Why I'm a Happy Evangelical

In light of the back-and-forth about evangelicalism in recent days on this site, I can't help but yell down into the well of this debate. Like some commenters on the post below, I am weary of evangelical bashing too, although perhaps for different reasons than some.

I am what most would call a conservative evangelical; some would call me a fundamentalist. I am a Southern Baptist who believes in all the fundamentals, that biblical inerrancy is important, that personal regeneration is essential to the Christian life, and that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. I believe that Intelligent Design doesn't satisfy questions about origins nearly as well as old, premodern six-day creation. I believe not just in the complementary of the sexes but in self-sacrificial patriarchy in the church and home. I do know Greek, but I still believe that "teetotalism" is the best option for my churches in the contemporary cultural context. I'm a convinced Protestant who believes in sola Scriptura and sola fide without reservation. I think there's no such thing as an infant baptism, and that Jesus was immersed in the Jordan River. With all of this, I still think "mere Christianity" is an important thing, and that we can learn from one another even as we honestly lay out our very important differences.

I'm as frustrated as the next man about much of what passes for "evangelicalism" in the pages of Christianity Today and at colleges such as Wheaton and seminaries such as Fuller. I roll my eyes in frustration at the faddishness of some mega-churches and the retread liberalism of the "emerging churches."

And yet, I'm not all that worried about "evangelicalism." Indeed, I've found that most of the harshest "inside the tent" critics of evangelicalism share the basic assumptions of the early pioneers of the movement: that a constellation of para-church ministries and institutions, unaccountable to specific local churches, can have an identity at all. Indeed, I've found that some of the harshest critics of evangelicalism are also the least ecclessially situated, and thus the most prone to the individualism that, it is asserted, threatens evangelicalism--whatever that is.

Yes, there are many "evangelical" denominations. But that is simply because "evangelical" is an adjective; not really a noun. There are many Catholic "denominations" too, if one wishes to speak of Jesuits and Dominicans and Charles Curran-types and Mother Angelica-types in these terms. Yes, there are many evangelicals shot through with individualism. And there are Catholics and Orthodox who know barely anyone in their local parishes. Every tradition has its besetting sins, and usually all of us suffer from the same sins in different ways. This is because Zion is not yet here.

I suppose I am a happy evangelical, precisely because I don't see myself as such, ever, except to explain myself in the broadest of terms to someone in another stream of Christianity. Tomorrow morning I will not go to an "evangelical" church, but to Ninth and O Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist church with which I am in holy covenant and a church that cooperates with like-minded Southern Baptist churches all over the world toward the Great Commission. The happiest and most vibrant "evangelicals" I know are in the same situation, though perhaps in confessional Presbyterian or Missouri Synod Lutheran or Pentecostal or Bible churches.

And that's how changes are to made in "evangelicalism." It is not through new structures or initiatives but through confessional churches baptizing new converts and discipling the old ones. These churches are everywhere. They're growing and they're making a difference. They are on the move, but they recognize that there is no such thing as an "evangelical movement," and it's a good thing too.

Comments

[Will S.]

Hello Mr. Moore; I was just curious about something you said:

It is not through new structures or initiatives but through confessional churches baptizing new converts and discipling the old ones. These churches are everywhere. They're growing and they're making a difference. They are on the move, but they recognize that there is no such thing as an "evangelical movement," and it's a good thing too.

I was just curious: is the Southern Baptist Church considered a "confessional church"? (BTW, do you say "Southern Baptist Convention" or "Southern Baptist Fellowship"? As an outsider, that's always confused me.) I always thought that term was reserved for churches defined by adherence to a historic confession - do the Southern Baptists subscribe to one of the historic Baptist confessions, such as the London Baptist Confession? Or do individual believers within the fold? Or is there a Southern Baptist confession or creed of its own?

I'm just curious; I know very little about the Southern Baptists, but I thought, from what I had heard, that there has been, in recent years, a theological battle raging between Calvinistic-type Baptists and non-Calvinistic-type Baptists, within the Southern Baptist fold. (As a (continental) Reformed Christian, I take an interest in such matters.) I thought there was generally, outside of decidedly Reformed Baptist churches, within the Baptist fold a reluctance to embrace creeds per se, and a philosophy of "no creed but Christ!" at work.

