Up, Or Maybe Down, From Fundamentalism

An interesting review of Christine Rosen's new book, My Fundamentalist Education: Goodbye to All That by Alan Pell Crawford, writing in the Wall Street Journal. He describes the book and its dissection of Fundamentalist tackiness and remarks:

Such descriptions may well be accurate, and they also betray the extent to which social class can influence religious beliefs--one's own and one's attitudes toward those of others. Only on the penultimate page of "My Fundamentalist Education" does Ms. Rosen acknowledge that her Keswick experience "gave me a profound respect for my fellow human beings"--not evident from her descriptions of them--and afforded her serious academic benefits. The peculiar rigor of the school's approach, for example, "taught me the value of reading, the usefulness of memorization, and the importance of speaking and writing clearly."

I haven't seen the book, though I have read about it and read at least one article by the author on the subject, and I was not surprised by this. Social class explains a lot more of our behavior than most of us want to admit, and most of us intellectual-types (a word that does not mean intelligent or thoughtful, mind you) often confuse social judgments of those we feel our inferiors with intellectual discernment of their failings.

At the risk of upsetting some of you, I think this explains much of contemporary Evangelicalism: Children of Fundamentalist famlies may well have found parts of its theology untenable and its culture blinkered and reactionary, but mixed with this is often the feeling that their parents and their friends weren't quite the done thing. They were wrong about the Rapture and they wore those hideous polyester jackets and listened to records like "100 Saxophones Play Your Holiday Favorites" and liked little dolls of children with huge eyes.

I say this on the testimony of some of my self-critical Evangelical friends, and from listening to other Evangelicals (friends and not) go on — and on and on and on — about their Fundamentalist childhoods. What they convey, along with their theological "growth," is how embarassing their childhoods were — how socially embarassing, I mean — and how the life they now lead is ever so much more tasteful and refined.

They drink good wine! They watch foreign movies! They know the difference between lager and ale! They read books with rude words in them! They wear cotton and wool! They don't leave the room when someone swears! They know people who swear! They go into liquor stores as bold as you please! They voted Democrat! They order a drink at restaurants! Even two or three! They go to the Episcopal Church!

Hard on them this may sound, but it does reflect the conversations I've heard. I can think of a group of Evangelical academics with whom  twenty years ago I used to meet every week or so — in a bar, actually — who would begin talking about the nuclear freeze or baseball or church affairs or a book they'd just read, but at some point in the conversation one of them would say something about Fundamentalism (usually with an opening like, "When I was a kid, my parents/the pastor/a visiting preacher"), and the conversation would take off, or go down, from there.

I know this kind of feeling myself. I grew up in a New England college town and to this am affected by — politeness requires I say burdened by — prejudices acquired during my childhood. They are not rational (not entirely rational) but they are powerful, and I can easily understand how someone who grew up in a Fundamentalist home but was formed by the sort of world that formed me would want to leave home, its social class and its theology together, as soon as possible.

I can't help but think desparaging thoughts when some honking big Cadillac drives by, not so much because the owners are wasting gas but because the things are just so tacky. Oldsmobile used to run an ad saying "This isn't your father's Oldsmobile" and my reaction was that it might not be but I still wouldn't be caught dead in one of the things. (We have a minivan now, but before that had a Volvo. Which died after 200,000 miles. I still miss it.)

So I can understand the ex-Fundamentalist turned Evangelical, and probably would have done the same thing myself, but something ought to be said for the Fundamentalists from which he came, even if he can't bring himself to say it. Let's grant that many of the real horror stories are true, but every group has those — mine did, though of a different sort, with lax parents raising alienated children who ruined their minds with drugs being a big one.

But even so, I have known some classic Fundamentalists, and they were often seriously godly people whose faith exceeded mine. If they were wrong about drinking wine (and misread Scripture to prove it) or reading Catcher in the Rye because the main character swore a lot or their elaborate eschatological predictions, they were people who knew and loved the Lord and were willing to sacrifice for Him the social success other people like them took for granted.

When I hear ex-Fundamentalists boast of their sophistication, I wonder how much they've lost in climbing up the social scale. This is not unfair. I think, for example, of those academics, then in their 40s and 50s, and how many of them were pro-choice, and often sneeringly dismissive of pro-lifers, and how often when talking about the pro-life movement they would worry about "absolutism" and "fanaticism" and "simple-mindedness" and all the things the purely secular people in their circles worried about.

Comments

[Patrick]

"They drink good wine! They watch foreign movies! They know the difference between lager and ale! They read books with rude words in them! They wear cotton and wool! They don't leave the room when someone swears! They know people who swear! They go into liquor stores as bold as you please! They voted Democrat! They order a drink at restaurants! Even two or three! They go to the Episcopal Church!"

HA! Spot on description. I call it Christian chic. Been guilty of a few of those exclamations points in my time most certainly.

I think in the effort to find exegetical correctness and freedom in Christ there has been a rather big loss concerning the emphasis of good ol' holiness.

[Nuj]

I am sure that it would have been difficult growing up in a 'fundamentalist' home. I am an artist and grew up in a home where Christianity was seen as 'private' and tasteful (Canadian Anglican.)At 17 my father started me on my way by quoting Augustine. I was 'saved' during the Jesus People movement of the seventies. Stayed in my Anglican Church, am involved in the current 'Anglican mess' up to my eyeballs (on the orthodox side.)
Five years ago the youth director of our parish, apparently said of my husband and I that we were really cool, and suggested that our son was lucky to have such 'neat' parents. (I am a jazz fanatic and do, as do many artists do, enjoy good wine,food, coffee etc.) We also had many friends from inside and outside the church who are involved in science, the arts and church life. Our children did not lack for interesting Christians and non Christians as they grew up. Never-the-less our son has gone AWOL for the time being.
The thing we have to remember is that all of us come flawed and all have sinned. It is not fundamentalism that causes children to run from some of what their parents teach and are. Some of the running away is simply that which each generation must do. The encouraging thing is that God loves our children more than we do and he leads each one home in His rigorous way way. We do not simply inherit living in the kingdom we must apprehend the kingdom for ourselves at our Lord's calling. Where ever we start from we will have our painful sufferings and epiphanies that lead us on homeward.
Nuj

[dilys]

Don't forget, the Fundamentalist class culture itself is rife with reaction-formation assumed superiority to anyone with pretentions to taste or sophistication. I remember both costumed Priest-Nun R. Catholic horror tableaus, and the ongoing sermon-series excoriating the pathos of Life in Hollywood, with press-clipping Elizabeth Taylor scrapbooks for illustration. What drove me out from the inescapable boredom and in detestation of doctrinal incoherency was not polyester-clad faith, but rather the suggestion that a silk-linen-clad appreciation of Bach was somehow inferior to praise choruses. The tribe as I knew it was terrified of losing, or being cooly evaluated by, its children, and would willingly cripple them to avoid their escape. Many of us limping refugees then carry the baggage of a desperate desire to be let "in" the mainline culture, particularly the academic one, since we feel qualified at least to parse fine points of theory.

However, I've come to appreciate the rote Scriptural catalogue that was implanted in my memory by the Fundamentalist flannel-board. And I've become more anti-Catcher even than those suspicious original monitors. On my own initiative as I gain experience I understand the wisdom of not planting Artistic Brokeback Images into my mind, however sophisticated I think I am.

Joseph Campbell coined the metaphor of certain religious approaches as a developmental "marsupial pouch." In a kind of penultimate and poetic justice, I notice the jumping-off point of Fundamentalist conditioning makes it particularly satisfying to return to Fundamentals far antecedent to the Niagra Bible Conference. That may be one aspect of the Providential nature of Fundamentalist nurture in our time.

[Bill Markley]

Some of the holiest people I've known have been teetotaling, TV-shunning fundamentalists, and others have been wine-drinking Roman Catholics (Sebastian Flyte from "Brideshead Revisited" also comes to mind in the area of fictional characters).

Its certainly far from an original thought on my part, but in addition to considering people at the individual level, I have to say that I'm troubled by the many attempts nowadays to be "hip" and "relevant" in so many churches and college-age Christian groups. I think those attempts often push holiness far away.

[David]

This discussion brings to mind the old story about the down-and-out man in the gutter.

The Pentecostals picked him up out of the gutter.

The Baptists cleaned him up.

The Methodists dressed him.

The Presbyterians sent him to school

The Episcopalians introduced him to high society.

And then the Pentecostals picked him up out of the gutter.

[MarcV]

The last 3 comments were excellent, and I raise my glass of sparkling cranberry juice in salute.

It all comes down to what is given precedent in your life, learning about and living by Scripture or knowing and trying the 18 different Samuel Adam's beer/ale/lager varieties (and using the proper glass for each!), for example. The Lord does not make it easy for us when we strive for holiness in this "earthy" world. Thankfully He has given us a Counselor, the Holy Spirit, who can help us find the balance of being in and not of this world.

[MarcV]

Err, that should be first 3 comments, though the other ones are good too.

[S. M. Hutchens]

The great irony of fundamentalism is its failure to concentrate on the fundamentals. Had it done this, in concert with the catholic intentions of those who produced the tracts from which the movement was named, it would have become something quite different than it did, and Evangelicalism (so far as it is an attempt to reculturate fundamentalism) would have been unnecessary. Fundamentalists could have regained their Bach and beer on Christian principles--without the secularist fascinations and capitulations of Evangelicalism.

I had a fundamentalist upbringing, but received two degrees from an Evangelical seminary (M.Div., Th.M., Trinity, Deerfield). Since my days in the latter I have regarded fundamentalism, granted all its faults, as better than Evangelicalism, granted all its virtues--including the liberality that allowed me to graduate despite my growing antipathy to Evangelicalism. Fundamentalism by its positive and essential nature is a portal to catholic Christianity, while Evangelicalism, resting as it does on antifundamentalism, is--and year by year is proving itself more to be--a way out.

[Elizabeth]

How embarrasing to admit that you've labeled me so well. Just a week ago I was recalling, with cynical glee, how my parents' fundy church used to show the movie "The Rapture" on New Years Eves to try to scare the sin out of us. Now I think I'm way too cool to be like them.

My kids may take the "rebelling against their parent" thing a step beyond what I've done. After all, while I listen to "adult alternative" music -- blues, bluegrass, jazz -- and make jokes about the lack of musical skills of contemporary Christian musicians, my kids both listen to a Christian station, KLOVE, religiously and frequently ask me why I don't.

Many years ago (late 80s) I stumbled across a book called "Growing Up Born Again", written by some former fundy children. It avoided total cynicism about their fundamentalist churches-of-origin, but was so funny and on-target that I laughed until I cried. Anyone else recall that book?

[Francesca]

We often have students going through that 'in recovery from fundamentalism' syndrome. The link to social shame is spot on.

But it is also fair to say that some from fundamentalist or very conservative Protestant families who hold on to the basics are inhibited from developing their minds to the highest by a combination of knee-jerk anti-intellectualism and resentment of the East coast middle classes.

