in (some) American Masses, and it makes me go “Eek!” Suffice it to say I’m not touchy-feely, so I can’t get the reason why someone would make a decision on church attendance based on ‘not warm and friendly’.
But then, one person’s welcoming interest is another person’s poking their big nose into my affairs, so there you go.
“Martha, you need to go teach them how to submit to authority. They are too uppity.”
Teach ’em obedience? Hoo, boy, you don’t know how lucky you are! I’ve often said, when hearing complaints of how intolerant and authoritarian Pope John Paul II was (especially from elements in American Catholicism) that it’s a good job I was never in the running for Pope, because I would have slapped an interdict on them, and if that didn’t bring ’em to heel, I’d have declared them in schism and excommunicated the whole boiling of ’em. By comparison the late (and indeed, the present) Holy Father was a pussycat 😉
LikeLike
These ‘lively stones’ are scattered throughout the world. They attend public church services in hundreds of ‘churches’ (buildings,forests,houses, and so forth) in thousands of places…all over the Earth. What the world labels ‘the church’ and what God labels ‘the church’ are two very different bodies. The world’s church is unloving, unfaithful, teachers of false doctrines, participants in Jezebel’s lusts, and worshippers of the god of materialism. The majority belong to the world’s church and not to the Body of Christ…or so says the Word (broad is the way to destruction..and many will go..)
Heavy,heavy,heavy,,,’narrow is the Way that leads to life….and FEW will find it.’
LikeLike
Jim, JOHN 17…THE PERFECT…what a beautiful thought!
The truth for me..from my experiential relationship with God is the following: THE PERFECT CHURCH already exists and is alive and well. It is ‘in the world but not of the world.’ It consists of those ‘lively stones’ spoken of by Jesus. He is the CHIEF cornerstone.
LikeLike
Jim,
LikeLike
Way off in the future (post internet) I foresee unity in the church because, if for no other reason, I bet Jesus gets his prayers answered. John 17 occurred BEFORE our Lord called out to his Father and got crickets while hanging on the cross.
“Yes, Son, I heard that. I’m working on it in my own way, in my own time.” (God answering Jesus’ prayer in my imagination.)
Remember “this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:8.
So, we’re either 740,000,000 years (1000y/day) in or we’re at the beginning of “day 3” (1day/1000y). I prefer thinking in terms of the latter… I say “How long, oh Lord?!” and He responds “Give me a week, Jim.”
So… what if we’re almost to the mid-point of church history? 60th century believers will be looking back at those “early church Christians” at the turn of the 21st century who remember life before the interweb… Hopefully, the current blogosphere will not look too embarassing to our future generations in 4,000 years. I wonder how all of our blogposts (and other data trails) will be compressed, archived, and stored for all their little eyes to see? What will they do with the moment-by-moment record of our thoughts, rants, feelings, and general daily activities? What will they think of our denominations? Our goatees and metro/retro untucked rayon shirts? Our scandals? Our powerpoints, guitars, small groups, and websites?
Maybe unity was formerly possible because so many had no clue what so many others thought about so many issues. We are so much more exposed and amplified these days… and eventually we tear each other apart. Are those correlated phenomena? Is the church suffering a bad case of “too much information”?
LikeLike
Martha:
I am so relieved to hear you were technically within your parish boundaries. 😉
While it is true that many Christians describe themselves as searching for a new church home when the main pastor leaves, it is because they are truly knit together. Because I was raised RC, I was very reluctant to make tight connections with anyone at church. I hated it when people greeted me at the door and wanted to hug. I was used to going to mass, offering the sign of peace, and leaving without ever speaking to anyone. I still struggle with the whole hugging thing but I do have the community thing incorporated into my life now.
I do think the RC are correct in moving their priests about every 5 years or so. It does keep it fresh. Of course, the people become very attached to the building and as RC churches are closing down, you end up with those rebellious RCs camping out in their sanctuaries begging the bishop to keep them open. Martha, you need to go teach them how to submit to authority. They are too uppity. 🙂
LikeLike
Ky boy but not now, I didn’t mean at all to contradict or question your comment concerning the friends who attended Young’s church. I only meant to make the point that…though Young and other pastors/denominations seem to be ‘off the wall’….we need to be careful not to hinder something God uses for benefit.
We all have the same concerns. We want the church to be all it can and should be. And we all likely are not quiet sure how to accomplish such a magnificent task.
LikeLike
Carolyn
“Shouldn’t we allow the same ‘parts’ in the Body of Christ? Ed Young, for example, has not been positioned to speak to 16th century Christians. He speaks to NOW …”
My dedicated Christian friends who were at his church 15 years ago will tell you, politely, with apologies to Barney Fife:
“He’s a nut!”
LikeLike
Shouldn’t we allow the same ‘parts’ in the Body of Christ? Ed Young, for example, has not been positioned to speak to 16th century Christians. He speaks to NOW when fidelity in marriage is laughable by many. His message is that unity between a Christian husband and wife is necessary for function as ‘one.’ And that unity is as much physical as spiritual. The very church we love is symbolized by the marrige of the Bride and Bridgroom. Life itself is explosive. Why wouldn’t we see the same thing in something as DYNAMIC as the Church. The problem is that some do not recognize that the pieces make up the whole.
LikeLike
Change is healthy and invigorating. All the broken pieces of churchdom are the result of broken communities due to the law of ‘expansion’. The broken pieces of the universe are very different and very necessary to maintain its cycles. Each ‘part’ makes a statement by its very physical existence. TRUTH is HUGE because GOD is HUGE. One religious faction or denomination cannot contain the whole truth of God…..not possible…never intended to be that way. He uses natural examples to reveal spiritual truths.
LikeLike
There is a natural law……everything changes. Our physical bodies begin to die just after conception (maturing/being used up/ageing). Same with the universe (continually expanding/being used up/ageing). Life for all things physical has a God appointed length. In nuclear fission, the chaotic movement results in a glorious product….energy. Since division itself is a natural law…could not the broken parts of the ‘church’ over centuries be a good thing.
LikeLike
They have several stories. One about driving a tank or APC up on the stage. — Ky boy but not now
That would only work if you did it when passing the collection plate — traverse the main gun towards the audience and announce “THIS IS A STICKUP!”
(Do you think I just gave TBN an idea? Excuse me, a “Revelation Laid onto Paul & Janet’s Hearts…”?)
LikeLike
Patrick Lynch:
Your comments had me laughing today – “… we don’t use Him for entertainment… we eat Him” – although true, it would have been a great line in a skit.
LikeLike
Good words from Patrick Lynch:
“Introspection seems to not be a value in many parts of Evangelicalism, and in a church environment noxious with competition for numbers, it has no place. It’s sort of gross to watch; I try to pay attention to as much Protestant media as I can, and the way I often ‘encounter’ Jesus feels hypnotizing and empty.”
This is part of why I value the Puritans. They admittedly went far too far in certain ways, including with introspection at times (it could become morbid with some of them), but at least, they understood that introspection has a *place* in the Christian life. With the way that Michael writes about “evangelicalism” sometimes (the Osteens, seeker-sensitive churches that have all but abandoned the Gospel, and so on), I wonder if Reformed Christianity even has a place in the movement anymore…
LikeLike
Michael,
I love most of what you wrote in this post, and I have serious misgivings on *aspects* of a few things (mostly involving #1 and #3, as a Reformed Christian), but I am going to refrain from going into those misgivings, as they relate to the Catholic/Protestant issue, and I don’t want to even appear to be starting a debate here.
A question– have you read Norman Geisler’s piece in his Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics on the church and the formation of the canon? I basically agree with his formulation, though I admit that even he is probably not able to address every aspect of the “authority” issue for evangelicals.