Any light you can shed on these matters would certainly be educational, to me at least. (Like you, I, too, value Mere Comments as a place where Christians from different traditions can come together and learn from one another.)

Thanks!

[David Palmer]

Well said.

“Evangelical”, historically understood and I don't mean the past 50 years, is an worthy appellation to be desired.

Russell’s post demonstrates close affinity for this “conservative”, confessionally “reformed” evangelical but also diversity for, dare I say it, I baptised two children this morning, a seven year old boy and 18 month old baby, covenant children of a believing mother! However, we can accept this (I hope we can) as the well understood differing positions of a Baptist and a Presbyterian, whilst with deep conviction together we can affirm the inerrancy and sufficiency of holy scripture, and most (but not all!) of the other things Russell mentions.

Our problem is that appellations like “evangelicalism” and “evangelical” are being stretched way beyond breaking point by those who wish to retain the moniker but deny fundamental beliefs found in our creeds and confessions, such as the sovereignty of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus Christ the only way to the Father, sola Scriptura, sola fide and the like. I presume this is why Russell modifies evangelical for himself by the addition of “conservative” and I likewise add “reformed” and, at times, “confessional”.

[luthien]

"There's no such thing as infant baptism"
So all of us who come from infant baptism denominations are in trouble and need to be rebaptized? Doesn't that contradict a couple thousand years of Christian Tradition?

[luthien]

Should have asked this on the other post. Is anyone actually denying that Christ was immersed in the River Jordan??? (and Bishop Spong does not count!)

[Barry]

"There's no such thing as infant baptism"
So all of us who come from infant baptism denominations are in trouble and need to be rebaptized? Doesn't that contradict a couple thousand years of Christian Tradition?

Russell said that was his belief. I think he is entitled to it, and his post was a breath of fresh air about what he loves about his religious heritage. "Evangelicals" can have that love as well.

Well said Mr. Moore.

[David Gray]

>Russell said that was his belief. I think he is entitled to it, and his post was a breath of fresh air about what he loves about his religious heritage. "Evangelicals" can have that love as well.

Of course hostility to infant baptism is not historically an Evangelical distinctive.

[Juli]

"There's no such thing as infant baptism"

So it's within the bounds of "mere Christianity" to disagree so strongly about the sacraments - as long as one agrees about the place of women?

"conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation"

What would unconscious faith look like? What does this mean for infants or children who die before reaching the point where conscious awareness of Christ is possible? What about someone who is brain damaged or otherwise mentally impaired?

[Russell D. Moore]

Everyone,

The SBC cooperates on the basis of a confessional statement, the Baptist Faith and Message, which is based on the New Hampshire Confession which is based on the Second London which is derived from the Westminster Confession.

Of course I don't believe there is such a thing as infant baptism. I'm a Baptist! And, of course that's not an "evangelical" distinctive. It is a baptistic distinctive. The point is, I'm not a generic "evangelical" much less a generic "believer." I'm committed to a particular group of churches.

That's what is unique about the Touchstone conversation. David Mills is not a generic "catholic type." He really believes in the Cathechism. Jim Kushiner and Pat Reardon aren't "generally Orthodoxish." They truly believe in everything the Orthodox Church claims for itself. I don't believe infant baptism is biblical, and they don't believe my church has the apostolic authority of the bishops. That's not really new to any of us.

That's what is so different about this project, in my view, from so many of the "ecumenical" proposals that are sometimes made up sometimes of Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals who wish they were and other times by bad Catholics, disgruntled Orthodox, and evangelicals desperately seeking authenticity. That's not what Lewis meant by "mere Christianity."

That's about all I can say. I am off to preach this morning, and then to take my wife and kids to Disneyworld for a week's vacation. The SBC Disney boycott is over. Aslan is on the move.

[David Gray]

>Of course I don't believe there is such a thing as infant baptism. I'm a Baptist! And, of course that's not an "evangelical" distinctive. It is a baptistic distinctive. The point is, I'm not a generic "evangelical" much less a generic "believer." I'm committed to a particular group of churches.