Francesca

[Tony Esolen]

A colleague of mine, an Episcopalian raised in a fundamentalist Southern home, used to have his son listen to the Marlon Mattox show, in order to teach him what not to believe. The son learned his lessons well, and is now an atheist.

The syndrome is seen among Catholics, too. You can't read much of Hans Kung without running into his sneering, "intellectual" contempt for popular piety; that sort of contempt, nine parts plain old snobbery and one part bad theology, is endemic among the Jesuits, most of the old and moribund orders of nuns, and at almost every Catholic college.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Neuhaus called it Narrow Escape Syndrome:

"defining one’s life by a narrow escape from a stifling childhood religion, and by the fear that the escape is not entirely successful."

[Steve Nicoloso]

Earlier Neuhaussian reference to the syndrome here. And I'd meant to add, as Tony points out profoundly, the syndrome is usually far more dangerous than the thing being escaped. I do wonder, however, whether there might be stories of narrow escapes from Narrow Escape Syndrome, and whether in some cases that could be a pathology.

[Jeremy Abel]

Mark me up as another you've nailed. However, I will say that there are degrees to fundamentalism. Some of it is truly abusive. And some of us react so violently against it because we have seen far too many shattered souls. But your point is valid and well-made.

[kate]

Thank you for your thoughtful and absolutely spot-on comments. Coming from a fundamentalist Presbyterian background, I migrated to a more confessional Reformed church, thereby bypassing Evangelicalism (growing up in the 50s/60s, true fundamentalists were highly critical of NAE Evangelicals - the compromisers).

However, moving in academic circles the past 25 odd years, I have seen many examples of orthodox Christian scholars, whether Reformed or Evangelical, climbing the Establishment mountain by trampling on the backs of their upbringings. It's a serious temptation.

To know if you are at risk, ask yourself a question: which bothers you more: Pat Robertson's embarrassing comments about knowing God's mind in connection with New Orleans or Israel, or church leaders whose ever-so-nuanced positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. give them ready access and acceptance in Establishment circles.

I have always had high respect for Thomas Howard's irenic approach to his upbringing - voicing appreciation for its strengths while moving in another direction.

Hutchens' comments comparing fundamentalists and Evangelicals also resonate with my experience. As conservative Protestants of every stripe (Evangelicals, Anglicans, Reformed, Lutherans) seem to be heading to some form of Evangelicalism, I find myself gravitating to an even stronger vision of catholic Christianity, which, God knows, may lead me to Catholic Christianity as the only serious alternative to the ahistorical, make-it-up-as-you-go spirit that permeates Evangelicalism today (notwithstanding the dabbling that some Evangelicals are doing as they 'discover' the Church Fathers and the Tradition).

[Steve Nicoloso]

As conservative Protestants of every stripe (Evangelicals, Anglicans, Reformed, Lutherans) seem to be heading to some form of Evangelicalism, I find myself gravitating to an even stronger vision of catholic Christianity, which, God knows, may lead me to Catholic Christianity as the only serious alternative...

Beware, Kate. Be very, very aware, that, and I am speaking from the perspective of disaffected Evangelical now entering the RCC, Catholicism too is rife with Evangelicalizing elements. Most, if not every, major of dogma of the Catholic Church was reiterated unchanged in Vatican II. Yet, 40 years later it is commonplace to find deacons and priests (and from what I read, even Bishops) who use Vatican II as an excuse for unveiled revisionism and modernism. (For example, two priests in my parish are responsible for this bit of philosophizing on divorce & remarriage.) If you wish to come to the One True Church that Jesus founded, come to it because it is the One True Church, but don't come to it because it is a rose garden. It ain't, and, come to think of it... why would it be?

[anon]

Kate: rightly or wrongly, there's a plethora of different Reformed and Presbyterian denominations and federations out there, some less evangelical-leaning than others (and not all of which would be fundamentalist types), and I'm sure you should be able to find one fairly close to you which doesn't disappoint so much. Of course, no church is perfect, being made of imperfect humans. But if you truly hold to the Doctrines of Grace, and the Five Solas of the Reformation, how could you jettison all that for Rome? (Note to R.C. ultra-partisans here, tempted to argue: I'm not here to argue with you, I'm talking with my Reformed sister here.)

Though not Roman Catholic myself, I agree with Steve that one should belong to a given tradition based on one's belief that it is true, rather than deludely thinking it is perfect, or because it doesn't have this or that failing that another one does.

If, as is the case with most Reformed and Presbyterian churches, you subscribe to the Apostles' Creed and/or the Nicene Creed, you already are "catholic"; no need to become "Catholic".

[Russ Reeves]

Christine Rosen has an article in the journal In Character (which she edits) entitled "To Thine Own Self Be True: What Tell-all Memoirs Tell Us About Ourselves." (http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=47) Her focus is on professional vs. personal loyalty in political tell-all memoirs, but it raises interesting questions about her own reflections on her upbringing.

[kate]

Steve and Anon, Not to be misunderstood, my gravitation away from Evangelicalism is not "fundamentally" a question of style (though I think style can be indicative of important differences among Christians); rather, the theological currents in Evangelicalism that have made inroads into the Reformed denomination and congregations with which I am familiar have triggered a reexamination of my understanding of the Reformed faith. And that reexamination has led me to think hard about the nature of the Church.

This side of Christ's return I don't expect to find a perfect congregation, but to try faithfully to find the right place in his Body.

Thank you for your expressions of concern; it's an arduous work to reexamine one's long-held assumptions, and I do it with fear and trembling, yet confident of the Holy Spirit's guidance.

[Karen B.]

This is a fascinating comment thread, and an excellent & thought-provoking original post. It seems particularly relevant and interesting in light of some of the reaction among Episcopal circles and on the blogosphere re: the NBC show last night "the Book of Daniel". The Episcopal Diocese of Washington [D.C.] has started a blog re: reactions and comments about the show.

http://blog.edow.org/weblog/

Quite a number of comments focus on the lack of education / sophistication of those who would dare criticize the show. Sad. So this issue of social class and shame and social acceptability as being more important than holiness resonates.

(FYI, I'm a lifelong Episcopalian, and an evangelical, who first heard and understood the Gospel at a Bible club started by a Pentecostal school friend's family, and who since has had lots of involvement with Pentecostals (AoG) and Evangelicals of various stripes, while remaining affiliated with the Episcopal church).

[David Gustafson]

It is usually very wrong AND very unbecoming when ex-Fundamentalists publicly criticize or distance themselves from Fundamentalism. It's very similar to criticizing your own family. If you've ever known someone who wanted you to be sure to know that he was smarter than his parents, and that he found their defects embarrassing--well, ex-Fundamentalists critical of Fundamentalism are usually like that.

Shut up, be grateful, and have some dignity. These are the people who brought you to Jesus, taught you the Bible, and set you on the Christian life. Many of their faults (whether legalism, literalism, or anti-intellectualism) are exaggerated in the arrested-development adolescent memory that left them; and in any event many of those faults are better than some of the virtues of the churches to which the ex-Fundamentalists go. For example, in a culture awash in substance abuse, legalistic tee-totalism is one of the best fallacies you can inflict in your kids.

I grew up on the campus of Bob Jones University. Some of its faults are widely publicized and well understood. The people who taught me in the first 21 years of my life were wrong about some things. They were right about a whole lot more, however, and they included some truly heroic Christians. On average, they are the sort whose shoes I am not worthy to untie.

I currently happily attend a conservative Episcopal parish, which lacks some of the faults of BJU. It has, truth be told, a few other faults of its own. These two strains of Christianity could actually benefit from each others' influence. The benefit would truly be mutual.

[Steve Nicoloso]

For example, in a culture awash in substance abuse, legalistic tee-totalism is one of the best fallacies you can inflict in your kids.

Except for what may happen when they find out it is legalistic fallacy. No, I'd say that the rightness and nobility of Fundamentalism is in standing, unapologetically, often fideistically, for and obeying a (super-biblical) magisterial tradition (as Steve Hutchens puts it so admirably: "catholic [small-c] intentions"), such as is natural in Christianity (and for all I know in just about any authoritative religion).

To fall from Fundamentalism into mere Evangelicalism is to fall away from and/or rationalistically reject the very concept of a magisterial tradition. Such a rejection is not only unbibilical, ahistorical, and philosophically incoherent, but utterly unnatural, and therefore unstable. An Evangelical is not merely a Fundamentalist who drinks or dances or smokes or goes to R-rated movies. An Evangelical is a Fundamentalist who's lost (or in some cases never had) his moorings and is adrift in a relativitistic sea of private interpretation.

Now it is no help, I think, to those catholic intentions for several of the main talking points to be so screwed up, so hermeneutically acrobatic, as tee-totalism, not least because it becomes just such a trivial stumbling block, nor least because it might very well lead a young person toward a career in hermeneutic gymnastics. If we were in a culture awash in substance abuse (and of this I'm uncertain), I'd think it would be prudent to encourage children to learn to imbibe in moderation at the earliest possible ages. Just as if we were in a culture awash in obesity (something I'm far more likely to grant), we would teach our children to eat it moderation... at least most of the time.

My $0.02

[David]

Mr. Nicoloso,
In a post on a different thread just a few minutes ago you said,
'we haven't defined "authentic liberal".'
Well, despite your many swipes at Evangelicals, you haven't defined them either. I realize that it's far easier to criticize people when you paint with a broad brush, and you obviously seem to enjoy doing that with Evangelicals, but lets hear what you consider an Evangelical to be. After all, it is a very imprecise term. Outside of the generic Evangelical Protestant churches (against which you seem to find such extreme fault) there are evangelical Catholics, evangelical Anglicans, etc. So let’s hear your thesis.

Forgive me if I sound somewhat blunt, but for a good while now you (and several other posters) have taken every opportunity to kick around an 'Evangelical' straw man. Let’s not pretend that what you're doing is anymore more honest than that. Evangelical churches are an extremely diverse group and indeed it's easy to find particular cases to criticize. It's especially easy if you've had a bad personal experience, as your posts seem to indicate is the case with you, Mr. Nicoloso. But it goes both ways. There’s a man at my church who left the Catholic Church because a priest told him that if Jesus wouldn't let him in the front door, Mary would let him in the back. Now I am fully aware that that's not a genuine Catholic doctrine, but my point is that there are many, many people who've had very bad experiences with churches of every stripe. And that's unfortunate, but their experiences shouldn't be use to define the mainstream.

Peter Kim had a post a while back that said it nicely:
"If you're going to start bashing on a movement, please be very specific instead of making these huge overarching generalizations that are so broad that they are meaningless. There's a lot of stuff that Catholics and Orthodox believe that trouble me, but I'm wouldn't spout off on it on a site that claims to be ecumenical."

The vast majority of evangelical churches are solidly biblically based, believe in Sola Gracia, Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura, emphasize personal spiritual growth (daily reading and study of the Bible), have excellent teaching and have a strong desire to reach the world for Christ. You may disagree with doctrinal points, you may disagree with worship style, and you may disagree with the lack of church hierarchy, but if you actually want people to listen, you have to come to the table, not just stand back and throw insults. At a site like this I hope to find people on all sides who come to the table honestly.