Mark Dever once explained Christians’ differences in Bible interpretation in a basically epistemological way. He said that the differences are a result of the Fall– a result of the fact that, post-Fall, *no one* sees *all* truth in a completely clear way. Sometimes, this “not seeing” is willful; sometimes, it is a result of our finite understanding.
On #10, at this point, I am neither definitively Charismatic *nor* cessationist, but I have to say, I don’t see the Orthodox Presbyterian Church *ever* embracing the Charismatic movement… but some SBC churches have done so without even realizing it, so I can never say never!
LikeLike
Heh, I got a real kick out of “Buddy Jesus” in Dogma. As offensive as it was, I could totally see us doing something like that. I mean, if we hadn’t actually done the WWJD fad, I bet we’d find that offensive if it popped up in a movie like Dogma.
LikeLike
I’d definitely agree that non-Catholic Christians are way more excited about who they are and what they believe than we are, for the most part. I’m still suspending judgment about the pros and cons of that, but while we could definitely use some Evangelical passion, I’m not at all sure that importing cart-blanche the culture-war machinery that’s so useful in convincing Protestants that they are “different” from other folks is a good idea.
A couple of years ago we had a “Catholic music” concert at my church – that consisted of a dude playing a couple worship songs… and some Billy Joel covers.
We don’t go in for the -Jesus as Entertainment- spectacle much in our church. The dude went over like a plane crash.
I like to think that’s what growing up Catholic is good for; we have the exact opposite of the whole Wretched Urgency / Get All The Sin Out of Your Life And Replace It With Puerile Crap syndrome. Among the many things we don’t do with Him that we should, it’s to our credit that we don’t date Jesus, we don’t rock out with him, we don’t declare him to be our buddy, and we don’t use him for entertainment.
We eat Him.
If your belief-system involves sharing a weekly meal of the trans-substantiated flesh and blood of The Son of God, you pretty much don’t bother trying to pile any more gimmicks on top of that.
Because “Buddy Jesus” just strains credulity.
LikeLike
“AIG? Is that another acronym for Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles?â€
Hmmm. URL got eaten.
answersingenesis.org
LikeLike
Mark Nikirk
“Can I add a #11…Abolish the practice of self-service communion.”
This seems to really be a fallout of #3. Authority.
LikeLike
Headless Unicorn Guy
“With entire churches embracing AIG and even iMonk said (Am I right here?) that he thought the SBC would soon come out with a statement about the age of the earth, I don’t think so. AIG followers are fanatics. No quarter allowed. If you don’t agree, you are likely a heretic. End of discussion. — Ky boy but not now
“AIG? Is that another acronym for Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles?”
Yes. Sort of.
If you are a Christian and a scientist (pro or am) you’ll likely be embarrassed.
LikeLike
I’ve come to this table late. Entering from an 18-hour day doesn’t help nor being on the West Coast (we always get hand-me-down days from you guys out east). But this is such an important topic I wish I had more time to write and to more functioning brain cells available so I could write with more elegance.
I do want to make one point, which has been made by others, but from different perspectives. I will take my lead from IM’s point # 2, although I could have launched from many points.
The Church has indeed been intertwined in extra-Biblical cultures from the beginning. Some of them were benign . . . some of them not so.
Although the great church fathers did strive to guard against the more toxic forms of them, some of the pegan cultural ornaments were recycled as Christian mores—if not—dogma by the subsequent generation.
I really think, as I believe IM was saying in #2 the “Dream Evangelical Church†would intelligently, and humbling recognize this . . . and from it, repent.
One of the greatest of these extra-Biblical mores/dogmas, in my humble opinion, is Gnostic (or you could call it Platonic) Dualism. The Church has been caught in a state of suspended Gnostic animation, seeing the world as the inferior physical against the superior unseen. While this flirtation or full-frontal affair as been on again, off again over the centuries (on during the first century Gnostics and then on again during the mystics of the dark ages) it has reared its head again within the fundamentalistic movement and transmitted in vitro on into its offspring, Evangelicalism.
A more perfect Evangelicalism would bridge this chasm and once again see this created physical world, including not only the universe, but things like human art, all music, intelligence, human endeavors and science as God-breathed and beautiful (but fallen). Faith would not have to be juxtaposed against Reason, nor a “God thing†from a normal cause-n-effect thing, or a “supernatural healing†from a natural (through principles of human physiology or good medical treatment) healing.
We wouldn’t have to relegate the beautiful emotions that God has created us with (love, hate, depression, sadness, fear, excitement etc) to a “worldly†realm and rename emotions as “supernatural movements of the spirit†to give them any merit. For example, the Dualist can’t feel excited or gitty during Handel’s Messiah (a worldly human emotion), but can feel “moved by the Holy Spirit†(a spiritual thing).
Lastly, if we weren’t Dualist, we wouldn’t have to subscribe to a dishonest form of sanctification or godliness where we must pretend that we are spotless to be of value. In other words, ignoring our brokenness, thinking we have all the answers, thinking that all our motives are pure, that we attend the one true church. A non-Dualist Evangelicalism could honestly appraise their brokenness, ignorance and reliance on God’s grace. The pretending could stop and we could all be real.
LikeLike
Headless Unicorn Guy
…my church is struggling and my pastor is mystified because “we are following the Fellowship Church model exactly.†Fellowship Church is Ed “Seven Days of Sex†Young’s church. — Blue Moon
“No wonder your church is struggling. Young made a laughingstock of himself and his church with that flake sermon.”
He was a laughing stock long before that sermon. Most of us just didn’t notice. Some friends of ours went there for a while back about 18 years ago. It was physically close to their home and that was a requirement for them for a while. They ran away as soon as they got more mobile.
They have several stories. One about driving a tank or APC up on the stage.
LikeLike
“I think evangelicals, for all their flaws, do a much better job of discipling every age group than Catholics or Orthodox. ”
IMonk, I absolutely agree with this. I believe that this is one of the good aspects of a free market model of church. The results are higher biblical literacy (on some level, ownership and involvement. On the other hand, just like fast food, the faithful are getting what they want, not necessarily what they need.
LikeLike
Having just read Michael’s old post on Pentecostals/ Charismatics I am struck by one thing…How grateful I am that I have somehow (read: God’s Grace) avoided most if not all of those downfalls. More than that, I was taught by other P/C’s to avoid those things like the plague. I was also taught that any one who called themselves a prophet had some pretty clear requirements they had to live up to from the Bible and if they said anything that contradicted the Bible what they said, and they, were to be ignored.
The Toronto thing is the major exception. It hit nearly every church I know of. I was never comfortable with it. I suggested that when “God” starts moving in ways that historically have been associated with demon possession (barking like dogs, clucking like chickens) we should be REALLY careful to try the spirits. I’ll be frank, since the Toronto thing swept through, I have seen much less moving in actual gifts of the spirit. The churches just don’t seem to have recovered at all.
DD
LikeLike
You’re right John. What came over me?
LikeLike
What? Something evangelicals do well? And better than Catholics?
I’m sure this was just a momentary lapse in judgment 😉
LikeLike
It’s not a subject I am an expert on, and my mail tells me that we don’t agree on what self-feeding is. Jared Wilson is talking about the work of the pastor, and I am talking more about the entire shape of evangelical spirituality, including how you listen to your pastor.
BTW- I’ll stir it up by saying that I think evangelicals, for all their flaws, do a much better job of discipling every age group than Catholics or Orthodox. And I include all evangelicals in that. Evangelism, missions and discipleship are our strong suits, even if they contain our weaknesses.
LikeLike
Joe M, I don’t think the problem is pluralism per se, but the fact that since we have so many different churches and so many people standing up to declare themselves “called” to lead them, that rather than increased discipleship we’ve ended up with a lot of little fiefdoms – with corrupted pastor-personalities and warlike dogmatists randomly taking power in churches all over and preaching exclusivity and suspicion.