I think this demonstrates the relative uselessness of the term Evangelical. It is increasingly devoid of doctrinal meaning and even the most loosely organized denomination has greater ecclesiastical potency. These days I'd much rather have a straightforward discussion with a Southern Baptist than someone who prefers to identify themselves primarily as Evangelical. The term's primary purpose these days seems to be to provide cover for men of increasingly questionable orthodoxy or people who desire to avoid accountability to church authority. And I say this as someone who grew up thinking of himself as an Evangelical.

[Rev. Michael Philliber]

David, that's what David Wells said in 'No Place for Truth' back around 1993 (w/ regard to the near meaninglessness of the title 'Evangelical'). Cheers.

[Tony Esolen]

Speaking as a Roman Catholic who is cheered by Russell's frank and clear statement of faith:

Infant baptism is not scripturally prescribed. It isn't proscribed, either. It was Saint Augustine who brought about that change in discipline -- and I can see why he wanted the change, and I can see why someone might oppose it, too. I don't think it was a change in doctrine.

The ballyhooed changes in doctrines relating to sex do involve torturing or simply ignoring the Scriptures and betraying two millennia of church teaching. The burden of proof, to put it lightly, is on the innovators.

[ELC]

There are many Catholic "denominations" too, if one wishes to speak of Jesuits and Dominicans and Charles Curran-types and Mother Angelica-types in these terms. More accurately, if one wishes to come near to emptying the word "denomination" of any real meaning.

[Juli]

Infant baptism is not scripturally prescribed. It isn't proscribed, either.

Just to point out that when I said "So it's within the bounds of "mere Christianity" to disagree so strongly about the sacraments," I was talking about more than the preferred age at baptism. The understanding of what baptism is differs profoundly between devout Christians (I've known Baptists who were baptized several times, for example - and I believe it's Baptist practice to "rebaptize" those who were baptized as infants.)

Here is one quotation from a Baptist site regarding the very definition of "sacrament":

"Baptists refer to baptism as an "ordinance," by which they mean it is a teaching of the Bible that Jesus intended his followers to observe. Minorities of Baptists think of baptism as a sacrament, by which they mean that it is a rich practice that conveys deep meaning spiritually to the believer."
(from a pamphlet at www.baptisthistory.org)

That obviously doesn't resemble any catholic understanding of sacrament.

Our understandings of communion also differ, I believe.

My point is not that I don't consider Mr Moore a "mere Christian" or respect his faith or feel that he and his viewpoint enriches the conversation. My point is rather that I've seen others here, even in the last several days, bluntly told that they obviously aren't "mere Christians" if they differ on (for example) the question of contraception or the place of women in the worshipping community.

[Kevin Burt]

"I don't believe there is such a thing as infant baptism."

This reminded me of the quote attributed to Mark Twain, when asked whether he believed in infant baptism: "Believe in it? Hell, I've seen it!"

[joe]

Re: "I suppose I am a happy evangelical, precisely because I don't see myself as such, ever, except to explain myself in the broadest of terms to someone in another stream of Christianity."

In other words, "Evangelical means never having to say you're sorry." (With all due apologies to Erich Segal.)

[William Tighe]

"It was Saint Augustine who brought about that change in discipline -- and I can see why he wanted the change, and I can see why someone might oppose it, too. I don't think it was a change in doctrine."

I doubt that very much, Tony, both as a historical statement and a theological one. The German Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias both demonstrated that infant baptism is ceretainly a "primordial" Christian practice, and made a very good case that it is presupposed in the NT. See Jeremias' *Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries* (or perhaps *... in the Early Church*) which appeared in English in 1960. Kurt aland attempted a response, *Did the Early Church Baptize Infants* (1961), to which Jeremias replied with *The Origins of Infant Bapatism* (1962). All three are short books, and well worthreading.

The only, only, early Christian writer who advocated delay of Baptism until adulthood, and that only in the case of the children of converts, was Tertullian (and it is clear from his argument that he is contesting a universal practice to the contrary of his own views), although St. Gregory Nazianzus advocated (because of his views on the nature of the soul) delaying baptism until children were 2 or 3.

[smh]

A note from Steve Hutchens:

To some degree we are dealing with a terminological problem. I think I can identify, by naming institutions, "Evangelicalism" as I referred to it in my blog. I have never, however, thought of Southern Baptists as "Evangelicals" except in a broader sense, since they are in manifold ways a very singular entity--very much like Lutherans and the Reformed denominations--with their own seminaries (this is important), a very distinct history and denominational identity that includes a large number of missions and service organizations the equivalents of which are "parachurch" within the world of Evangelicalism to which I was referring.