David

[Steve Nicoloso]

There is a difference, David, between a straw man and a stereotype. (For that matter, there is a difference between a stereotype and a caricature.) Having spent the last 30 years as an evangelical I know enough to know the thing that I have (admittedly) been variously painting with a broad brush or whipping up on is more than a straw man. It is instead a stereotype, and stereotypes are stereotypes because they often are true, perhaps more often than not, and definitely not true in every place at all times. David Mills didn't define evangelical in the original post, either. He didn't need to. The drama he described is so familiar (so stereotypical) that most readers know what he meant.

I'm sorry that you think I'm just standing back and throwing insults and actually saddened that you would imply I'm not "com(ing) to the table honestly", but I find some relief in not knowing what it would actually mean to be coming to the table of the Mere Comments Blog. It is, in the final analysis, a blog. And these, these things down here, are merely comments and not even the blog. (Tho' one might be inclined to believe that in a blog named "Mere Comments", the comments might count for slightly more than they ordinarily do. And, of course, Touchstone readers are, thankfully, a very opinionated bunch.) A blog's combox doesn't serve very well in presenting comprehensive scholarly treatises, where one would expect all ambiguous terms to be painstakingly defined, and perhaps a more measured tone assumed. There are some that try to use comboxes for just such purposes and they are usually (and rightly) quickly dismissed as blowhards, sabre-rattlers, trolls, and such like. This comment is probably already at this point coming dangerously close just such a suspicious length. [Ack!]

Still, it is a fair question. How do I define evangelical?

evangelical - n. low-church (i.e., congregational) protestant who yet holds to the reformation solas you mentioned and would not call himself fundamentalist

Now I know this definition technically would exclude orthodox (OP, PCA) Prebyterians and orthodox Lutherans (LCMS, WELS) who might consider themselves otherwise evangelical. So be it. This is a very tiny sliver of Christendom when compared to the vast hordes in community churches, bible churches, bible fellowships, calvary chapels, mainstream baptist (non-IFCA, non-GARB &c. and obviously not American Baptist for very different reasons), foursquare, worship centers, family worship centers, praise and worship centers, EFree, C&MA, &c., &c.

Evangelical when used as an adjective (which it originally was in the 18th and 19th centuries) applying to Catholics and Anglicans usually means something more akin to evangelistic or reform-minded (both good things!). Obviously no "good" Catholic (or "good" Anglican) can be in favor congregational chuch constitution nor sola fide, nor sola scriptura (please note I left out sola gratia since ALL orthodox Christians believe that). If they were, then they couldn't very well be good Catholics or Anglicans but might very well be good evangelicals (the noun).

Now the complaint against "evangelicals" need not be repeated here. Just google Hutchens AND evangelicalism and you'll find all you need. His complaints about shallowness, trendiness, experimentalism, attempts at emotional manipulation, hermeneutical sophistries, and such like are legendary 'round here, and (IMO) have almost always presented an accurate diagnosis and a prudent course of treatment. At risk of oversimplifying and perhaps over-interpreting (and at risk of Hutchens actually speaking for his own self :-) I think his admonitions tend to a getting back to (small-f) fundamentalist roots, by, for example, taking a higher view of church authority, pursuing study of scripture that is less fetishistic and more informed by history, commitment to historic or confessional or denominational distinctives, or generally being less concerned with being "hip" and "relevant".

And he's absolutely right. This is what is needed. It is the only thing that can possibly keep what is now "mainstream evangelicalism" from falling off the same cliff that what we know of as "mainline protestantism" fell off 50 years ago, and doing so in our lifetimes. You know the Methodists were founded by John Wesley. Where did they go so wrong? What does the E in ELCA stand for? It used to mean something. One of the C's un UCC allegedly stands for "Christ". The PCUSA once upon a time was actually Presbyterian and lot of folks therein took Calvin quite seriously. My point is that everything we know as mainline protestantism (hopelessly shipwrecked these days in modernism, relativism, &c.) was once what "evangelicalism" is today. (And I know I just painted mainline Protestantism broadly and that there are faithful, intelligent, orthodox holdouts in those denominations too, but the stereotype is a reasonable shorthand in this case.)

But where Hutchens and I differ is that I believe it is long past hopeless to stop the runaway train, which is why I think he remains "evangelical" whereas I could not. I believe that the problem is intrinsic to low church protestantism holding the aforementioned solas, i.e., the definition of evangelical. We have here a theology wherein it is fundamentally permissible for a group of friends or cohorts to "vote themselves" a church, "elect" themselves presbyters, and, by hard application of the principle of sola scriptura invent novel doctrines and practices heretofore unheard of in the history of Christianity. The problem is not that it is happening, tho' it is, the problem is that it can. But that isn't even really the problem...

Almost 1000 years ago the Western Church, believing themselves to be the One True Church, excommunicated the Eastern Church. Simultaneously, the Eastern Church, believing themselves to be the One True Church, excommunicated the Western Church. About 500 years later, pieces of the Western Church broke off and formed what they believed to be (variously) the One True Church. Still every sect, every sect at least that still held to the first 3 major Christian creeds, held itself to be the One True Church. And this was all well and good (except for the executions) because this is how the Church is supposed to see itself, exclusively the One Church founded by Christ upon the Apostles and their teaching. But this is no longer the case today.

I remember being taught, as a fundamentalist, that Catholics were surely going to hell, ESPECIALLY if they actually believed and practiced what their Church taught. Many Catholics grew up believing the exact same thing about Protestants. But today? Only "right wing nut-jobs" believe this any more. And this... THIS is the dog-gone shame. It is not a shame that people recognize (rightly) that God's grace can reach people even when in imperfect communion (or maybe even utterly without communion) with the One True Church that Christ founded, but rather that people don't any more see themselves as the One True Church that Christ founded. Or worse, that there is no One True Church that Christ founded. Or worst of all, there need not exist (except as mental abstraction) the One True Church that Christ founded. It is the loss of exclusivism, fundamentalism really, that is the problem as I see it.

Now I will grant that there are plenty (perhaps even a majority) of Catholics, and probably even many priests, who don't believe their Church to be the One True Church that Christ founded (and perhaps wouldn't know what the heck that even means), but they at least DIS-agree with (or are ignorant of) the teachings of their own Church. The same cannot be said for Evangelicals. It would be ludicrous to imagine a Southern Baptist anathematizing a Foursquare church member for believing what the Foursquare Church taught. We'd think the Southern Baptist insane, and certainly not representative of the SBC. They agree on the "essentials", they just disagree about matters of "style" or manifestations of the Holy Spirit or some such thing. Well, if they agree on so much, why the hell aren't they in the same Church (organizationally speaking)? After all, Christ prayed that his Church would be one. He promised the Apostles that the Spirit would lead them in all truth. The reason they aren't in the same Church is that it is simply no longer seen as necessary. And because it is not necessary, unity is simply optional. A modern evangelical is free to be in unity with whomever "the Lord leads" him. And that is no real unity at all.

I believe Chesterton said something to the effect that we don't need a Church that will be right where we are right but a Church that will be right where we are wrong. But how can you have a Church be right where you are wrong, when you are simply free (and possibly even encouraged) to choose the Church you most agree with. And that is why I believe modern evangelicalism lacks inherently the institutional strength to resist modernism. It is already well underway. And sentimentalism, "hip"-ness, relevance, dumbing down, experimentalism are all very real symptoms of what I consider to be a deeper problem. Need I mention high profile evangelicals who waffle on abortion? (Don't even get me started on hormonal contraception!!) The way back, if there is one at all, is thru the fundamentalist roots, back to a small-c catholic reckoning of the church and its raison d'etre.

So that David (I can't believe ANYONE could still possibly be reading) is the nature of my complaint. It is not about silly songs (the RCC can out-silly Evangelicals any day), or "worship styles" (I don't believe there actually is such a thing), or doctrines about tongues or Mary or baptism or anything else save one: what is the nature of the Church that Christ founded? Everything else follows from the answer to that question.

Best regards!

[Patrick]

I think I made my way through that last post. Indeed, I got to thinking recently how this thread, meant as a defense of Fundamentalists, became an attack on Evangelicals. Which is a curious thing of course, and maybe this is because Fundamentalists have lost their teeth while Evangelicals are the active and present evil.

That being the case I'd like to echo David Mills' wonderful suggestion but aim it towards Evangelicals. It is a wonder what Evangelicals have done in this nation. Mistakes they have made but they represent, in many cases, among the most active, passionate, dedicated group of Christians around. I dare say I would feel very confident in comparing the relative spiritual maturity of the typical Evangelical versus the typical Catholic.

I am a Christian because of Evangelicals. I am a learned Christian because of Evangelicals. I love Christ, pursue the depths of the Spirit, and have learned to embrace a relationship with the Triune God because of passionate Evangelicals.

We need only look to Europe to realize the historic churches are likewise quite weak in their real expression of Christ's fullness. We can list all sorts of names and institutions of Catholic connection who have little regard for Christian values or beliefs.

So this isn't a problem with Evangelicalism this is a problem in all Churches, and so while pointing out the weaknesses of Evangelicalism is certainly worthwhile, doing so in a way which makes it seem different than any other version of Christianity is going too far. Yes, the Catholic church has traditions and a depth of Spirituality of profound measure. Those who are deep can be very deep, but those who are not fully engaged can be entirely more shallow.

My conversations with devoted Catholics have revealed significantly more gaps in their understanding than similar conversations with Evangelicals.

All this to say that Evangelicals, like Fundamentalists, have their issues, but in the same way we must also affirm the significant spiritual work and commitment Evangelicals have brought to this country. I dare say we would almost certainly be in a much spiritual situation if there were no Evangelicals.

But, Steve's last question is a valid one, and one which I think all the writers and commenters here approach even in indirectly. We're all grasping at the nature of the Church, and Mere Comments, with Touchstone, is an expression there's something worthwhile in broader conversations.

So, what is the nature of the Church? I guess that's a question beyond my ability to answer, yet I can't help think that a Church which believes in the Trinity is handicapping itself by only affirming a simplistic unity.

There is unity based on standard perceptions of power and control. Then there is unity based on diversity, where the unifying element causes all the disparate pieces to rise above themselves in order to become much more than the sum of its various parts. I dare say this unity through diversity might be the nature of both the Trinity and the Church ordained by such.

And if this is the case, it really isn't too seemly to insult any other part, lest we be insulting the work of the Spirit who brings unity through this diversity. Correct, exhort, pray for, assist -- these are what we should be about. Dismissing and rejection, however, are not among the fruits of the Spirit.

[David]

Mr. Nicoloso,
Congratulations, you win the award for longest post ever! But you did answer my question, and that I do appreciate.

"It is not a shame that people recognize (rightly) that God's grace can reach people even when in imperfect communion (or maybe even utterly without communion) with the One True Church that Christ founded, but rather that people don't any more see themselves as the One True Church that Christ founded. Or worse, that there is no One True Church that Christ founded. Or worst of all, there need not exist (except as mental abstraction) the One True Church that Christ founded. It is the loss of exclusivism, fundamentalism really, that is the problem as I see it."