Introspection seems to not be a value in many parts of Evangelicalism, and in a church environment noxious with competition for numbers, it has no place. It’s sort of gross to watch; I try to pay attention to as much Protestant media as I can, and the way I often ‘encounter’ Jesus feels hypnotizing and empty.
Michael or anybody, have you ever encountered any data on just how much time Evangelicals devote to “self-feeding” on average? How about a breakdown of what that consists of?
LikeLike
Can I add a #11…Abolish the practice of self-service communion.
LikeLike
Chaplain Mike made a significant point:
“Entrepreneurial pastors running their churches according to business models and principles,” It is not in any pastor’s best interest to find agreement with another church and merge. It is like stores in a small town merging – someone will be out of a job. This is the business of religion, and it results in innovation and advertising and everything else – some good and some bad. In modern terms this is deregulation, and just like Ronald Reagan said, people are trying to “get the (whatever Church) off the backs of the people” and get to the real gospel.
Division is part of the Church – all of Paul’s letters speak of other teachers. Those so-called “judaizers” and “super apostles” were preachers and pastors too. And after Paul got them booted out those church members eventually came together in the same church under one of his appointees. That would never happen today.
LikeLike
I agree with #10. I put it in context with
“A Growing and Awkward Silence” from the archives.
https://internetmonk.com/articles/P/pentecostal.html
LikeLike
Man. This is not a good time to be a Baptist pastor, I guess! That’s raw.
LikeLike
>…..“my way or the highway†attitude is more prevalent among the charismatics.
Among what group of evangelicals is that not the basic attitude? Baptists now have a pastoral tenure of about 3.9 years.
LikeLike
But in my experience the “my way or the highway†attitude is more prevalent among the charismatics.
I think this is at least partly a function of the charismatic renewal not being woven enough into the churches.
I live, work and pray with charismatic Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and low church Protestants and it’s very different than a more schismatic Charismatic paradigm.
LikeLike
I’m not eloquent enough to respond except to say “Amen”.
LikeLike
Martha and others,
I don’t understand the church hopping in evangelicalism either…and I encourage it in a way. I see and hear folks who sit under a ministry and just whine, complain and lambast the preacher for some really bad doctrine. Prosperity gospel stuff at the good end, oppressive, the Pastor says who you marry sort of stuff at the other. They just sit there and take it. But if the new Pastor changes the worship music they’re out the door.
Simply, if the doctrine is bad enough at a church that you feel the need to publicly criticize the pastor, you need to leave. Protestantism is the land of 1000 churches, if you can’t find one you like, it ain’t the churches. So, my question to the proverbial Jones is, why were you at the church you left and why can’t you find another one?
DD
LikeLike
With entire churches embracing AIG and even iMonk said (Am I right here?) that he thought the SBC would soon come out with a statement about the age of the earth, I don’t think so. AIG followers are fanatics. No quarter allowed. If you don’t agree, you are likely a heretic. End of discussion. — Ky boy but not now
AIG? Is that another acronym for Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles?
LikeLike
…my church is struggling and my pastor is mystified because “we are following the Fellowship Church model exactly.†Fellowship Church is Ed “Seven Days of Sex†Young’s church. — Blue Moon
No wonder your church is struggling. Young made a laughingstock of himself and his church with that flake sermon. (As well as kicking in the nuts all of us virgins who remain single.)
Here’s Rabbi Boteach’s comment on Ed “Seven Days of Sex” Young. Something I noticed was that the Rabbi’s alternative emphasizes what I call “Cuddly Companionship”, the “short-of-sex” bonding behavior that is now relegated to “foreplay” and rushed through to get to the Main Event. (And what I was born too late to experience, only long for.)
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto, I had no idea about the Charismatics/Pentecostals being so big. That’s seriously blowing my mind right now. I don’t even know any Charismatic Catholics.
LikeLike
Boethius: luckily for me, three of the four churches were within our parish so technically – or should I say Jesuitically? – we did attend a parish church 🙂
And now we’re living close to our parish church, so that’s okay.
Regarding the following one particular priest – yes, we do have those over here who do that, and some clergy who do trend towards a ‘cult of personality’. But since the bishop is the boss when it comes to appointing priests, and since
the priest is supposed to move wherever he’s told, like it or lump it, and since priests do get moved around about every five years or so, there is not that same thing of a church standing or falling by one particular pastor. That’s part of what boggles my mind in some of the very poignant posts: Pastor Smith leaves, and the whole place goes ka-blooey, and the Jones family is left wandering like the Israelites in the desert looking for somewhere, anywhere, they can go to church.
LikeLike
H.U.G., I would not take Michener as, in any sense, a reliable historical guide. The argument to which he refers was resolved. It is called the monothelite controversy, and, in fact, to this day Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox all confess the same on that issue: One Person, Two Natures, Two Wills. Michener did not only get the issue wrong, he wrote an anachronism in that they were not going around killing each other. — Fr Ernesto
I meant the Michener chapter not as accurate history, but as parable. Keep infighting over minor matters, and your REAL enemies are liable to roll right over you.
LikeLike
I don’t believe the RCC is infallible, but I understand the history of Christianity. It’s actually pretty simple. You have a church, then two divisions, then three. And a few years into the third division, people start talking like there was no Christianity until their sect. — IMonk
What really gets me in “alternate church history” is when the “Bible-Believing (TM)” types rag on us Catholics. The only reason they have a Bible to Believe is because our bishops kept it from being rewritten according to the latest Gnostic fads back when years were in the low three digits!
I was brought up in Landmarkist Baptist fundamentalism, and its view of history is lunacy. — IMonk
Is that the “view of history” that says “The Original New Testament Church was Just Like Us, but went off the rails into Apostasy and Popery early on; everyone was Apostate until Our Little Clique Restored the Original Christianity, and We Are The One True Church”?
If so, they share that view of history with the Mormons, the Branch Davidians, the Salafi Muslims, and a lot of small flake groups.
LikeLike
Martha,
As a former evangelical (and one who wishes to import some of the good stuff to Catholicism), let me try to explain.
I was a Southern Baptist, and each church is, in theory, independent and just co-operating with other like-minded churches.
There is NO recognition of other similar churches in the area. If you didn’t go to the one where you had your membership, then you didn’t go to church. (and you really needed to go Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday evening to be considered a good member)
I never really consider the why’s of that, because that is how I was raised. You went to YOUR church.
To Bothius, yes you should go to your parish church, but I have gotten permission (while living in NJ) to register at a different one. Now, I’m registered at one, but frequently go to others. I enjoy the different flavors and differnet styles.
LikeLike
Very good on all points.
You wrote ” 3) Evangelicalism would be better if it would admit and address its authority issue.”
Hoo boy!
EVERYWHERE I go there is somebody climbing to the top of the heap. Workplace, government office,every subdivision, you name it.
Remember the parable that said when you go to a feast choose the lowest spot?
Everybody wants to boss somebody around or get open credit for having done something.
You wrote:
“ Evangelicals would be be much better off it they were poor …..”
May I offer a practical suggestion?
If possible, whenever possible, do your own building or maintenance, sort of like Habitat For Humanity. I was part of a party that put a new roof on the parsonage. This was a great experience.
It means more when you do the sweating rather than hring out expensive contractors with little regard for the funds that provided them.
LikeLike
Wonderful post!
Now now to start nailing imonk’s 10 theses to church doors.
LikeLike
It’s also interesting to listen to us evangelicals pontificate about Christianity as if we invented it.
Incredible.
I don’t believe the RCC is infallible, but I understand the history of Christianity. It’s actually pretty simple. You have a church, then two divisions, then three. And a few years into the third division, people start talking like there was no Christianity until their sect.