There is a certain amount of this I think is obvious on the face of things. The currently predominating and hence defining strain of Southern Baptist is NOT like the Evangelical I was criticizing simply because there is a large enough number of them who have been willing to resist, and have successfully resisted, the malign theological forces to which I define "Evangelicalism" as capitulating. They have been willing to be called all kinds of terrible names for Christ's sake, and have taken seriously the his mandate to protect and feed his lambs. For this they have my deepest respect--and my reluctance to call them "Evangelicals."

While strongly disagreeing with much Baptist and revivalist theology and practice, I trusted my children to be trained in the faith in a conservative Baptist church, no doubt very much like the one Dr. Moore attends, correcting what I believe to be errors quietly at home, while emphasizing the fact that there are some things upon which Christians can have very strong disagreements, and other things that they cannot--essentially that we disagree on the way to Christ, but we do NOT disagree on who he is. (An artificial distinction? Ultimately, yes, but apparently not penultimately.) Why did we do this? Because these people are some of the very best representatives of "mere Christianity" I know. They love the scriptures and teach them to their children (which in my mind covers a multitude of sins), know that the faith must be earnestly contended for, and then--contend. They are led by admirably strong men in the whining, effete, feminized, gelded, apologetic, and contemptibly weak world of western Christendom, a world I despise with Kierkegaardian intensity, and of which the "Evangelicalism" I name is becoming one of the best exemplars. I have no difficulty in recognizing the faith for which they have contended as the one to which I hold.

I will add here that I would trust the religious training of my children to Roman Catholics, quietly correcting what I believe to be errors at home, if the tables were turned. Belief in the existence of "mere Christianity"--that this is really the only Christianity there is--seems to enhance discrimination on some fronts, and decrease it on others.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Russell says:

They [Mills, Kirshiner, Reardon] truly believe in everything the Orthodox [or Catholic in Mills' case] Church claims for itself. I don't believe infant baptism is biblical, and they don't believe my church has the apostolic authority of the bishops.

Thus they don't believe your church is a "church" at all, but at most a sect. Isn't therefore at least one of their goals in this ecumenism to get you to see that? Do you not respond in kind by insisting that the EOC or the RCC is no church at all, or that they are merely sects? If not, how can this ecumenism be a conversation among equals? If not among equals, i.e., if you do not all bring elephants into the room, then who is evangelizing whom?

This commitment to the distinctives of a Particular Historical Christian expression is laudable, perhaps even salvific, and certainly far more laudable and salvific than the pretense that one's Christian expression is somehow Authentic but yet neither Particular nor Historical. But there is a great, muddled, "deracinating" (Hutchens' wonderful word) swath of Evangelicalism that pretends precisely this. And it is this swath that incurs (I think) the ire (a.k.a. attempts at "cancer surgery") of Steve Hutchens, and certainly my own. Unfortunately, so large and vocal and entrenched (and "hip" and "relevant") has this swath become that it has. in ordinary usage, become synonymous with Evangelicalism. Thus this deformity, this cancer, is what I mean when I use the term "evangelical" as a noun.

And for most (if not all) those churches who have, by God's grace, somehow thus far resisted its wiles, it still exists as a dissident movement. For the rest, churches who have capitulated to the emasculation and deracination of historic Christian expressions, it has infected the head. They, just as with liberal Protestants, can only be left to wither and die, ignored as much as possible, along with a hope that what grace yet remains within may ultimately be scattered to churches and sects where Truth is not dead. But perhaps the former group, wherein a dissident "evangelicalism" has yet to prove fatal, may somehow be rescued by the quixotic and profoundly truthful ravings of men like Steve Hutchens and Russell Moore. I personally doubt it, for I doubt the institutional and magisterial strength of will against the modernist beast in even the best anabaptist traditions, but there is enormous virtue in hoping and trying.