If I understand correctly, this is your thesis. Fair enough, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I think you are absolutely wrong when you say that evangelicals don't see themselves as part of the "One True Church". We do, we just don't define that church as buildings and a hierarchy. We see the biblical basis for the RCC as the "One True Church" as weak at best. I don't find it a weakness to believe that I am part of the 'One True Church', which includes Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Even if you don't believe that I'm your church!

You are correct in pointing out the general anti-clerical, anti-hierarchical stance of Evangelicals, but let’s not pretend that this is without basis. Was Luther wrong about the problems in the "One True Church"? More recently, need we ask Orthodox Episcopalians, or Anglicans, or Methodists (etc, etc) about church leadership? And while I do respect recent moral leadership of the RCC you must admit that there are many, many Catholics extremely upset with the distinct lack of leadership shown in recent years in regards the multitude of scandals.

"But how can you have a Church be right where you are wrong, when you are simply free (and possibly even encouraged) to choose the Church you most agree with."
Here you certainly point out a distinct problem facing Evangelicals. But this isn't just a problem for Evangelicals. From a different perspective, should Episcopalians simply accept the church's recent position on homosexuality? Why not? I imagine you would leave such a church. Well, that's exactly what Luther did. In many ways, looking back, I wish that had not happened. I wish reforms could have come without splitting the church. The lack of unity is, I believe, the most significant issue facing Christianity today. And yet despite their lack of a church hierarchy, I think it's obvious that Evangelicals have thusfar withstood modernism far better than most institutional churches. Perhaps there is more strength there than you see. Does that mean they will in the future? I don't know. The Lord removed the lampstand of Ephesus, and that should be a warning to us all.

[Steve Nicoloso]

We see the biblical basis for the RCC as the "One True Church" as weak at best. I don't find it a weakness to believe that I am part of the 'One True Church', which includes Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

a) As I said "mental abstraction"... The term "mystical" doesn't refer to some rationalistic whitewash to explain how things are somehow true that quite apparently aren't. Just as sanctification is not merely forensic but actual, so too mystical unity of the body is at least actual and objective (and much more), not some substitute for actual and objective. "Simplistic unity" indeed, Patrick. Try actual, vis-a-vis pretended unity.

b) You wouldn't have a biblical basis for believing anything about anything if it wasn't for God's miraculous guiding and preserving a particular Church led by Bishops ostensibly ordained by succession from the Apostles and in objective communion with the Roman Bishop. That Church guarded the (primarily oral) Apostolic traditions for decades before any NT book was written, longer before many were widely circulated, and over 300 years later measured the books that were to become the official NT canon against those traditions. So don't go waving sola scriptura as some sort of defense for sola scriptura over and against the very Church who gave you the NT in the first place. (Read Philip Blosser's article here.)

"Evangelicals have thus far withstood modernism far better than most institutional churches"? Really? Far better?? Divorce & remarriage, abortaficient contraception, acceptability of IVF, dual-"career" marriages. The most I've heard is (deafening) silence from mainstream 'gelicalism on such topics. So sure, you get quite a bit of silence from the rest of Western Christianity (the operative word being "Western" as an explanation for most of the ills) as well, but at BEST I'd say that Evangelicalism resistance toward modernism is about equal to that of other sects... and WORSE about equal to the culture at large, which is to say small resistance at all. And BTW I have no idea what you mean here by "institutional churches". A church is either instituted or it is not (some sort of prayer gathering I guess), so let's, if we're now going to be pedantic, be pedantic.

Cheers!

[Patrick]

"Try actual, vis-a-vis pretended unity."

Steve, in a class I had not too long ago there were representatives from all six of the inhabited continent, as well as Haiti, which is its own world in my respect.

In our gathered times we prayed. We were from entirely different contexts, entirely different realities, yet had entire unity despite our differences in first languages.

In other settings I have prayed with Catholics, repeated the Creed with Orthodox, sought Godly counsel from Pentecostals, and have had utter connection with the Faithful across the denominational bounds.

In saying "simplistic" unity I am referring to a unity based only on church government, a unity based only on who has power. This is an easily grasped unity, an "actual" unity much like a corporation considers its unity.

However, I've had profound actual unity which far and away transcended the bounds set by folks securing their own power.

A complex unity is not just a concept of a mystical "pretending". It is about understanding our unity despite our diversity and thus allowing for distinctions between our communities in different emphases and styles while consistent in our proclamation of Jesus as risen Lord.

A call for "actual, vis-a-vis pretended unity" as you suggest seems quite akin to the Jewish/Muslim denouncing of Christian belief in the One God as just pretending there is one when there is really three. The complexity of the Three-in-One doesn't make the Trinity any less actual.

I've found significant unity with Christians from other traditions in times of Spiritual worship and pursuit. That this may not be actual in your estimation is why I consider the standard definition of unity simplistic in a church which holds a theology anything but so simplistic in every other direction.

"So don't go waving sola scriptura as some sort of defense for sola scriptura over and against the very Church who gave you the NT in the first place"

I think the argument isn't that the Church was off track in the earliest centuries, but that by the time of the middle ages it had lost its way.

Luther, it seems to me, was entirely more devout than Leo X. And it also seems to me that God pays attention to such things as this, allowing for divisions within his people if the leaders are pursuing ends other than holiness. It's all the in the prophets. God ordained the Kings of Israel, from whose line Jesus came. He also deposed the kings, divided the kingdom, and even destroyed the Temple itself.

God doesn't hold to the permanence of succession quite as strongly as some of his followers. He encourages a little mixing things up to get everyone back on the right track, and the right focus, something Luther did in his day for the Catholic Church (from the Counter Reformation to Vatican II, the Church has been reacting to Protestant criticisms) and which Evangelicals are prompting even to this day, albeit like Luther not without their own faults which need correction from the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Which would happen if only there wasn't such a demand for a simplistic unity.

[David]

a) "So don't go waving sola scriptura as some sort of defense for sola scriptura over and against the very Church who gave you the NT in the first place."
Silly me... here I was thinking the bible was inspired by God. Sir, no church owns the bible; that is beyond the pale.

b) "Just as sanctification is not merely forensic but actual, so too mystical unity of the body is at least actual and objective (and much more), not some substitute for actual and objective."
Patrick has answered this far better than I could, so I’ll leave it alone. Though I will ask, if you truly don't believe that those outside the RCC are member of some version of 'the church', what are you doing at a site like Touchstone?

c) '"Evangelicals have thus far withstood modernism far better than most institutional churches"? Really? Far better??'
Yes, far better. You need only look at the number of children in families at your RCC church to know that just because a church has a particular doctrine doesn't mean that it's followed by all. Most every Evangelical church I've ever known is against most of the ills you mention above (I use the word ‘most’ because to go into depth on each would take far too long). Does that mean we follow them well? No, it doesn't, and that certainly is damning. But how dare you come here and poke fingers at Evangelicals unless your own house is in order? Talk about tackiness. And it's not just this thread; virtually every post of yours I’ve ever read contains some attack against evangelicals. It's tiresome and IMO you have indeed become one of the "blowhards, sabre-rattlers, trolls".

I liked what Patrick posted:
"Correct, exhort, pray for, assist -- these are what we should be about. Dismissing and rejection, however, are not among the fruits of the Spirit."

[David Gustafson]

Wow. This thread certainly wandered from its topic.

But even in that wandering, Nicolosi certainly proves the generality that there's no anti-[fill in the blank] as energized as a former-[fill in the blank].

[David Gray]

> So don't go waving sola scriptura as some sort of defense for sola scriptura over and against the very Church who gave you the NT in the first place.

Of course the Orthodox would claim they were the very Church that gave you the NT in the first place.

The problem with defending/attacking "evangelicals" is the word covers groups of people who have relatively little in common.

[Scott Walker]

Wow. As an Orthodox Christian, it's sure fun to watch you guys fight. Patrick, one can repeat the Creed with the Orthodox until the cows come home, but if you and they mean different things by the term "Church", which you both assuredly do, you are simply saying the same words. Not much real unity in that. Steve, you and I come out on different sides of the Great Schism, but we agree that there is such a thing as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that it is a real thing. One is either in it or out of it. David, the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox editors of Touchstone are surely aware of this, and (one hopes) affirm it, yet they have founded and maintain "a site like Touchstone". And, yes, in the Orthodox view, Protestants and Roman Catholics are both outside of the Church. It doesn't mean that they aren't Christians, (they are) and it doesn't mean they can't be saved, (they can) but it does mean that there is really One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and one is either in it or out of it. That being said, (and I know how offensive that sounds to Protestants, having been one myself for forty eight years) I have seen wonderful, saintly Christians in all confessions. I have also seen nominalists and the lukewarm in all confessions. And if I want to see a weak and faltering Christian, all I have to do is look in the mirror. Let us pray for each other and love each other more, and argue with each other less...unless it's a really fun arguement, and I'm declared the winner by unanimous consent.

[Judy Warner]

If I may go off on a different tack, reading the original post put me in mind of the parallels in political ideology. Think of the child from a patriotic, conservative, Christian family who goes off to college and learns that his background makes him the laughingstock of the sophisticated cynical leftist atheists who are his professors. He learns that if he wants to be accepted by the people who "drink good wine... watch foreign movies... read books with rude words in them...know people who swear" ... etc., he'd better do the same. And pretty soon he's holding up signs that say Bush=Hitler, and hooking up with every girl he can, getting drunk, and telling his friends amusing stories about his family of bumpkins who go to church and love America.

[Tony Esolen]

Let's not underestimate, either, what we all have in common. Or who we all at least hope to have in common: Jesus Christ. Yes, I know that soteriology differs from church to church, but unless we're Pelagians (and we are emphatically not Pelagians), then we don't believe that soteriology saves. Christ saves. Y'all are my Christian brethren, whether you like it or not.

I too am deeply wary of people who badmouth the folks who first introduced them to Christ -- and I do think that much of it is plain old snobbery. Judy above very nicely describes the syndrome among college students. It reminds me of Flannery O'Connor's story "Greenleaf". The lady who owns the farm, Mrs. May, has a hired man with a prodigiously fat wife who collects clippings from the newspaper: of drownings, rapes, murders, sickness, death. Then she takes them out to a clearing in the woods, tosses them down among the pine needles, covers them with her enormous body, and flails her arms and legs out, praying over the unfortunates and crying, "Jesus, Jesus! Stab me in the heart! Stab me in the heart, Jesus!"

Not what you'd find in your white-wine and brie church, I daresay -- yet O'Connor, the Catholic, allows us a humorous admiration for it. Mrs. May is disgusted by it, naturally: "Mrs. May was a decent Christian woman who had a deep respect for religion, although of course she did not believe that any of it was true."

[Dan Berger]

Ms. Warner and Mr. Esolen, bravi!

Your comments (and the original post) remind me of a wonderful passage from "The Psychology of Atheism":

...socialization pressure has pushed many away from belief in God and all that this belief is associated with for them.