I was brought up in Landmarkist Baptist fundamentalism, and its view of history is lunacy.
LikeLike
People who have nasty things to say about the RCC or don’t believe they are Christians: Stop posting here. Go elsewhere. I’ve made it clear in the past that we aren’t having that discussion.
People psychoanalyzing me: Your posts will be edited/deleted. Have a nice Christmas.
Orthodox friends: Sorry to omit the Great Schism. I was doing shorthand church history from the Protestant pov.
LikeLike
The last line was meant to say, “close to half of all who name themselves as Christians are either Pentecostal/Charismatics or . . .”
LikeLike
A couple of historical notes:
1. The original fundamentals were a joint effort that included Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. They were not meant to express the whole faith, but that part of the faith on which conservatives in various denominations could agree. Only later did this degenerate into fundamentalism in its worst expressions.
2. The Nicene Creed was meant to be such a compendium of what is the Rule of Faith, that is, the guide against which we measure other doctrines. Though not recited in all Christian bodies, it is essentially believed by over 90% of the people who call themselves Christian.
3. H.U.G., I would not take Michener as, in any sense, a reliable historical guide. The argument to which he refers was resolved. It is called the monothelite controversy, and, in fact, to this day Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox all confess the same on that issue: One Person, Two Natures, Two Wills. Michener did not only get the issue wrong, he wrote an anachronism in that they were not going around killing each other. That had more to do with that horrendous set of aberrations during the Middle Ages in which just about every denomination participated (except maybe the Menonites, the Amish, and the Moravians).
4. Alan – Point #1 did not bother me because there were talks between Orthodox and Roman Catholic as late as the 1400’s. Note that the Orthodox have never appointed a Western Patriarch to replace the Roman one. Part of it was certainly that they were historically unable to–until nearly the 20th Century–, but part of it certainly was that there was a subconscious feeling on both sides that the other side still had validity. But the explosion that ripped the West apart led to a set of definitions in Trent that shut the door to us as well. The repercussions of Trent continue to be felt to this day as we talk with Rome.
5. Uhm, have any of you looked at the statistics for Christendom lately? They are quite interesting, and you had better have a very strong belief in remnant theology. The largest group of Christians, bar none, is the Roman Catholic Church. They are so large that every other Christian group could be added together and not surpass them. In 2001, there were about 2 billion Christians on earth (2,000 million for you European types). About 1 billion (1,000 million) claimed to be Roman Catholic. We are the second largest coherent group. This means that either God has been quite content to allow most people who call themselves Christian to live in a massive heresy with a high probability of going to hell or that God may not consider Catholic Christianity, whether RC or EO to be as large a heresy as some would claim. Meantime, it is not that hard for us to make the historical argument that while God used and uses the Reformation to bring about transformation in us, yet He has no intention of those groups being the main representatives of Christianity. GRIN.
6. Final note – iMonk has a point. The largest trans-denominational group are the Pentecostal/Charismatics. One fourth of all people naming themselves as Christians fall into that grouping, whether within Roman Catholicism or Assemblies of God. And probably close to have of all who name themselves as Christians are either Pentecostal/Charismatics or influenced by their viewpoint of God.
LikeLike
Martha:
Tsk, tsk. You know you are supposed to go to your local parish. 🙂
My sister-in-law is still a practicing RC and she has begun to follow one particular priest. She travels a great distance in order to follow him to every parish they move him to.
LikeLike
DaveD,
Regarding Calvin and Servetus: Calvin actually tried to save him, it was the civil authority in Geneva that condemned him. And he was only in Geneva in the first place because it had a reputation of being one of the most welcoming places in Europe. Far from telling against Calvin, that story tells of his generosity. A arch-heretic would say “though all Europe thinks I should be executed for my belief, yet perhaps in Geneva they will not.” And even in Geneva Calvin tried to protect him.
Regarding St. Thomas More: He did not turn on the king. The kangaroo court, of course, said he had, but he said that he would do everything he could to support the king, even retiring in silience, but he could not openly support the king. He had divided loyaltied: “Do I say ‘the king has authority over the Church’, thus rejecting the Church or my conscience; or do I tell the king he has not authority to get Parliment to declare himself the head of the English Church, and thus risk standing against my friend.
LikeLike
I still think that a new council in which Protestants are given a seat at the table as was the intent of the council of Trent should be rejoined.
I know a lot are going to say that Vatican II tried that, well no it didn’t. Protestants were invited as observers but that was it.
A new council and let them have voices and see what happens.
LikeLike
Chaplin Mike:
I agree — my church is struggling and my pastor is mystified because “we are following the Fellowship Church model exactly.” Fellowship Church is Ed “Seven Days of Sex” Young’s church. My pastor has completely abandoned the Bible as the source of inspiration for his sermons and instead looks to Rick Warren’s material because he’s got a big church and my pastor wants one. Which is why me and the missus are leaving soon.
LikeLike
iMonk,
do you equate evangelical with protestant? Honestly, I put the prosperity gospel churches outside of evangelicalism. I’m actually offended that you group them as part of it, and I don’t really claim to be part of evangelicalism.
LikeLike
Martha, you have put your finger on one of the things that must change if American evangelicalism is to be reformed–CONSUMERISM. And the problem lies not only with the church member (consumer), but with the whole mindset of the movement. Entrepreneurial pastors running their churches according to business models and principles, developing programs to attract people, and packaging their product for attractive distribution–all of this leads to the kind of “shopping around” you describe.
LikeLike
Michael, are you going to elaborate on point 1? It could be taken to mean that the “gates of Hell” have overcome the Church (invisible and indivisible)… How can that be?
I guess it depends on what one means by “Church”. I take it to mean 1) Invisible, indivisible, the Body of Christ (those who are well and truly saved). 2) A local body of believers meeting together, under the authority of elders. Tares (knowing or unknowing) can infiltrate the local body.
There is no Biblical model for a hierarchy of elders. The insistence of some elders that other elders submit to them has not broken the one Body of Christ.
LikeLike
Patrick – yeah, it takes all the fun out of being a member of a global mystery cult that worships idols and engages in ritual cannabalism under the absolute rule of priest-kings reigning over a sacred state and crushing all opposition beneath the iron heels of tyranny, superstition, and torture when you can’t even throw a heretic on the bonfire anymore because of bad PR 😉
LikeLike
To touch on a sore point, what I meant by the last was that so many people posting on here have mentioned “I and/or my family attended such-and-such a church, and when it imploded/the old pastor left/a new congregant came and started throwing his weight around, we were left searching for a new church and, not having found one, are stuck with doing for ourselves at home.”
That’s what is so strange to me; that your church membership is so contingent on one particular local building and congregation, and if that doesn’t work out (for whatever reason), you’re orphaned. Not even being able to go to another church of your denomination because for whatever reason, it doesn’t fit? And I know often it doesn’t fit for good, not trivial, reasons, but as a Roman Catholic I can’t wrap my head around that.
Growing up, our family went to one of four churches on any given Sunday; we didn’t go to our parish church (though technically we should have), because my father’s family had always gone to one particular country church (and so we went there) and my mother’s family had gone to the other country church (and so we went there), and then there was the Augustinian Friary church which we mostly attended, because we all liked it, even though it was in the neighbouring parish.
But if we couldn’t have gone to the Friary, it certainly wasn’t a case of ‘shopping around’ the other churches and if they didn’t suit, not going to any.
LikeLike
Is the underlying message here that we’re NOT supposed to burn people that the stake because it ultimately ends up ruining our credibility with future generations?
LikeLike
Martha,
I stand corrected. He was Sainted for turning on the corrupt king he had served for years…after BURNING PROTESTANTS AT THE STAKE and torturing them. If a guy who spent years killing protestants (unrepentantly) is considered holy enough to become a Saint I question how welcome any on my side of the river are.