[David Palmer]

Steve Hutchens say,

To some degree we are dealing with a terminological problem. I think I can identify, by naming institutions, "Evangelicalism" as I referred to it in my blog. I have never, however, thought of Southern Baptists as "Evangelicals" except in a broader sense, since they are in manifold ways a very singular entity--very much like Lutherans and the Reformed denominations--with their own seminaries (this is important), a very distinct history and denominational identity that includes a large number of missions and service organizations the equivalents of which are "parachurch" within the world of Evangelicalism to which I was referring.

There you have it (well almost), Russell Moore is not an evangelical. Neither is Albert Mohler nor John Stott nor Lutherans like Gene Veith nor those Calvinists at Westminster Seminary.

Steve is right. There is a terminological problem. The problem, at least in my eyes and perhaps Russell’s, is that “evangelical” has been an honourable descriptor in mainline denominations for those who have fought long and hard against liberalism within their denominations.

I do agree with Steve that Lutherans and I would say to a slightly lesser extent Reformed folk as well, do have strong denominational loyalty (their own theological colleges, strong historical identity going back to Europe, mission boards, support structures for clergy), which can surprise more loosely bound independent types. I know this to be so from my local Pastors’ Network.

[Christopher Hathaway]

That a term like "Evangelical" is debased by its being stretched to mean many sundry things is no reason to reject its use. It still has use within the appropriate contexts. Think of how many people use the term "Christian" to basically imply a loving, generous and forgiving person, or at least a "nice" person. Many of them couldn't give a damn for doctrine or Christology. I won't stop calling myself a Christian, but among those who I reasonably suspect will misunderstand the true meaning of the term I will use another term or add a qualifier. That is, after all, how the term "Born-again Christian" came into being. To St. John that would seem a tautology, but it may be a usefull phrase when so many who think they were "born right the first time" continue to call themselves Christian.

[Patrick]

A wonderful post, and one which sums up why I really do love Touchstone and Mere Comments. This isn't about agreement. We're all bound to offend each other's sensibilities if we make our lists of what we believe on various issues. The Church is very good at doing such a thing.

What it hasn't been good at is providing a forum where those from different traditions can yell, and scream, and accuse, and just plain argue over very essential things. The Ecumenical movement is one that seems to demand everyone quit believing anything.

I'm against that. I want to share my perspective, hear those who are adamantly against my perspective, because in doing this we might all just see the breadth of the work of the Spirit.

Thanks for this forum, thanks for allowing comments, and thanks for being willing to say your minds even if it is harsh and offensive. Thanks for offering us a "Mere Christianity", for no one said it would be an easy or neat Christianity.

It is all for, as one seemingly suspect institution proclaims, "for Christ, and his Kingdom."

[Steve Nicoloso]

What name then ought we give to "mainstream" "evangelical" "churches" that have consciously chosen to expunge historically distinctive terms from their names, or equivalently, to "communions" that have arisen after the mass expungement was well underway? The very names they've taken reflect a deracination (EFree, WC, Vineyard, C&MA, Foursquare, Calvary Chapel). Their very "styles" explicitly and actively poo-pooh history and tradition. They are not all "liberals" (yet). They are not all "conservative". Not all "neo-Calvinist". Not all "Reformed". Not all "emergent". Most eschew these labels ('cept for maybe that last one) as much as any denominational ones. The one thing that unites them all is that they self-identify as "evangelical". Now that may be pee in the Cheerios of all those traditionalist Baptists and Pentacostals and Presbyterians and Lutherans fighting valiantly for the soul of their own particular traditions, but the fact remains that the "center" is now owned by this deformed sort of "evangelicalism". What word should we using instead?

And Patrick, very well put. A forum to yell and scream and argue is (IMO) what the Touchstone project has always been about. An occasional bloody nose, or a world of men without chests, choose one. Beats the hell out of the know-nothing faux ecumenism that demands we know only one thing: that there are no essentials.

[Tony Esolen]

Bill,

Thanks for that tweak in the head. I was kicking myself after that post -- should have known better. Augustine comments about adult baptism in the Confessions, describing it as clearly a north African custom that many of his readers might not know about. I should have said that after Augustine, infant baptism became normative everywhere in the west, Africa included. That was dumb of me.