I remember a small seminar in graduate school where almost every member there at some time expressed this kind of embarrassment and response to the pressures of socialization into "modern life." One student was trying to escape his Southern Baptist background, another a small town Mormon environment, a third was trying to get out of a very Jewish Brooklyn ghetto, and the fourth was me.

[Steve Nicoloso]

David Gray, yes you're right. There was **a** Church that gave us Scripture. And I actually made no specific claim that it was, in fact, the RCC, but merely that such a Church did exist. I would go further and suggest that seems unlikely that it was one or more of the reformation sects. Yes, David (No Last Name), of course God gave us the Bible, but that doesn't mean he didn't use human agents to write it, safeguard it, and finally assemble and "infallibly" define it (in the 2nd half of the 4th century). You've mischaracterized my argument as being that some particular church "owns" scripture, and conveniently skirted the argument by making it sound absurd. Who is not now "coming to the table" honestly? Again I beg anyone who is actually interested in the Church Vs. Scripture debate to please read Philip Blosser's excellent article on the subject. He presents the argument far more ably and completely (and, yes, coolly) than I ever could. It does no good to slay the peasant with a pitchfork when a fully-armored and mounted night is standing right behind him.

There are two questions that arise from this fact, viz., that **a** church gave us Scripture. The first, the lesser (IMO) is which Church did so, i.e., does it exist today and how can one find it? The second is greater (IMO) and must be answered before the first is at all relevant: Must that Church, viz., the one that gave us the Bible, exist? This is the crux of the matter between Catholics (and the Orthodox who disagree merely on the first question) and Evangelicals, who (and I'd be happy to be proven wrong) answer the second question in the negative. Fr. Neuhaus blogs about the question: "Is the Reformation Over?", (prominent evangelical, BTW) Mark Knoll's recent book, here (scroll about 1/2-way down), and suggests that the primary thing between us is no longer justification (soteriology) but the nature of the Church (ecclesiology).

Patrick, you seem to think that I believe "unity" to be merely the simple kind. I merely asserted (and if it was unclear, I'll apologize for that and assert it again) that unity (true, complex, whatever you want to call it type unity) must include actual (i.e., objective, organizational) unity. Yes, of course, the unity God desires and for which Christ prayed is much more than that, but it is also at least that. This is the fault I find with the Evangelical view (and again I'd be glad to be proven wrong) that unity need not necessarily be objective.

Now the question of whether Evangelicals or Catholics or Orthodox have better resisted the caustic modernist tide is really a non sequitur to the basic ecclesiological argument. I never claimed that Catholics were "better" Christians (or more devoutly anti-modernist) than anyone else. In fact, I'm certain is isn't generally true. As I mentioned before the litany of problems (cancers and such like) outlined by Steve Hutchens just about anytime he touches the keyboard should be enough to convince anyone that things are simply not well (irrespective of the deformities elsewhere) in Evangelicaldom. We can cast about anecdotal evidence til the cows come home, but the data that I've seen is far from clear. The full text of the CT Books & Culture review of Ron Sider's book, Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, can be found here has oodles of depressing statistics on divorce, charitable giving, illicit sex and such like. (The original article here was once free but now requires registration.) Barna's stats for disappointing Christian performance on the divorce are here and here. This article based on Barna research (perhaps different than the others, I can't tell) suggests that non-denominational Christians (1) and Baptists (2) have the highest rates of divorce among Christians. But just one bit of anecdotal evidence, I've know of no evangelical (i.e., non-fundamentalist) church where oral contraceptives (i.e., "abortaficient contraception", see here and here) have been condemned and no nationally known Evangelical leader who has proscribed their use. On the contrary, again anecdotally, I know of many cases where their use was explicitly encouraged or accepted. So David (No Last Name) as much as I may need to "get my house in order", it would appear the Evangelical "house" is none too tidy... and I can say that while as many as 90% of Catholics disregard their Church's teaching on contraception, at least they are, in fact, disobeying their Church's teaching. I say all this not to say any sect or Church is better or worse at living the Christian life against the caustic tide of modernism, but that 1) it looks pretty bad everywhere, and 2) it is far, far from clear that anyone group is doing "better" than another. I'd pleased to find statistics that show otherwise, but I haven't seen them. Again, all of this is (IMO) a non starter on the ecclesiological question.

Scott, exactly. I would've thought it unnecessary to explain that believers in the One True Church, i.e., the one outside of which there is no salvation, consider all Christians to be somehow imperfectly in communion with the One True Church (i.e., a less than complete or actual unity), and God being God can and does extend his grace to churches and sects in schism with the One True Church. None of which ought be interpreted that visible unity is not God's will, and therefore not important or binding.

Best regards

[Shari]

Having grown up in a hot house of pseudo-Christian gentile agnosticism (also known as the National Cathedral School for Girls), and having continued my instruction in intellectual snobbery at Northwestern, I cannot tell you how refreshing I find my children's Christian School (Shihoh, in Springdale, Arkansas associated with the Baptist church).

While I was forced to read Jean Paul Satre, Dostoevsky and Nietsche, so I could learn all about the hollowness of life, she (lucky duck) is getting to read Shakespeare and Charles Dickens instead. (Her little sister gets to read Narnia and Stuart Little). I might add that my ninth grader's biology textbook (which is yes- horrors by Bob Jones University) is significantly more rigorous than was the biology textbook I used not only in high school but in college and medical school. Biology with fundamentalists apparently means that you are not only need to study the basic biology curriculum of most high schools but also the biochemistry curriculum of most medical schools.

Her math is Saxon math and will take her through Calculus.

Her Spanish will take her through AP literature.

Her History (compulsive) includes both World History from both a secular and Christian viewpoint) as well as American History (ditto).

Oh and she will be required to read through both the Old and New Testaments before graduation (something that was not on the curriculum of NCS).

Of course she may still turn into an effete snob (as once was her mother) when she goes to college, however I plan to send her to Ave Maria or John Brown University so that she will continue getting an education instead.

Mind you, as a newbie Catholic, I could deal without the stupid stuff on "rapture"...
Shari

[Carl Olson]

A thoughtful post, David, with some (but not all) of it resonating with my experience. When I am asked, on occasion, to give a talk about my journey from Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism to Catholicism, I try very hard to place it within the context of the Communion of the Saints. There are several reasons for this, including an emphasis, right from the start, on the incredible I debt I owe to my parents, who are about as Fundamentalist as they come.

My longstanding issues with my Fundamentalist upbringing certainly include some social frustrations, but they ultimately come back to matters of truth. One of the questions I had for many years, going back to my junior high days (nearly 25 years ago), was: "If we have the Truth, why are we so afraid to investigate and better understand the beliefs of others?" It was this fear — of other Christians, of reading the wrong books, of listening to the wrong music, of watching the wrong movies — the finally brought me to a crucial crossroads. And when I reached that point, my basic thought was simple but transforming: Either Christianity is true and can handle every sort of criticism, attack, and harsh light cast upon it — or it is weak and flawed and not worth my time. That would eventually bring me to the Catholic Church.

There is real sense in which I could probably be described as "anti-Fundamentalist and pro-Evangelical." But that would only be true if the emphasis were place mostly on matters of theology. As many others have noted (and rightly so), some Fundamentalists are the most holy people you'll ever meet. But that holiness is often aided (if that's the right word) by a separatist attitude that, while often understandable, can be unhealthy and even a bit paranoid. I'd say that is the case with my parents: their personal holiness and intense love for Jesus is remarkable and commendable. But, perhaps ironically, I think that their particular social failings and unwillingness to engage with culture (whether it be popular or "high") keeps them from seeing the fullness of Christianity and seriously hinders them in proclaiming the Gospel. Put another way, they simply cannot relate to people who are culturally different than them — and have no desire to. They confuse a certain culture (American, socially conservative, small town, blue collar, etc.) with "Christianity."

I would hasten to say, however, that this temptation exists for everyone. I know it exists for me as a Catholic who does, I confess, often takes pride in my jazz and classical music collection, my library of thick books, my enjoyment of good wine, and my viewing of the occasional "R"-rated movie. I also find that I often run into the ghosts of Fundamentalist attitudes in the hallways of my mind and soul. But I am also happy to readily acknowledge the lasting debt I have to both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. So, in the end, it is a tense and rather complex relationship and, as this and other comments indicate, a difficult one to decipher.

[kate]

Steve Nicoloso, Thanks for your long posts. Some of us do find them worth reading to the end.

As a Reformed Protestant, I am slowly coming to a different, and I think fuller, understanding of what the Church, as Jesus Christ founded it, is. As is evident in these exchanges, talking at cross purposes is common.

I think that I, as a migrating Protestant, have come to understand how important the definitions are, which is helping me sort out my own faith journey. As I now understand it, the Catholic understanding of itself as Church is not first of all about how well it lives up to its Head, but that it considers itself to be the physical, that is institutional, concrete body of Christ. That it falls short is cause for sadness and repentance, but it does not invalidate itself as Christ’s body, the Church.

On the other hand, many Protestants tend, consciously or subconsciously, to define their “being church” primarily by how closely their church conforms to Christ, the Head. Therefore, if the church you belong to drifts away from what you consider Christ’s teachings, you move to another one, and if you can’t find one to your liking, you start one (this trajectory was my growing-up experience and I have seen it repeated by others over and over again). Christ can have many physical bodies because Protestants believe in the Invisible Church. And we choose, that is WE choose, which one is The Church for Us, based on OUR reading of the Scriptures.

As Neuhaus has said, ecclesiology is now at the centre of the sad divisions of Christianity. As long as Protestants, or those Protestants who think about ecclesiology, are persuaded that there exists an Invisible Church, the discussion will often stumble over definitions.

For those of us who long for a unified Church, these kinds of dialogues are important as we try to delineate and understand these different definitions. It may also help us steer clear of using arguments about who are the most faithful Christians to support the varying viewpoints about what the Church is. I think that as mere Christians we can agree that all of us have fallen short.

[Steve Nicoloso]

I narrowly escaped Narrow Escape Syndrome. Perhaps this causes (Narrow Escape)^2 Syndrome (pronounced "Narrow Escape Squared Syndrome"), i.e., defining your life by having narrowly escaped Narrow Escape Syndrome and worrying that you didn't fully escape. I don't know. Time may tell.

I had been toying with a dangerous theory proposed by an evangelical (yes, evangelical can mean almost anything, but he met the definition I proposed above) internet acquaintance of mine. The theory went like this: At the end of life, if a person is brain dead, i.e., they have no brain waves, then that person is dead and not alive. Ergo, the same criterion could be applied to beginning of life issues. Ergo, abortaficient contraception, morning after pill, RU-486, and surgical abortion prior to ~6-7 weeks human gestation aren't really a problem. And after all, aren't there really a lot of other social justice issues to work on?

I may have spent about 30 minutes of hemming and hawing and being nearly convinced by this argument. Then God (I think) took me by the hair and started repeatedly dunking my head alternately in ice cold and scalding hot water (picture Fessik and Inigo in the Princess Bride). He (I think) made me swear never to smoke that stuff again. Thus I narrowly escaped Narrow Escape Syndrome.