I have issues with the way Calvin is revered since he had someone burnt at the stake so I find it only natural to have issues with “Saints” that did it not once, but repeatedly.
DD
LikeLike
In defence of our host (though he’s well able to answer for himself), I don’t think he’s a crypto-Jesuit trying to infiltrate the errors of Popery into the pure Gospel message of Evangelicalism (that’s what we have the albino assassin monks for) 🙂
American Evangelicalism is an interesting beast to observe from this side of the water – so much of what you are arguing (pro and contra) I would ask you to remember is within an *American* context and yes, has taken its coloration and contours from the surrounding culture (shock, horror!).
There seems to be – from my ignorant foreign viewpoint – a frankly strange amalgam of “we’ve gone back to the primitive church practice before it got all corrupted as soon as (insert favourite hobbyhorse here – Constantine usually gets the bad rap, but I’ve seen those arguing for it all going bad even in St. John the Evangelist’s time)” and no evidence of historical memory, much less knowledge of roots, but great re-inventions in the cause of ‘relevance’ and ‘up-to-date’. Which is fascinating, since I think Michael is only asking Evangelicalism to consider what it is for and where it came from – not that it has to morph into Orthodoxy/Catholicism, or return all the way back to the 16th century. Even a recall of the 19th would do, people.
LikeLike
An interesting list. In the balance, it sounds like you want American Evangelism to be Orthodox/Catholic.
LikeLike
Wayne, it’s interesting to me that you find historical Evangelicalism to be larger than the present-day manifestations of it. Could you elaborate on that?
LikeLike
Respectfully and as a newcomer to this convo…
but in response to the title of the post “an ideal evangelicalism?” I would answer, yes, this is very ideal(istic).
Because these are some sweeping statements made in the spirit of ecumenism and missional theology and all but I can’t help but to feel we’re painting with somewhat too broad brushstrokes. Some thoughts:
1) evangelicalism was born into the schism, out of pietism, the English Reformation, Wesleyanism and so forth. Unless you can make a compelling argument that it began prior w/roots in R.Catholicism I can’t help but wonder if your spirit of ecumenism is just a slam at all of evangelicals because they’re not pro-R.C.
8) re: shared “confessional/creedal/catechetical documents… shared ordained ministry” – your spirit of unity is admirable but again – I can’t help but to wonder if this is idealism at its best?
10) “Evangelicals would be much better off if the Charismatic movement were to become a manistream part of every church” Why do you feel this? I can’t help but to feel this glorified, ecumenical “evangelicalism” that you talk about is more narrow than evangelicalism itself.
Don’t mean to rain on this parade, but once we start posting about what our vision of an ideal evangelicalism is all about, we have already begun to narrow it down to our definitions. Evangelicalism is bigger than our definition here in the west as well as more deeply entrenched historically.
LikeLike
er, that earlier post should be addressed to “Willoh,” not “Willow”
LikeLike
Willow:
Somehow I don’t think iMonk would be promoting Toronto/Pensacola as the ideal of the Charismatic movement. I’m thinkin’ he’s talking about the more moderate end of Charismatic stuff. I’ve seen some of this within the traditional church, by the way. Probably my favorite is some of the stuff in some Charismatic circles of Catholicism. In the 70’s my mom was invloved in a Charismatic expression of Catholicism. Here in San Antonio, the Charismatic Catholics are doing some great stuff in the inner city.
Personally, I think Toronto/Pensacola’s a bit poisonous. But I don’t have a problem with the Charismatic expressions of the faith in general. Just the real extreme versions.
LikeLike
When I was an elder in a Presby church I was charged with working for her peace, unity, and purity. I signed on not knowing yet just how much in conflict those things can be!
iMonk, I agree with you that anybody with a Bible that stays in the sun too long can proclaim himself an apostle under Protestantism and gather all those he may delude. But if we are going to strive for peace and unity by adopting common creeds and confessions, the question becomes, “Whose creed?” History is full of empires, street gangs, and other groups who want to bring us “peace” by submitting to their total domination.
On the charismatic front, I know that my Catholic friends did a MUCH better job of integrating that stream into their church than my own church did. On our side of the river we quickly descend into “We’ve got the Spirit! Yes we do!” v. “Charlatans!” But I am afraid too many people are keeping themselves in scones and scotch by declaiming against the other side- sort of a Strang/Hanegraff War.
LikeLike
Chris Lee, -2 for not even trying to answer a balanced, practical, honest question. If you keep losing points like this, you’ll have to go to Purgatory… like, forever.
LikeLike
As someone recently said, we are in a time when the basis of Christianity is being eroded in masse, yet we are still debating the issues of the 16th century divisions and ignoring how irrelevant these are to the world at large.
There’s a chapter in the James Michener novel The Source that illustrates this perfectly. The novel traces the entire history of the Middle East from the first nomads to the time of writing through the tale of a fictional town in what’s now Israel over 4000 years.
The chapter in question is early 7th Century, Christian Calendar. The town is a frontier outpost of the Byzantine Empire, and has been caught up in one of the theological feuds that made Constantinople infamous:
“TWO WILLS AND ONE NATURE! DIE, HERETIC!”
“ONE WILL AND TWO NATURES! DIE, HERETIC!”
“TWO WILLS AND ONE NATURE! DIE, HERETIC!”
“ONE WILL AND TWO NATURES! DIE, HERETIC!”
“TWO WILLS AND ONE NATURE! DIE, HERETIC!”
“ONE WILL AND TWO NATURES! DIE, HERETIC!”
So Important is this dispute to them that nobody notices the dust cloud approaching from the south, from the direction of the Arabian Peninsula.
By the end of the chapter, the dispute is solved. All the townspeople are finally in agreement — on their knees with scimitars held to their throats:
“AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”
“AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”
“AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”
LikeLike
#1 i[Mod edited] Reformation,[no The] is an important part of Christian life. It is the result of observing oneself, or one’s church, and them attempting to move in a more Christ-like direction. We see our error, or short coming and we reform. It is done as a group and as individuals. There are times we become so entrenched in our belief system or our habits that we do not reform. Then we stagnate.
Here you are, seemingly unknowingly, a cog in the new reformation, a voice calling out for us to reform in a godly way, decrying the reformation that happened long ago. M.S., you would have posted your own 99 points, or at least reviewed and criticized the originals! You are doing it now, and keep it up!
What could you call Vatican II but a reformation. Where did Limbo go? It got reformed. The last Pope brought much reformation. Small r.
Until we are made perfect in Our Savior we need constant reformation.[r] A born reformer like you
speaking against Reformation [R] is odd to hear.
There hasn’t been one true church, and won’t be until He gathers us. We are just too human and fractional. I understand the resentment of division, yes it is a crying shame, but let us all do our best to follow Him, even if it seems on different paths. We will meet someday, I promise.
By the way, take the word evangelical [ism] out of the above, moving post. Insert Catholic, or Methodist or any other denomination in there. Reread it, maybe changing bibles to Barth, or CCC, we all seem to wave something. Still sound true, wise, Godly. hmmm
Let me chew on #10 a while, barking, and laughter fits gag me out. I think I have more in common with Rome than Toronto.
{all said in love and respect, except the part about #10} Peace
LikeLike
“the sainthood of folks like Thomas More who got sainted for burning early “protestants†at the stake.”
Minor quibble here: St. Thomas More was not actually canonised for being the scourge of heretics (which burnings he did under the authority of that glorious reforming monarch, Henry VIII) but, after beatification in 1886, was canonised in 1935 as an example for Catholics being persecuted in anti-Catholic states.