From what I've seen (as an outsider), there is a deep and insidious connection between those denominations that spurn history (as sexist, racist, etc.) and those that are ignorant of it (as seems to be the case on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, which I've heard my Protestant brethren naming The Blasphemy Network -- they can't seem to take two steps without violating half of the tenets of the Nicene Creed). Certainly we Catholics disagree with the Baptists on the meaning and effectuality of the sacraments -- and we may have a few shades of differences about the ecclesiological tenets of the Nicene Creed.

But the feminized churches on the left, and some of the bizarre TBN churches on the right, are striking directly or indirectly at the very person of Christ. Hence the sculpture of "Christa" hanging at St. John the Divine in New York City, or the triple Trinity of Benny Hinn, or the antitrinitarian modalism of what's her name, Kay somebody who's all over the radio. In my own church, the orders of feminist nuns, and the hyperfeminized Jesuits, have, I think not coincidentally, almost wholly abandoned the doctrine of the coeternity of Christ (that is, they are all Arians, if even that); many no longer believe in the resurrection of the body (once you start ignoring Paul it's hard to stop); almost all believe that even the human nature of Jesus was a myth, first because there is no such thing as "human nature" in which Jesus shared, and second because such human characteristics as Jesus possessed (for instance, being male) are entirely incidental and of no importance.

[Ranee Mueller]

I have a two part comment, one on the original post and one on a comment.

The post:

I have a question for Mr. Moore, do you view teetotal-ism as a discipline your church imposes on you, to which you submit out of obedience (which doesn't mean you disagree)? Or do you see drinking alcohol as a sin? I ask because I think the second view adds to the law and to scripture and the first, though I disagree with, I can understand and respect (much like the abstinence from meat on Fridays).

To Steve Nicoloso-

Russell says:

They [Mills, Kirshiner, Reardon] truly believe in everything the Orthodox [or Catholic in Mills' case] Church claims for itself. I don't believe infant baptism is biblical, and they don't believe my church has the apostolic authority of the bishops.

Steve says in response:

Thus they don't believe your church is a "church" at all, but at most a sect. Isn't therefore at least one of their goals in this ecumenism to get you to see that? Do you not respond in kind by insisting that the EOC or the RCC is no church at all, or that they are merely sects? If not, how can this ecumenism be a conversation among equals? If not among equals, i.e., if you do not all bring elephants into the room, then who is evangelizing whom?

I say:

I think you will find that Roman Catholic, Orthodox and even Anglican Christians are not regarded as even _Christian_, by many Protestant churches. Although I, too, rankle a bit at being considered separated brethren by my RC brothers and sisters, I will take that any day over being told that my church isn't actually Christian, and that people cannot be saved there, because it doesn't follow the formularies set by a modernist who takes his authority from his own congregation. Calling Catholics of any stripe (Roman, Orthodox, Anglican), non-Christian is hanging a millstone around their necks. Unbelievers have the chance for regeneration, Jesus said that those who teach falsehood are damned. You tell me which is worse, being considered a sect that is not in union or being considered non-Christian masquerading as the truth?

[beloml]

I'm a Christian, but I'm baffled at a belief in Biblical inerrancy. The Bible is chock-full of outright contradictions. How do you overlook and/or explain these?

[Jon]

Beloml:
Depends, of course.
First of all, what are the "outright contradictions" of which you speak?
Second, what do you mean by "inerrancy"?
In Christ,
Jon

[Steve Nicoloso]

Au contraire, Ranee, those stout few, increasingly rare, protestant denominations who would hold that Catholics, &c. (if they indeed follow the teachings of their church) are damned are not at all the problem. But they are, alas, increasingly rare. Mainstream evangelicalism is falling all over itself to be buddy-buddy, we're okay-they're-we're all just so totally okay, with Catholicism. It is this "middle" path that is ultimately fatal to stout-hearted orthodoxy (even if that orthodoxy is pretty screwed up). Show me the Evangelical who says if you pray to the Saints and Mary, if you worship the consecrated Host as Christ the Lord, if you believe the sacraments are normatively necessary for salvation, then you are damned. Show me this person, and I will show you one who is, while sadly wrong, yet someone who is at least true to principle and intellectually honest. That is a person who brings an elephant into the room of ecumenism, who believes that doctrine really does matter, so much so that souls REALLY ARE at stake... and thereby deserves to a place at the table.