Cheers!

[David]

Mr. Nicoloso,
You're right, my point about the bible could have been made with more charity, and for that I apologize. But I still hold that preservation of the word of God is the work of God alone. While the church (RCC, Orthodox, whatever) may have been a tool in that preservation it does not give them elevated status over the bible. I did read the Philip Blosser article you linked to (ok, I started reading it, it's very long and despite the stereotypes grad school can be busy!). While he may be a knight, he is a very Catholic knight, and it rather undermines his arguments when he uses Catholic interpretations of scripture without even noting that there are different interpretations of the same scripture. Basically, in my opinion, he is preaching to the choir. As I'm sure you are aware there are plenty of essays and books very similar to this from a Protestant perspective.

The point I want to convey in my comments in this thread is that if we accept each other as brothers in Christ there should be some respect when we approach each other. While I disagree with the way you define the "One True Church", I think I do understand your argument. And I don't consider it a ridiculous argument, it's a subject which I fully admit I could be wrong on. When we come together on a site like this I think a certain humility should be exhibited. It doesn't mean we check our beliefs at the door, but your tone towards Evangelicals essentially nullifies the chance of anyone changing their mind no matter what argument you make. As an example, last month regarding Evangelicals you wrote:

"Those children, having learned the circus acts in Greek after the pattern of their fathers, are merely the latest proof that a foundation of sola scriptura is a foundation of sand."

Your point could easily have been made without the patronizing attitude.

[Tony Dunlop]

"Therefore, if the church you belong to drifts away from what you consider Christ’s teachings, you move to another one, and if you can’t find one to your liking, you start one (this trajectory was my growing-up experience and I have seen it repeated by others over and over again). Christ can have many physical bodies because Protestants believe in the Invisible Church. And we choose, that is WE choose, which one is The Church for Us, based on OUR reading of the Scriptures." (Italics added by me.)

This is ultimately the main reason I had to stop being a Protestant. I do not trust my own judgement; it is distorted by sin. Without the Church I'm reasonably sure what I'd end up worshipping would largely be my own reflection.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well, David, that particular sentence was not a blanket accusation against all Evangelicals or Evangelical scholarship, but as I recall rather against novel interpretations of scripture that, like teetotalism (if memory serves), have no precedent in history, usually not even in the history of the theorist's own sect. (Not unlike my little aside about the waffling on abortion I posted above.) Now I don't know how you read that particular statement as "patronizing". Surely the statement: "sola scriptura is a foundation of sand" (i.e., the gist of the statement) is a statement of opinion, but not a particularly inflammatory one to anyone well-acquainted with the nature of the great divide in the Western Church. And the rest was borrowed imagery (tricks in Greek being learnt by children) from Steve Hutchens' (the eminent Evangelical, btw) original blog article. So you should give me the benefit of the doubt sometimes too. If you start with a certain presupposition: Nicoloso makes nasty, groundless remarks about Evangelicals every chance he gets, then you're bound to find evidence of that even where (like here) there is none.

[Tony Esolen]

"Therefore, if the church you belong to drifts away from what you consider Christ’s teachings, you move to another one, and if you can’t find one to your liking, you start one (this trajectory was my growing-up experience and I have seen it repeated by others over and over again). Christ can have many physical bodies because Protestants believe in the Invisible Church. And we choose, that is WE choose, which one is The Church for Us, based on OUR reading of the Scriptures."

I'm not going to jump into the ecclesiological debate here (which I'm gratified to see has been conducted with a great deal of charity and forbearance). The sentence above ought to be borne in mind by all Christians in America -- because we are all church-hoppers, or church shoppers, sometimes, alas, because that is the only way we can preserve our faith and instill it in our children. But sometimes, woe and alas, because we do enjoy CHOOSING, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, everybody. I wrote about this dragon a year ago .... We'd all do well to remember a certain word whose Greek derivation suggests picking and choosing: "heresy".

Which makes me wonder whether someone can be in the subjective state of heresy, if he has "chosen" what happens to be true, but for reasons that have to do with the appeal of "choosing," rather than the appeal of the truth?

[Steve Nicoloso]

It is interesting to note that in my journey to Rome I, as an obvious traditionalist, have been encouraged by other traditionalists (both online and enfleshed) to seek out a traditionalist (e.g., one with an "Opus Dei priest") or Eastern Rite parish... even if that means driving a long way (at least 20 miles)... rather than go the (now known to be all too modernist) RCC parish two blocks from my home. Such suggestions I have so far steadfastly refused with thanks. I refuse to become "Protestant" (i.e., to pick & choose) to become Catholic. Truly, however, the sanctity of choice, the highest (if not only) good in late modernist society, and the natural result of contractarian liberalism, has thoroughly infected the Western Church in all of its branches, churches, and sects. (Parenthetically, this is why I have so much respect for Fundamentalism, in spite of what I consider to be its obvious and egregious errors, because it appears to have the institutional fortitude to stand against the caustic tide.)

Now getting back to the ecclesiological question, I noticed at least one loose end...

David writes:

From a different perspective, should Episcopalians simply accept the church's recent position on homosexuality? Why not? I imagine you would leave such a church. Well, that's exactly what Luther did.

I try not to imagine what I would do in such a situation. It is very easy to imagine a Catholic priest (alas, even a Bishop) talking around and effectively nullifying the RCC's unbroken teaching on homosexuality. Easy to imagine, that is, because this already exists. It is quite hard, however, to imagine that a Pope (especially the current Pope) would officially change the teaching. The Catholic must believe, by faith, in the supernatural and infallible guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit, taking John's gospel literally and seriously: He, the Spirit, will guide you in all truth. If it were to happen, I admit, I'd be in a quandary. If I am convinced that what the RCC teaches about itself is true, then I'd be forced to accept the new teaching would in fact be true.

However there is a very, very interesting thing about the doctrine of papal infallibility in that it is used a weapon by revisionists and dissidents far, far more often than it has ever been used to define infallible dogma and crush dissent. To wit, almost every "Catholic" "theologian" who is about to disagree with a long-held and unchanging doctrine of the Church will begin by noting that the teaching is not infallible, the definition of which is itself an often murky and abstruse science, and proceed from there to justify that it is not necessary to be held or obeyed. And because papal infallibility is so powerful a doctrine, popes themselves are reluctant in the extreme to use it. Witness JPII's hesitancy to go "all the way" on the matter of women's ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. I say all this to say that I suppose in the hypothetical that the Pope says homosexual behavior to be licit, I could theoretically pull the old liberal dissident trick and say, "Well, he didn't define the teaching infallibly", and go on my merry way.

Now Luther's original critcisms (at least many of them) were legit. No doubt about it. (His later musings about sola fide and expunging books of Scripture that cast doubt upon it were a different matter and I think fueled by the insanity of the His original mistake, viz. (again, IMO) in how he addressed the criticisms, i.e., what he was willing to do about it. Ultimately he chose schism (and it might very well have meant death if he hadn't found favor in the eyes of secular princes).

So, as I've said elsewhere I think, the only actual point of doctrine which divides the Western Church is whether or not the Church may be divided. Luther was basically an Augustinian, and a rationalist in much the same way of Aquinas. There was room in the RCC of that time (remember we're talking prior to Trent) for varieties of opinion on many of the matters that concerned Luther. But what there was no room for was whether the Church could be divided, that a Priest could overrule the Pope.

[Patrick]

A very interesting discussion here. Thank you everyone for how well you've presented your perspectives. I am learning to be sure, even if my learning is not yet swayed towards agreement with a lot of the voices here.

"But what there was no room for was whether the Church could be divided."

As the unified Church East and West mutually affirmed the fact there can be division in 1054, I think Luther essentially did what was in keeping with how the Church had already decided. The Church was divided, and thus could be divided again.

The Roman Church cannot choose when it will divide and then not allow other churches to do the same. The Orthodox communities felt it was arrogant of the Roman bishop to assert sole leadership and divide the church over unilateral decisions. So too the Roman Church thinks of Luther and his philosophical followers.

The case against Protestant division would be entirely more potent if the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches didn't already divide the Church and both lay claim to their being the sole representative of Christ's Church. As men in that century a 1000 years ago put their personal judgments against the more flexible unity of earlier centuries they established a principal and established their unwillingness to listen to the broader voice of God's gathered people if there was disagreement over important matters.

Tony, you note "I do not trust my own judgement; it is distorted by sin." This is a powerful and serious statement which we should all pay attention to. However, in my experience and from what I know of Reformation history, the choice to split from the Catholic Church was not made easily. Luther did not want to break away, but was broken off. This was not a man who trusted in his own righteousness, and thank God we do not all possess his enormous, and almost crippling, realization of personal sin.

However, my sin does not overshadow the sin of others. I can sin, and lead my judgment to be suspect, but I can also recognize that sinful behavior in others, in men more powerful than I am, can and does exist and so in the task of discernment I am called to judge their motives and their decisions. The Reformation was a result of discerning a power structure in the Catholic Church which had become distorted and misfocused.

In an extreme sense this can be shown true in recent scandals as well. A bishop who abuses young boys is no longer representative of Christ (for that would be abhorent), even if he retains his titled position, and thus I can not have communion with such a man (cf. 1Cor 5:11). My sin does not negate what may be the more potent and destructive sin of others, which may take moral or heretical directions. Had Arius been Bishop of Rome in his era, this would not have made him more correct or less culpable.

The question, then, becomes not whether or not the Church can be divided, or if my judgments are too suspect to nullify my discernment, but whether the Unity of the Church is based on the symbolic importance of the episcopal positions or whether it is based on the actual holiness and wholeness of those who hold such positions. The Catholic and Orthodox affirm the former, while the Protestants affirm the latter, in my estimation. In my reading of how God worked in Israel, it seems he was quite willing to provoke all kinds of division when a leader was no longer reflecting the call of God.

Also, I should add, in my experience real and actual liturgical unity (in distinction from Spiritual unity as I previously noted) is functionally a choice of the Roman Catholic Church. I've known many Catholics receive the Eucharist in Protestant congregations but I am personally prevented from doing so in a Roman Catholic Church.

I'd be happy to share the Eucharist with Catholic and Orthodox despite our doctrinal differences in various matters, eating and drinking as Christ commanded even if we have different understandings of what is happening, but they won't offer me this liturgical unity, unless I affirm that which has developed over time, many centuries past Christ, doctrines which likewise rose from men sinful as I am.

Luther, as later decisions have shown, was right in his many of his critiques. He would not have made these critiques in earlier centuries, and thus, unlike Marcion, was not splitting the Church for the sake of splitting the Church. Had Luther been born in 5th century rather than the 15th, his passion and intelligence would have likely caused him to be honored as a Saint. Because he was born in the late 15th century, it was his passion for the purity of the Church soiled by the hierarchy of men reveling in their many sins which prompted him to take a stand and be pushed out for that stand.