Of course, if you want to believe that the real reason he was canonised was for his work burning Lutherans, be my guest – and it only took 400 years for him to be recognised for this wonderful work of ecumenism! *sarcasm key off*
LikeLike
In just the last article patrick lynch is pleading for peace, and today he wants to stir things up. Typical. Oh please, tell me more about your faith.
LikeLike
Wasn’t there a quote in Julia Duin’s Quitting Church to the effect that if churches were hospitals, most would only have an obstetrics department? There seems to be an extreme emphasis on getting people to pray the so-called “sinner’s prayer” so that they know that they are are “born again” or “born from above” and going to heaven when they die, but not much after that. Perhaps recapturing a sense of sanctification would also help as you hinted at in #5. We all want people to know Jesus as Lord and Savior. I would also hope that we want them to grow more Christ-like too. Hospitals do more than deliver babies–they care for all areas of health. Churches can do the same.
LikeLike
Perhaps the only church I am aware of that embodied most of Michael’s ten points and sought to faithfully live a life of committed discipleship while remaining connected with the church at large is the Church of the Saviour in Washington D.C.
I am inclined to believe, both through the witness of scripture as well as experience, that what we are discussing here can only be lived out within the hiddeness of small communities.
LikeLike
Does anyone know of serious and present efforts to submit to one another between differing faith traditions, and that are also operational within specific local settings? I am very interested in how this might be accomplished within communities, and my community in particular.
LikeLike
There is likely to be no agreement on the elements of ‘Christianity” among all the ‘candlesticks’ of the established ‘church.’ Whether Protestant or Catholic…the common ground is God with us through Christ our Lord. I ‘stand’ firm on my religious beliefs which have been formed over many, many years and experiences. God’s truth cannot be expressed in our many doctrinal statements and creeds. His infinite truth is ALIVE (Word made flesh) and is EXPERIENCED through interactive communication and action between an individual and God. We servants have much common ground from which to work….the ‘harvest’ in danger of being lost due to too few laborers.
LikeLike
Regarding a common confession/creed, I was looking over the major confessions/articles of faith in Protestantism the other day. It seems to me that many of them are still carrying a lot of ecclesiastic and political baggage from the Reformation. That is, there are major portions of each one that is basically saying “We’re not Roman Cathoicism.” To be honest, I think that’s unnecessary today. Both Rome and Protestantism have changed.
On the other hand, every confession I read affirmed the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed and (often) the Athenatian Creed as valid. Maybe the “ecumenical” creeds are all we really need.
Oh, and as far as a common Catechism goes, as mentioned above, I was reading the Episcopal Catechism the other day. The only area where I could see major disagreement between the denominations is the parts regarding Ecclesiology (I.e. the way Church government and/or the clergy is set up). But even then, I think we can probably come to a common ground. No matter what we call them, most everyone agrees that the NT’s offices are Overseeers (aka Bishops), Elders (aka Presbyters, Priests, or Pastors) and Deacons (aka Deacons). The only real disagreement seems to be whether Overseers and Elders are the same thing.
LikeLike
Tigger:
I recently read over the Episcopal Catechism and really liked the entry on the Sacraments. Here are a couple of points that I think we can all agree on:
The only area I think there could be disagreement is on the wording of that initial definition: “given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace.” But that may be just a POV issue that can easily be reconciled between the denominations, etc. Or maybe there just needs to be a discussion on what “means of grace” means.
LikeLike
Question #10 was confirmed to me when, in our wanderings, we found ourselves for one year at an Assembly of God church. Prior to this time, such a church would have been one of the last places I could have imagined us being. But after our year there, though I was unconvinced by some aspects of their teaching, I could not deny the fact that the Holy Spirit is a live member of the Trinity, and that we should expect to meet and interact with Him always.
God, who was always more of an intellectual and theological construct prior to this, within a few years from this time became present and alive to me.
It is truly tragic how we slice and dice the world, God, and one another in order to keep all our dead ducks nicely lined up.
How about this? JUST STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
I give #1=10 a ten, and an amen.
LikeLike
Aren’t numbers 3 and 8 very closely linked?
Also, while number 9 may be true in the States, Canada, the UK and Australia….careful, its not the case almost everywhere else .
LikeLike
This is something I wrote in response to an earlier question concerning ecumenism. It fits well with this discussion, so here it is again.
About two years after becoming a Christian at age 28, my wife, children, and I joined a small PCA church. It deeply shaped my theological development, and I became a convinced Calvinist. Not unlike Christians from other traditions, it seemed to me then that “our way” of understanding the faith was the purest expression of Christian truth. If only everyone understood and lived the faith as we did, the world would be saved.
The church imploded after we had been there for ten years, and we found ourselves back out on the streets and looking for another home. No other Reformed churches existed in our city, so this became what I later referred to as our diaspora; five long years of wandering and searching for a place to settle. Since I had overly clear ideas as to what church should be, it was painfully easy to dismiss each congregation visited. My wife and three young daughters put up with me as I checked one after the other from the list of potential church homes. Two church planting efforts were made during this time; one failed, and one successful. When the successful church found a pastor and it became evident he had a completely different vision of church from mine, we were back on the road.
Desperately hoping that such a thing as “The True Church†existed, and attracted as I was to the idea of a living Church with continuity to the time of Christ, I attended RCIA classes at a local Catholic church. These are lessons one takes before they are permitted to become Catholic. Upon their completion, I sadly came to the conclusion that I remained a protestant, and that no such thing as “The True Church†was present in this world. There was only CHURCH, that it had its being in every church, and was made up of screwballs and idiots like me. Christ loved us all, and I would have to learn to love the people he loves.
Love the people Christ loves? How hard is that? Especially if it also means loving ourselves as Christ does?
I now wonder why we who are CHURCH don’t emphasize and take with the utmost seriousness Christ prayer to His Father that “….they would be as oneâ€. Isn’t this the witness we are to give the world? Christ has made us to be One People, of One Body, who are a witness to His One Life, and the New Creation here and yet to come.
I am now utterly convinced that God has blessed each denomination, all traditions, and every gathering of believers with some true facet of Himself, and that we desperately need one another in order to appreciate the magnificence of the wonder of who He is.
Could it be that He is simply waiting for us to finally act like a family before we are called to live with one another throughout eternity? Is that possible?
LikeLike
1) Evangelicalism would be much better if it would admit that the Reformation and all subsequent divisions divided the one true church of Christ.
Actually, the church had already divided about 500 years earlier. But, I accept the spirit of your point as I understand it.
2) Evangelicalism would be much better if it learned to see its own destructive, polluting entanglement in culture …
Yep, but I don’t think evangelicalism can ever finally escape this temptation without becoming something other than itself. The whole movement began with Henry, Ockenga etc. trying to call fundamentalists back into the world, to do things in politics, education, social action, etc.
3) Evangelicalism would be better if it would admit and address its authority issue.
Yes and no. Our issue, I think, is not that we lack anything in the authority department. It’s just that we do all kinds of logical gymnastics, on the one hand, to convince ourselves that our authorities really aren’t authorities, that we are all reading the Bible for ourselves. And then we do similar gymnastics, on the other hnd, to convince ourselves that some tin-horn preacher actually has the right to dictate every detail of his church members’ lives. Our authority is a “netowrk” instead of a hierarchy, and is “diffuse” instead of centralized. I actually think this is quite Biblical. The thing is that we have to admit to ourselves that we are completely depedent on the Spirit at work in the church to make this work. We have to quit kidding ourselves that we have some kind of system that works on its own.
4) Amen!
6) healthy church planting relationships
Another casualty of the seeker sensitive mega church.
7) Evangelicalism would be better if it brought out all of its riches of corporate worship … rather than throwing out what seems old, selling out what seems out of fashion and denouncing what isn’t popular. …. A sad betrayal of all we know for the wisdom of the world. We’ll be very sorry in 20 years.