[Ranee Mueller]

Steve Nicoloso Writes:

Au contraire, Ranee, those stout few, increasingly rare, protestant denominations who would hold that Catholics, &c. (if they indeed follow the teachings of their church) are damned are not at all the problem. But they are, alas, increasingly rare. Mainstream evangelicalism is falling all over itself to be buddy-buddy, we're okay-they're-we're all just so totally okay, with Catholicism.

I respond:

I would give you that there are fewer Protestant denominations as groups that hold this, but not that they are rare. Please excuse the following run on sentence. Those of the Free church bent, from the Amish and Mennonite camp, dear friends of ours belong to the Apostolic church which has its roots in the Hutterites, modern denominational children of them, as well as many Baptist (I remember vividly going to a program on missions and being preached to about going to Mexico to save the Catholics, all of the relations who are Baptist, which was part of why I so appreciated Mr. Moore's comments, this has been pretty uniformly the Baptist perspective given to me), nearly all the conservative Protestant churches in our town have this view toward Catholocism, the largest Presbyterian church in our area, where books expounding on the evil and deception of the Catholic church are studied, the Nazarene church where our cousins have learned that litugy is a dreaded ritual, and therefore empty and vain, the Foursquare churches where I've heard sermons about those Catholics and their falseness, the radio program from Calvary Chapel, I could go on, seem strongholds for those who condemn the Catholic Church (and those like it) to damnation.

There was actually a pastor in our town who told our friend, who was a lapsed Catholic, had been attending this pastor's church, seeking his way toward God, that he was condemning his daughter to hell by having her baptized in the Catholic church (his wife was a practicing Catholic). Largely, though, it comes from these free radicals. Those folk who identify as nondenominational, evangelical, and I have a great deal of experience with this kind of church, all of my husband's family come from this tradition, not to mention living less than a mile from Oral Roberts University when we were first married, but most importantly, my experience with conversion.

I became a Christian as a teenager, and studied and met with many different religious sects. I read a great deal of their accepted texts, besides the Bible and including it, interviewed pastors and priests, attended churches, talked with members. I came from a loosely Muslim background, and did not have any real prejudice toward the branches of Christianity. To this day, however, I play a game of guessing how long before my nondenominational strongly reformed friends, family and acquaintances will make a disparaging comment toward Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church, the liturgy, and how long before the us and them comments begin, where we are the elect and they are the damned. We slide by, because they think that, since we are not Roman Catholic, we share their sentiment, and that somehow we have been given knowledge and grace from outside our church, since our church isn't really part of the body in their eyes. I have only once in my entire life had a similar experience with a Catholic, a priest at a wedding seven years ago.

[luthien]

A fair number of Protestants definitely beleive that RC and EO Christians are on the road to Hell. This seems to be most common among the more-Calvinist-than-Calvin-or-Knox groups. I very definitely remember reading the Elsie Dinsmore books as a child (almost next to the Bible for many ultra-trad Protestant homeschoolers)and being very intrigued by an episode in which a nominally Protestant girl converts to Catholicism at convent school and is "reclaimed for the true faith" by her Protestant cousins. Catholicism is definitely shown as a from of paganism. These books wouldn't count in this discussion, being a century old, but they are taken very seriously and uncritically admired in many Christian homeschooling circles, and no one ever has any issue with the rabid anti-Catholicism.

[Juli]

I read Elsie Dinsmore as a girl ...

Re: outright contradictions, I don't consider these troubling, but there are of course alternative versions of the same story, with different (conflicting) details (eg, the Noah's Ark story). That's what one would expect when stories come down in slightly different traditions, but it might irk someone who thinks infallible means literally, factually true in every detail ... but since when is that the point of family stories?

[firinnteine]

Please don't cite the Elsie Dinsmore books.

My acquaintance with (affliction by?) them was brief, but not a thing to be recalled.