Paul could censure Peter in the 1st century without James kicking him out of the unified Church. Things had changed by the second millenium.

And so I honor Luther for what he did, as I honor the many wonderful saints, men and women, in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches who taught and lived holiness even if some of their leaders through their lives denied such holiness. I honor the Fundamentalists for directing my family, the Evangelicals for teaching me, and I respect all those here who genuinely are seeking the fullness of Christ in their lives and in our gathered community.

[Tony Esolen]

Patrick wrote:

The question, then, becomes not whether or not the Church can be divided, or if my judgments are too suspect to nullify my discernment, but whether the Unity of the Church is based on the symbolic importance of the episcopal positions or whether it is based on the actual holiness and wholeness of those who hold such positions. The Catholic and Orthodox affirm the former, while the Protestants affirm the latter, in my estimation. In my reading of how God worked in Israel, it seems he was quite willing to provoke all kinds of division when a leader was no longer reflecting the call of God.

Patrick, I'm typing this on the run, so excuse the short reply -- but there is a third position, the one that Catholics and Orthodox uphold. It is that ordination is sacramental. Your alternatives there seem to me to be mere symbolism on the one hand, or (the more dangerous) Donatism on the other. The power of a sacrament cannot depend upon the holiness of the person administering it -- as the virulently and correctly anti-Pelagian saw, that would intrude our own "merits" into the workings of God's grace in a way that scripture does not warrant. Jesus instructs the leper to show himself to the high priest .....

[GL]

Tony and Patrick,

The last two posts bring to my mind a concern I have had for a long time as a Protestant: assuming, arguendo, that the Catholic Church was in error at the time of Luther (at a minimum, most Catholics I know would admit that many of Luther's criticisms were well-founded, though I'm not sure that would admit that the Chruch erred), was it permissible for him to create schism or was he, nonetheless required to submit to the erring authority. In contemplating this question, I cannot escape a few teachings of Scripture. Probably most to the point is the following command of Jesus to the crowds and His own disciples from Matthew 23:

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do."

This command certainly was not because the scribes and Pharisees were worthy in themselves of the obedience Jesus commanded, for He continued:

"For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others."

Rather, Jesus commanded submission because of the position they held: they "sit on Moses' seat."

When Paul was faced with the issue of Gentile circumcision, he put the matter to "the apostles and the elders." Acts 15:2. The question to which we have no explicit answer is what Paul would have done had Peter proclaimed that circumcision was required. Would Paul have separated from the other apostles and formed his own "denomination" or would he have submitted to that decision? We do know that he wrote the following to the Church at Corinth:

My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

I have not been able to bring myself to leave evangelical Protestantism to become either Catholic or Orthodox, though I have certainly contemplated doing so from time-to-time. If I did, however, and to the original point of this thread, I certainly would not belittle my parents, grandparents and others who were devout Protestants and reared me to love God and to seek His will in my life.

[Patrick]

Yes, that's a much better description of the position of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Thank you.

Sacrament is, of course, the better word over symbolic.

I wonder, then, if there is a situation in which the sacrament becomes defiled enough so it cannot serve as a sacrament anymore?

Clearly our own merits are not defining for the work of God, however, the NT and OT suggest our own attitudes and acts are not outside the scope of review and can, in egregious instances, encourage our expulsion from the community. Luther, one could say, was suggesting from below that those above were in fact guilty of egregious error, and in these errors were abdicating their role as sacrament.

By the by, the use of Jesus with the leper is a very convincing analogy. Certainly something to chew on. Except... I can't help think Jesus, and other writings, had a particular opinion on the High Priest which didn't completely allow for error. Eli in 1 Samuel (esp. 3:12ff.)comes to mind. Also does also the destruction of the Jewish Temple and thus the functional work of the Jewish priesthood as a whole.

God is not, it seems, committed to a particular "line" even if he is committed to a specific goal. And he seems, in the Biblical record, to tie his committment to a specific "line" according to moral and spiritual worthiness.

But, this is a fine line, and I'm not necessarily saying Luther was justified in drawing the line where he did. Like with Jesus and the leper, Acts 23 shows Paul was more willing to show deference to the approved leadership despite their differences, though ultimately both Luther and Paul had the same sort response from their leaders.

[Steve Nicoloso]

As the unified Church East and West mutually affirmed the fact there can be division in 1054, I think Luther essentially did what was in keeping with how the Church had already decided. The Church was divided, and thus could be divided again.

The two divisions cannot be compared this way given the theology that EO, the RCC, AND Luther accepted, namely, that Apostolic authority is vested in the Bishops, and dispensed (as Tony ably notes) via the Sacrament of Ordination. Now it may be the Luther changed his view on Ordination (he'd've had to in order to justify his own religious movement), but this was NOT a contended point in 1517.

In the Great Schism (betw. East and West) groups of Bishops respectively in communion with each other mutually separated from (and mutually anathematized) the other group. In the Lutheran reformation we merely have a priest unwilling to obey the Bishops or his own Holy Orders. There may be trivial similaries in the schisms in that, for example, they involved differences in church dogma or practice and they both involved schism, but it is not accurate to suggest that the Roman Church had somehow paved the way for schism by participating in a past schism, no more than a faithful spouse might participate in his or her own abandonment. From the RCC's point of view, the EO were in schism, and the feeling was mutual. That was all that ever what "decided", and is not qualitatively different from the Church's treatment of Marcion or Arius and their followers.

To this day, RC ecclesiology considers Eastern Orthodox churches to be, in fact, "churches" (i.e, led by bishops and priests having valid ordination) but not in communion with the Roman Bishop, and Protestant "churches" to be sects (i.e., having clergy without valid ordination), also not in communion (only more so) with Roman Bishop. Now it may be in dispute (and in fact certainly is) whether or not Protestant churches are "real" churches, but it is not in dispute whether Protestant clergy have actual apostolic lineage. They do not. Their ecclesiology (a 16th century novelty, btw), save possibly that of the Anglicans who occasionally claim to have valid apostolic lineage, simply doesn't require them to have it. I say that it is mighty convenient to Protestants that such doctrine would have developed when and where it did.

Had Luther been born in 5th century rather than the 15th, his passion and intelligence would have likely caused him to be honored as a Saint.

Absolutely not. Had Luther been born in the 5th century, and had the ideas he did, his ideas would have been compared with those of Augustine. But had Luther been born in the 5th century, had the ideas he did, been compared with Augustine, **AND** refused steadfastly and finally to accept the judgement of his Bishop (or the Bishop of Rome) he would've been excommunicated... which is exactly what happened in the 16th century. Again, his fault lay not in any particular idea save one: that the Church, which once was the One Church founded by Christ upon the Apostles, is no longer that Church, and that it may, can, or must be reinstated by a Priest excommunicated therefrom.

[Patrick]

Steve, a thorough response, and well stated.

I appreciate your rousing defense of your position. There are certainly fundamental areas of disagreement(partly in whether apostolic succession is according to linear connection or according to other standards, as Luther and the Protestants affirm).

Also the trouble with all of this remains with the fact that had Luther and Leo X lived in the 5th century it would have almost certainly been the case that Leo X would have been excommunicated for his abuses of his position, and for using his position for the gain of his family in politics. Luther was, as later Councils including Vatican II, note right in some of his accusitions, but he was upsetting a power structure which, which in clear ways did not hold the apostolic message in importance even as it held apostolic positions.

So, we struggle with your rightly noted statement that opposition to the Council (not a particular Bishop) was reason for excommunication in the 5th century and the reality Luther would have never crossed a bishop in the 5th century as he did in the 16th.

I also wonder, now fully drifting from the original, if there is not indeed some manner of inherent trouble relating to the perceived power grab by the Roman Bishop which created a context where schism could be the only way of responding to the errors of the highest authorities.

I ask this because the Eastern Church, which has in my opinion a stronger connection to the Councils in their government, has never had a similar schism within.

Bishops are the authorities, but if a bishop is himself a heretic this seems to leave those beneath without recourse except through ecumenical Council, now seemingly impossible.

Thanks again for your willingness to discuss this. It's very helpful. The straw men our own traditions build up to fight against are no where near as interesting as real conversation with those who maintain dearly held positions.

[Russ R]

I wonder how many converts from evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism could be described as Double-Narrow Escapers? Sure, the ex-fundamentalist evangelical can say "They watch foreign movies!," but the ex-evangelical Roman Catholic can boast, "They have novelists! They have an intellecutal tradition! They have art! They have latin! They have philosophy! And they can still drink and smoke!" (note the recent news of Joshua Hochschild, formerly of Wheaton, for an example).

[Steve Nicoloso]

Patrick says:

Bishops are the authorities, but if a bishop is himself a heretic this seems to leave those beneath without recourse except through ecumenical Council, now seemingly impossible.

Ecumenical councils of the RCC are not rare at all. One just finished up about 40 years ago. (The EO haven't had one since the Great Schism, they may not believe it is now possible. I'm not sure.) No, if a Bishop is disorderly, i.e., not in objective unity with the Bishop of Rome, he can be censured by the Pope or brought to Rome to scrub toilets. Now if the Bishop of Rome goes squirrelly...

I also wonder, now fully drifting from the original, if there is not indeed some manner of inherent trouble relating to the perceived power grab by the Roman Bishop which created a context where schism could be the only way of responding to the errors of the highest authorities.

But there is already (in RC thinking) a morally licit way to respond, viz., prayer, and should the abuses of a Roman Bishop be grave enough, prayer even for his quick demise. (I'd like to think that 1 billion faithful beseeching the Lord and Mary would be able to bring down a wicked Pope faster than Stone Cold Steve Austin!) There were far worse Popes than Leo X, who was merely asleep at the wheel, most long before Luther's rebellion. Fortunately for Catholics, all of the really nasty popes were too busy being really nasty to have promulgated any infallible doctrines.... [Whew!] a weak but nevertheless poignant evidence of the Holy Spirit's eternal guidance.

Now I ask this: How long do you wait for reform before deciding reform will "never" occur and thus secede? Luther was not alone in the RCC in criticizing late medieval abuses. But he went from citing obvious abuses in the indulgence system to espousing (for all practical purposes) certain doctrines of Hus in a mere 3-4 years. Yet the reform movement was strong (in spite of the secession) and brought about Trent within 30 years of Luther's initial 95 Theses. There is a story of Paul III (I think) going about Rome in sackloth and ashes in repentence. If I'm right about the Pope, this would have been well within Luther's lifetime. Would reform have even occurred sooner if Luther hadn't demanded reform now (and not gotten it and split the Church)? We'll never know.

Enforced unity has an ameliorating effect I think. Whenever two sides separate, each remaining group has its "center" shifted from where the center was when both groups were one. As groups continue to splinter, the centers of the offshoots continue to move farther and farther from what was once the "middle" of a single large group. Did the secession of Protestants therefore radicalize what remained of Roman Catholicism, i.e., move its center further away from what was once a consensus or near-consensus? Would the RCC have been more conciliatory to necessary reforms throughout the 16th century if the Protestant schism had not occurred? Would the Jesuits have failed to be founded? ;-) We'll never know.