I’ve been very sorry for about 10 years already.
8) Evangelicals would be much better off if … it recognized a shared ordained ministry.
Very difficult, given that evangelical churches are scattered through several different denominations.
9) Evangelicals would be be much better off it they were poor …
Yep. We started and grew as a middle class/working class movement. We have turned into a middle class/upper middle class movement, with the uppers clearly calling the shots. You just can’t fully participate in evangelical life anymore unless you can afford the latest CCM CD, the latest DVD set with Rev. So-and-so’s newest “teaching,” the latest Bible study software, a trip to the latest conference, tickets for the whole family to the latest movie, and on and on and on.
10) Evangelicals would be much better off if the Charismatic movement were to become a manistream part of every church, renewing and being renewed
Oh, I don’t know. My first encounter with the charismatic movement was when I was a youngster and I watched a charismatic preacher and his minions (I do not use the term lightly.) split the church where I grew up. There have been some egregious examples of pride and intolerance on both sides. (The SBC disqualifying missionary candidates who have a “private prayer language” is one cause of shame for my side of this divide.) But in my experience the “my way or the highway” attitude is more prevalent among the charismatics. I really don’t know that many people on my side of the aisle who will judge someone for — I don’t know — waving their arms in the air during singing. But I have been judged many times by charismatics for not waving my arms. As someone who will never, just by pure temperament, be charismatic, I find this a bit threatening.
LikeLike
Alan – I don’t think that it was intentional to omit the Great Schism, merely short cycled history.
iM – I suggest a slight revision of your first point
1) Evangelicalism would be much better if it would admit that the Reformation and all subsequent divisions divided the one true church of Christ. None of those divisions created a new church or recreated the one, true church. All of Christianity today is the broken parts of what should be whole and entire.
Perhaps something more inclusive along this line:
1) Evangelicalism would be much better if it would admit that divisions between communities of believers is antithetical to the consistent message of scripture and the Will of God.
LikeLike
A hearty amen to all 10 points.
“Evangelicalism would be much better if it would admit that the Reformation and all subsequent divisions divided the one true church of Christ.” At this point of number one I would add: “That one true church of Christ which was itself BROKEN, remains broken, and probably would (even had it not divided) still be broken, until the final return of our Lord”
And I am not referring to the RC!
LikeLike
First, Patrick Lynch, forgive me. You seem to be harboring ill feelings towards me and I want to rectify that. I never attacked the RCC as unChristian and if you felt I did, again, forgive me. I do severely question some of their doctrines but I do that even to my own denomination/theology. Also, I am not Baptist but one of those Pentecostal/Charismatics mentioned in #10, perhaps with a bit more Bible reading and theology.
That being said, I will answer your questions, plus make some comments of my own.
Yes, number one does bother me a little. I believe the One True Church still exists, that the body of Christ is still unified. I just don’t believe any one denomination can lay claim to being the body to the exclusion of all others, minus any “ignorance†loopholes or such. I believe the Body consists of those marked by God with the Holy Spirit (not tongues, but the seal of every believer). I believe that His spirit still communicates to those He indwells..again not talking Pentecostal-like stuff, just a gentle leading/prompting etc. I find it hard to believe other wise when, during prayer and study, I feel compelled to focus on a certain area of my walk or on a particular book of the Bible and within a short while there are preachers of various denominations on the radio, television and the internet covering the exact same thing or I run into believers feeling led to the same study, bloggers talk about it etc. Plus, if we’re going to say it was a bad thing, I’d like the RCC to apologize for killing reformers and revoke the sainthood of folks like Thomas More who got sainted for burning early “protestants†at the stake. I’d also like to see them actually admit the areas where Luther was right instead of insisting that, as a RCC monk, he didn’t REALLY understand their doctrines.
Number two is hard to argue with. We label smoking and drinking and clothing style as “culture†and war against it but we in general easily accept the drive for bigger, better, richer, more powerful as “God inspiredâ€. Whether you like John Piper or not, his book entitled “Brothers, We are Not Professionals†where he points out that Pastors should not act like business men running a company.
Why, Patrick, would you think I would object to the idea of getting rid of Vending Machine Jesus? I believe whole heartedly that God is the supplier of all my needs, especially if He sends me somewhere. I have had people, who had no knowledge of my pressing need, hand me the exact amount of money I needed to cover my bills saying “God told me to give you this.â€. I can’t count the times in varying ways where God has supplied my need. I’m not saying people are always handing me money, that’s only happened once or twice but the need gets met without my help. He has, however, been somewhat more remiss in providing me the winning lottery numbers. There’s a difference between a Father who gives his children food and clothing and one who spoils his children with whatever they want. One is false doctrine. Unless, there’s a vote….
I think three and five are closely related. In fact, if we could get over the “us four and no more†mentality, the “my way is the only way†mindset I dare say three would be a moot point.
Six: In Australia there is apparently a spider that is aggressive and very toxic. Once it builds a nest in your house you will NEVER be rid of it. The only way to completely eradicate it and be sure it is gone is to level the house and start from scratch.
Seven: I hate the “God is doing a NEW thing†mentality that says if it’s over 5 years old it’s not useful anymore. I also hate the “It is finished†attitude that seems so prevalent at the churches from #6 that need to die. It despises or mistrusts anything new.
Nine, I agree with the idolatry part. I even agree with the idea that we need a good bout of not being able to get all the food, cd’s, clothes, etc. we want all at one store to get a real idea of what other nations experience as “real lifeâ€. On the flip side, money does help ministry happen. I just wish we’d realize that money is NOT ministry in and of itself and that the abundance of money doesn’t mean God’s approval or endorsement.
I agree wholeheartedly on number 10. Do I think Pentecostals and Charismatics have everything correct, even in relation to the Spirit? Nope. Do I think Paul meant it when he said the gospel came not just in word but in power? You bet. As late as 230 AD the Church Fathers (Urbanus) were writing about the Gifts of the Spirit operating in their churches. That’s 130 years after the last of the 12, supposedly the only ones who could pass these abilities on, died. By the time of John Chrysostom he writes: “the present Church is like a woman who hath fallen from her former prosperous days, and in many respects retains the symbols only of that ancient prosperity…but now she is made desolate and void, and the tokens only remain.†If all Christianity has to offer is “changed livesâ€, how does that differ from Islam, Buddhism, Scientology or even the Force?
Tiger: “it seems to me that most of the arguments against Charismatic churches are little more than explanations for why the Shekinah has left the building.†AMEN!!!
DD
LikeLike
Christians seems to be like a nest of porcupines. We have much in common…but we have a hard time getting too close to each other.
LikeLike
“8. Evangelicals would be much better off if, as a movement, they had a common set of confessional/creedal/catechetical documents. Further, evangelicalism would be much better if it recognized a shared ordained ministry.”
It seems to me that in the past, the confessional/creedal/catechetical documents may have united on a local level as denominations were formed, but divided the larger playing field of Christianity. The more specific our stated belief, the fewer of us there are. How do we overcome that?
Re: the shared ordained ministry…What body should have the authority to do the ordaining?
LikeLike
#9 is the answer in a nutshell. If America wasn’t such a rich country, maybe we wouldn’t have all these mega churches focused on making people “feel good”. The church has allowed itself to be shaped by the culture, not the other way around.
LikeLike
Hmm….so does point #1 exclude our Eastern/Greek Christian family? And, this begs the question of just what happened in 1054. And, does #1 mean recognizing the RCC as being the Mother Church? I’m willing to admit, and many others probably are as well, that the divisions in the Church today are ungodly and unbiblical, but I’m hesitant about considering the RCC to be the True or Mother Church.