My sister and I both uniformly despised the first book. No others were forthcoming.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well, I am pleased to hear of my presumed impending damnation. Things must be going better out in the provinces than I've been led to believe. Let me put it this way: are there 5 contributors to CT or World Mag in the last year who hold to this Low Church Exclusivist view? Are there more professors in the departments of theology and philosphy at CCCU schools who hold this view than you have fingers? Are there more than a handful nationally known pastors of churches that have eschewed historical denominational names (and by implication distinctives) who hold this view? Does James Dobson hold this view? D. James Kennedy? Billy (or Franklin or Maureen) Graham? The creators of Veggie Tales? Perhaps rare is an overstatement on my part, but is it not fair to assume that we are in the twilight of the Low Church Exlusivist era (if indeed there ever was one)? Sure, some Low Church Exclusivists will remain so indefinitely, not least because of their own magisterial exclusivity--because, in fact, their ecclesiology and discipline is every bit as audacious, conservatizing, and exclusive as that of the Whore of Babylon they attempt to replace. But does anyone seriously think this is current voice of George Bush's "religious right"? that this groups makes CCM a mega-bazillion dollar/year industry? that the children of such marginalized groups are flooding into Wheaton and Calvin to be well-respected, articulate, moderate (but... shhh... stealth fundamentalist) leaders of the next generation? I think not.

[joe]

Re:"...but the fact remains that the "center" is now owned by this deformed sort of 'evangelicalism'. What word should we using instead?"

EVANGELPROTEAN = Evangelical + Protestant + Protean

[joe]

evangelproteanism, n.

[luthien]

Ok, no more Elsie. I actually liked them for a while. Legal proof of madness? (our copies have long since disappeared, probably sold on e-bay, so I can't really cite them properly anyway :)

[Michael]

Could someone please explain what the "Low Church Exclusivist View" is?

[Steve Nicoloso]

e.g., Low Church Exclusivism

[joe]

Re: Mere Comments 12/12/05 - "Life We Hold"

The upcoming Jan/Feb issue of Touchstone will contain a book review of: 'Orthodoxy Revisited: Contrasting the Faith & Practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church with Evangelical Doctrine' by Robert Lloyd Arnold.

Here's the blurb from the publisher:

Orthodoxy Revisited explains the doctrinal divergence between Orthodoxy and Evangelical Christianity: the nature of divine revelation, the ontological complexity of the Triune Godhead, the nature of man and his salvation in Christ.

Orthodoxy Revisited shows that there is very little doctrinal Commonality between the Evangelical and the Orthodox. Both communions use the same theological terms and yet yield radically different theological conclusions.

Toward An Orthodox Trinitarian Model
The Palamite Synthesis And The Judgment Of God
The Holy Mysteries And Authentic Personhood
The Holy Images (Icons) And The Communion Of Saints
Culture, Ecumenism And The Celtic Church

"This is not a book for milksops. Robert Arnold's writing is forthright, brisk - even bold - and undergirded with massive knowledge of his subject. As a Roman Catholic, I find this book seriously challenging, as should all believing Christians. Highly recommended."

- Tom Howard, author of On Being Catholic

"I believe this book will inform the dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Protestant Christians for a generation."

- Frank Schaeffer, author of Dancing Alone

"Arnold's background as an Evangelical-turned-Orthodox makes him particularly qualified to address the issues in this book. His analysis of the ecumenical movement is particularly illuminating..."

- Clark Carlton, author of The Faith Orthodox catechism series

+ + +

Looking forward to the debate next year! May God grant you all a blessed Nativity!

[David Gray]

Tom Howard makes it sound interesting but the other two don't carry much weight. Having watched Schaeffer talk on why he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy I was forced to conclude he had been a fairly badly educated Protestant (unfortunately this is true of increasing numbers).

[John]

I would be curious to know what other readers think of this book. I've found it to be informative in some places, though at times it reads a bit too much like a collection of divinity school papers ("A" papers admittedly). There isn't the unifying thread that one would hope from the claims made on the jacket. I'm also not quite sure who the audience for it is. It seems a little too academic for the casual reader, but not rigorous or fair enough for the academic. I must admit it's been a few months since I picked it up. Fantastic cover though!

[Buy Generic Viagra]

Buy Lowest Price
Generic Viagra

Buy Generic Viagra 100mg Pill as low as $ 1.27 Per Pill

Buy Generic Cialis 20mg Pill as low as $ 1.50 Per Pill

Buy Generic Viagra

[Buy Generic Viagra]

Buy Lowest Price
Generic Viagra

Buy Generic Viagra 100mg Pill as low as $ 1.27 Per Pill

Buy Generic Cialis 20mg Pill as low as $ 1.50 Per Pill

Buy Generic Viagra