Another question: if the causes for the reformation have by this (or some other) date been ameliorated or repaired (there is, e.g., no longer any crisis with indulgences or with papal "power grabs"), what cause is there to yet remain separate? Have we invented more causes over the period of our extended separation? Is the late ecclesiological novelty that there need not or cannot be one visible church really so precious today?

Russ, Ha! I think you're onto something there!

Best regards!

[april]

Ecumenical councils of the RCC are not rare at all. One just finished up about 40 years ago. (The EO haven't had one since the Great Schism, they may not believe it is now possible. I'm not sure.)

The entire Church hasn't had one since the Great Schism - it hasn't been possible. I believe that is the Orthodox position, and it makes sense to me.

[Steve Nicoloso]

I suppose the RCC considers its councils to be genuinely ecumenical at least in part because it does have bishops of the Eastern (i.e., non-Latin) rites, most of whom are indistinguishible in doctrine and practice from the EO save for their unity with Rome.

[Christopher]

"I suppose the RCC considers its councils to be genuinely ecumenical at least in part because it does have bishops of the Eastern (i.e., non-Latin) rites, most of whom are indistinguishable in doctrine and practice from the EO save for their unity with Rome."

Ha! It is safe to say that the last part of that sentence would be met with a deep, guttural laugh if spoken in the presence of most of the worlds knowledgeable Orthodox (no offense intended to Mr. Nicoloso).

Besides the doctrinal issues (over and above the place of the Bishop of Rome's place in the Church, you have purgatory/limbo, the immaculate conception, etc. etc.) which Uniates (i.e. "Eastern rite" Catholics) subscribe to by their very union with Rome, you even have significant departures of practice (significant liturgical differences, etc.)...

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well Christopher, I'll bow to your superior wisdom about how the Orthodox see the matter, but the Catechism of the RCC states:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

In the eyes at least of Rome, "little" (whatever that means) lies between the EO and the RCC. I'm certainly not aware of any fundamental differences betw. official Orthodox and Catholic views on the Immaculate Conception or Purgatory and Limbo, the latter pair having suffered relatively little official doctrinal development in the RCC. The very existence of "Limbo" may be, and in fact is, disputed among conscientious Catholics. As far as I know, the term "limbo" does not even occur in the (rather weighty) Catechism of the RCC (1992).

[Christopher]

Yes, what is one to make of such passage? What does "little" really mean, or the word "fundamental". Is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception a "fundamental" difference? I think when one takes the time to delve into these matters, one finds that the dialectical tendency of Rome just does not mesh with the dogma of the East. The ecumenical activities of the last 80 years or so, and the all too ambiguous statements and actions that have come from them, do nothing to clarify matters. IMO, the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy (which I naturally affirm to be the Church, being Orthodox) are quite fundamental and in no way "little". As the Ecumenical Patriarch put it a few years back in a speech at a Catholic college in Washington D.C., "there are ontological differences between us". This from a bishop not known for his 'traditional' or 'conservative' ways of thinking and doing things. Yet, just perhaps, the Roman Catholic church only "lacks" a little of the "fullness" of the Church...:)

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well now that the Protestants have disappeared and it's just you-n-me Christopher, I'd like to ask: What in your view would it take for East & West to unify? Rome doesn't insist on the Novus Ordo Rite (it's pretty weak anyway) or celibate priests or Limbo for the Uniate churches, nor do they have a problem with Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation being applied to infants in contrast to the Latin practice. They insist on Purgatory in theory but differences of opinion on its nature, duration, &c. abound. Surely most Orthodox recognize the principle of purgation. Rome insists on the Immaculate Conception (which I was shocked to find was not held by the Orthodox, thank you!), but no Orthodox would deny the sinlessness of Mary. Potayto-Potahto?? Rome even says "little" separates us. Is that not some bit of an olive branch? Could papal infallibility (explicitly exercised only twice), which does not necessarily contradict conciliar infallibility, be the only irreconcilable point?

[Patrick]

My suspicion is that the "little" thing between the EO and RCC has to do less with interpretation of doctrine and more about the power structure. Were the Pope to renounce the claims of his primacy, and revert back to within the shared authority of the EO, I suspect there would be a major step towards reunification. Indeed, if the Pope were to do so, I suspect a great many Protestants would find themselves back in the fold.

But, power is a hard thing to let go, even when the men involved are holy and wise.

Also, I would guess if the RCC removed the filioque clause this would be a major step as well. Two "little" things which wouldn't take but an afternoon to accomplish, but most likely will never happen anytime soon.

You are also certainly right Steve in your comment above about the splitting resulting in a shift farther away, certainly Protestants developed doctrines because of their separation which they wouldn't have if they had stayed. So too the RCC developed doctrines which have pulled East and West farther apart.

As for ontological differences I'm no sure these are quite as separating as one might initially think, even if they are profound. The East has poked its way into the West in various points through the centuries both before and after the split. Cassian transmitted a tradition distinct from Augustine in the 5th century, which resonates strongly with Eastern emphases, and one can also point to Eastern influence in many of the great reformers whose primary influences were Eastern (ie, approaching John Wesley from the perspective of the East is very useful).

Indeed the Church stayed unified while the East and West strayed in very different directions during the first millenium, so I think there can be unity with the different distinctions, if only the power structure could be worked out in a way that made everyone happy.

[Christopher]

"What in your view would it take for East & West to unify?"

Well, I defiantly buck the trend in this area. I don't think it will ever happen. In fact, at the risk of sounding "hyper-traditionalist", I look for the full and unambiguous repentance of Rome from several errors, before any real communion can take place. I suppose the big three are the Filioque (simply read St. Photius the Great and his "the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" to realize the importance of this), Purgatory (St Mark of Ephesus primary concern was this, not Papal claims), and a whole collection of doctrines of sin, Grace, and the nature of fallen man that necessarily presupposes the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (and Purgatory also). Not that Papal claims is a minor thing, but this does seem one area where a "compromise" of sorts could be worked out, if Rome would accept a true conciliar ecclesiology.

The state of affairs would seem to point to something deeper than a "spat between brothers" that can be healed by the appropriate amount of human compromise, humility, and brotherly love. Underlining all this is a deep and habitual way of 'doing theology' that separates Rome from the Orthodox. I think this is the crux of the issue, and this state of affairs seems little realized by otherwise well informed Catholics. I remember reading Richard John Neuhaus (First Things) apply his formable sarcastic wit to the Ecumenical Patriarch's comments I cited above. I just kept thinking about that bumper sticker, "denial is not a river in Egypt"...:)

[Christopher]

I like much of Patrick's post (St. Cassian's influence, etc.). However I must disagree with him on the boiling down of the problem down to the very modern category of "power". The RCC better darn well stick to their Papal claims if they believe them to be true, whether they are 'powerful' or not. I am not sure how the Orthodox conciliar view of ecclesiology is any more or less 'powerful', particularly to those whom would disagree with the decisions. These decisions are merely reflections of the Spirit of God. I am not quite sure what to say to those who disagree the All Powerful God (except perhaps one word: repentance :)

[David Gray]

>I remember reading Richard John Neuhaus (First Things) apply his formable sarcastic wit to the Ecumenical Patriarch's comments I cited above. I just kept thinking about that bumper sticker, "denial is not a river in Egypt"...:)

Much like his statement that the only Evangelicals who now have a problem with ECT are professional anti-Catholics...

[firinnteine]

Two questions that I've been wondering about regarding EO teaching, and a third that occurs to me now:

1) If y'all don't believe in Purgatory (and clearly you don't), what precisely do you think happens after death? Is there some kind of purification possible, or is the EO position closer to the Protestant idea of immediate completion of purification upon death -- or even the more Wesleyan idea that purification may (in some sense) be completed prior to death?

2) More broadly (and this probably includes implicitly the answer to the previous question as well), what IS the Eastern view of sin? I understand the view of the nature of the atonement differs as well, which would make sense; but this entire area of EO doctrine has confused me.

3) If Rome WERE to repent (granting that the Holy Spirit may do anything He pleases, and postulating for the moment that Eastern Orthodoxy is the True Church), would this further alienate classical Protestants who would be likely to be drawn closer to union by the other changes that would take place in Roman Catholicism? Granted, Protestants would like to see the Immaculate Conception go; but it seems, so far as I can tell, that most (classical) Protestants hold a pretty solidly Western understanding of sin, the fall, the atonement, and related issues.

This is probably not the place to answer all these questions, but if someone could direct me to a few articles clearly addressing some of the above points -- better yet if there are articles from all sides -- I would appreciate it greatly.

[Christopher]

Firinnteine,

As you are no doubt aware, the internet can be a dangerous place. I would first point you to a couple of basic texts: Clark Carlton's catechism "The Faith" & Bishop Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church". The bibliographies are worth the price of the books, and you will find your questions directly addressed (if not completely answered).

Back in the jungle, try these links (I do not vouch for their Orthodoxy or if even they really answer your questions :):

#1)
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/life_after_death.htm

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

(At the very bottom of that last link you will find a few paragraphs by Fr. Seraphim who I have always found reliable)

#2)
http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_view_of_sin

http://www.orthodox.clara.net/ancestral_sin.htm

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=153&SID=3

http://www.antiochian.org/1311

#3)
I have read more than one Orthodox layman and seminary professional say that in effect, much of Protestantism takes Roman errors and exaggerates them even further (in an attempt to correct them), and that, as you put it, " Protestants hold a pretty solidly Western understanding of sin, the fall, the atonement, and related issues." Can't seem to find any internet links that speak to this at the moment...

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well I see that this thread is about to fall off into oblivion, but for the record it was a stimulating and profitable discussion. I can now see why the EO and RCC are farther apart than are Protestants and the RCC. As an Evangelical, I could never understand this (tho' I'd often heard it) seeing as how, from the outside, the RCC and the EO looked so very similar. The EO were always just like Catholics only more so. Now that I am Catholic (in all but name), I can see how erroneous that view was.

Nevertheless, on the question of Western unity, I would like a Protestant to some day tackle the one burning question in my mind:

If the causes for the reformation have by this (or some other) date been ameliorated or repaired, what cause is there to yet remain separate?

It is obvious that doctrinal divergence betw the Orthodox and Catholics since (probably well before) the great schism presents a chasm that cannot be easily bridged by simple compromise (or liberal interpretations) on two or three issues.

But between Protestants and Catholics what really remains between us? The immediate causes for reform (egregious abuses of authority) have I think been long remedied. If in fact it is simply ecclesiology, as Fr. Neuhaus and Mark Knoll both suggest, and if what the Catholic Church says about itself is true then there can truly be no justification whatsoever in schism (surely no one doubts this), then let us not rest easily until we've some day determined whose is the correct ecclesiology. The RCC is either right about itself or dead wrong. And agnosticism toward the question, either active or passive, is no answer at all. I think every conscientious Protestant owes it to himself (if not his mortal soul) to be convinced that the RCC is dead wrong on ecclesiology. This was something of which I was never able to convince myself. Ergo...

Best regards