Otherwise, a good list. #6 sounds harsh, and is rather undesirable, but it’s probably the best option to really start over. And, I think we’re on that trend anyway, it’s just going to take some time.
LikeLike
Ranger
“So yeah, I think in 10-15 years that the scientific process will be the same, the discoveries different, but also that evangelicals will hopefully have reverted back into a group of believers who get excited at the latest things science can tell us about how God brought everything about. This attitude was much more common among evangelicals in the late 19th-early 20th century and appears to be making a comeback.”
With entire churches embracing AIG and even iMonk said (Am I right here?) that he thought the SBC would soon come out with a statement about the age of the earth, I don’t think so. AIG followers are fanatics. No quarter allowed. If you don’t agree, you are likely a heretic. End of discussion.
Sorry but I see this issue become more divisive than being resolved.
LikeLike
Amen
On point 1, agreed fully, 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 3:4 as well as the false dichotomy between Paul and James taught in many churches make it clear that many would rather be right in their own eyes.
On point 2, Evangelicalism needs to return to its root message:
Rom 1:1-5 KJV Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (2) (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (3) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (4) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: (5) By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
On point 3, good point – I suspect that if we handle points 1 and 2 that 3 will become less of an issue.
On point 4, “Name it, Claim it; Blab it, Grab it” is not and has never been part of the true Gospel message – It focuses entirely on earthly reward and the building of earthly treasures as a measure of spirituality. It completely ignores our Masters command to lay up treasure in Heaven where it cannot be touched by thieves, nor eaten by moths, nor even rust away.
On point 5, there is precious little agreement on what constitutes the Sacraments. With the tension between intellectual Christianity on one side and Pietism on the other, the benefits of many spiritual practices are enshrined on one side and cast into the rubbish heap on the other. We chase after the pretty red wagon that is new leaving behind all of our tried and tested over millenia tools for discipleship, training and growth.
On point 6, correct, too many churches are looking for the spiritual equivalent of face lifts, Boniva (r), and eternal life. The truth is that churches have a life cycle, and the harder you fight it, the worse the crash at the end is.
On point 7, very correct. When we lose sight of the Goal, all roads are equally bad.
On point 8, we seem to have forgotten that we all follow the same teacher, Lord and Master. Our very divisions betray our failure to follow Christ. It is a basic principle of mathematics that two quantities equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
On point 9, true. There are very many more poor people than rich people, and in America, even our poor people would be rich in other countries. Biblically, it seems that Christianity has always been more attractive to the poor if for no other reason than that they have less stuff to distract them from the Gospel.
On point 10 also true. An essential component of the functioning church in Acts, it seems to me that most of the arguments against Charismatic churches are little more than explanations for why the Shekinah has left the building.
LikeLike
Patrick Lynch:
Greetings. I am sorry to disappoint you but I am not a Baptist nor have I ever been a Baptist. (I do love the Baptists though.)
So, let me tell you a little bit about my perspective. I am currently Vineyard. I was raised RC. According to RC, I am anathema or ignorant. I was educated by the RC (parochial school, public high school, RC college, degree in philosophy, MA in education from a secular college). I mention this to combat the RC allowance for my salvation under the loop hole of ignorance. That leaves me with anathema!
Point #1: I agree the church is divided. I want the RC Church to repent, ditch all the docrines they have added and require their flock to assent to and get back on track. This would really affect their claim to authority (#3) however; and so, I do not have much hope that it will ever happen.
Point #4: I do not agree with the prosperity doctrine. I have raised three children in a modest 1200 sq.ft. house with one bathroom and know how extremely blessed I am. I have lived in this house for 28 years (all my married life) and, God willing, hope to die in it.
Point #10: A big resounding AMEN.
LikeLike
Michael Bell: Of course.
LikeLike
Amen iMonk, amen.
#3 reminds me of a short moment when I was studying at a small evangelical college in Queensland, Australia. The talk around the lunch table was about the lunch table was of the heresies in history, with the concluding remark from a normally quiet student, “I just wish people would present their theology and not call it ‘biblical theology’.” That was the first instance of the recognition of the problem from others I’d ever encountered. Great to see it again (and hopefully again, and again, and again…).
#6. I started out in ministry with the aim of ‘saving’ as many churches as possible from the death of irrelevancy and subsequent dying off as their members died off (naturally). Arrogant, I know, and full of the folly of ignorance. I’ve come to realise that it would be far better to let them go and plant new ones in the same place. In a discussion over some brews last night, one of my fellow imbibers likened these old churches (the institutions) to churches (buildings) built in the 1600s/1700s. They look ok, but they aren’t fit for 21st century purpose, and many of them falling apart faster than they can be repaired.
LikeLike
Jamey,
You asked “Science will be completely different in 10-15 years, don’t you think?” and Ky boy answered, “Discoveries, yes. The process, no.”
I think the problem is that plenty understand the scientific process well, but have unfortunately bought the myth propagated for the last 100 years by fundamentalists on both sides of the issues claiming that science and faith are at war, and you can’t be a believing scientist or a scientifically interested believer. Furthermore, modernism’s grasp on some sectors of evangelicalism has caused people to read the text in ways that were never intended (partially as a result of this myth), leading to gross misunderstandings.
There is a lot of work being done by evangelicals in science at the highest levels, and most see no conflict between their work and their faith. There are many organizations like the Faraday institute devoting their efforts toward showing how science and faith are not in conflict and that neither side needs to compromise in order for this to be the case. Biblical Christianity has no need to fear learning from science and listening to the wonderful things that scientists can tell us about how God created and sustains the world. There are so many books coming out right now devoted to these topics by experts in theology and science.
So yeah, I think in 10-15 years that the scientific process will be the same, the discoveries different, but also that evangelicals will hopefully have reverted back into a group of believers who get excited at the latest things science can tell us about how God brought everything about. This attitude was much more common among evangelicals in the late 19th-early 20th century and appears to be making a comeback.
LikeLike
jamey w. bennett
“Science will be completely different in 10-15 years, don’t you think?”
Discoveries, yes. The process, no. The issue many evangelicals have with science start with a lack of understanding of the process of exploration and discovery.
LikeLike
As an outsider, just to be sure I understand who you write about, how would you define the evangelicals? Who are you writing about?
LikeLike
Now HERE is a thread where I hope we get all those hardcore Baptist folks to chime in on.
What say you, DaveD? Boethus? Others?
Does point 1 bother you?
Does point 4 feel like it undermines your pieties?
I tend to think that ideally, Evangelicalism should be a disposition that Catholics should be able to adopt – as a kind of practical, theological simplicity of faith that we should embrace after we’ve learned to think deeply about mystery, community, ethics, and culture. Catholicism is a ruminative, dutiful religion for a lot of us; I hope I’m not derailing the conversation, but I do think it helps to think of an ideal Evangelicalism as generously as possible, as a pan-denominational type of social orientation of Christian faith rather than as a sort of martial strain of Protestantism. It helps in my mind to oppose Evangelicalism with monasticism.
What do I know, though? I’m sort of drunk.
LikeLike
Michael,
Excellent thoughts. I’m probably not with you on #10 so much, but your thoughts are quite helpful.
Ranger,
Science will be completely different in 10-15 years, don’t you think?
jamey
LikeLike
Those are good thoughts iMonk! I’m surprised you didn’t mention the issues with science, but I think with all of the recent books showing that good science can be done within an evangelical framework that this will be less of a problem in 10-15 years than it is right now.
LikeLike
Michael,
I couldn’t agree more! I would like to hear more about what we could potentially do about the authority issue. Perhaps stay away from independent churches and encourage our denomination leaders to build bridges or even mergers with other denominations?
Could I repost this at Eclectic Christian. It really fits with what we are trying to communicate.
Mike Bell
LikeLike