Title Bout

In Touchstone editorial discussion of the Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future and our response thereto, the question came up, as it has more than once among us, on the use of the title “Evangelical,” particularly since at least several of our Protestant editors, including myself, are not comfortable being identified as such. 

My own biggest problem with the identification, beyond the fact that I simply have never been able to “think like an Evangelical,” is that the ascendancy that started the movement, named it, and still defines it from the bridges of its flagship organizations, has for the most part moved on from where it was between the early nineteen-forties and the final decade or so of the twentieth century. It is now advancing, or electing not to resist, a new religion, symbolized by new language, new Bibles, new worship modes, altered style sheets, and reconstructed mission statements. Old things have passed away as Evangelicaldom’s house of being has been refounded on egalitarian terms. 

There is a new and desperate struggle among progressive Evangelicals to be recognized as orthodox and catholic-minded, motivated by desire almost as intense as the historical craving to be admired and accepted in the world of mainline liberalism. They are trying every possible device to carry the egalitarianism that keeps them marginally respectable among the latter into what they now conceive as another place they wish to be hailed and well-met—the “ecumenical orthodoxy,” or “new ecumenism”—the Lewisian or Lerintian mind--represented by Touchstone and many of the old Evangelicals. I interpret the Call and its conference as just another neat Trojan horse constructed along these lines, and will continue to work on keeping the gates firmly closed: timeo Evangelicos et clamores ferentes. 

Those who will not follow the progressives' lead will have increasing difficulty calling themselves Evangelicals, particularly when the loudest voices and the strongest genealogical line now represent an evolution in which they will not participate. The “old fashioned” Evangelicals (I have no idea how many are left) must now decide whether they still wish to denominate themselves “Evangelicals,” insisting that the mutants are not true Evangelicals, or surrender the title to the innovators and call themselves something else. 

Perhaps Lewisian Evangelicals—for the progressives have repudiated Lewis’s firm and insistent patriarchalism, while (predictably) continuing to claim him for their own. Clivians? Nah. I would suggest Old Style Evangelicals, except that in Wisconsin that is recognized as the name of a cheap but tasty beer, and no oldstyle Evangelical wants to be associated with beer--or perhaps even with Wisconsin.  Jack-Evangelicals won’t work either.  Seems to fit the others better.

Comments

[Gintas]

Two words: Rick Warren.

[GL]

SMH,

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Luther call himself an Evangelical? I don't think he had in mind what that term calls to the mind today nor the doctrinal positions of those who claimed the label in the 1940s. Evangelical is one of those words for which the meaning has changed so much and so often that it has lost just about all its ability to convey any concrete meaning.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Luther call himself an Evangelical? <<<

Aren't all Christians SUPPOSED to be Evangelical? If we're not, then how are we obeying the Great Commission? By the same token, aren't all Christians supposed to be Pentecostal, in that all have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit? If we deny the indwelling Spirit, then who guides us into all truth?

We tend to forget this, because we have let terms be hijacked by specific denominations who apply a parochial definition to them.

[Joe Long]

Best Christian faction-fight-inspired name of all time: the Antimissionary Baptists. (Great-granddad was an Antimissionary, or "Hardshell", Baptist.) The Antimissionary Baptists were not actually against missions, but believed that the cooperation of different congregations for the purpose of missionary support, was a dangerous step towards hierarchy and so, ultimately, corruption and heresy.

If we must come up with new labels, I vote for an "anti-" something. "Antiprogressive" would just be a synonym for "regressive", but I would prefer it - it suits. And in fact "Hardshell" has its attractions as well.

[David Gray]

>Aren't all Christians SUPPOSED to be Evangelical?

Just as they are to be catholic and orthodox...

>We tend to forget this, because we have let terms be hijacked by specific denominations who apply a parochial definition to them.

Yes.

I suggest falling back on confessional identities or Protestant in a pinch.

[Gene Godbold]

David,
That would hardly work for Stuart.

[GL]

Aren't all Christians SUPPOSED to be Evangelical? If we're not, then how are we obeying the Great Commission? By the same token, aren't all Christians supposed to be Pentecostal, in that all have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit? If we deny the indwelling Spirit, then who guides us into all truth?

Amen. Preach it brother Stuart. ;-)

You could add that we are all to be catholic and orthodox.

[GL]

David,

I should have waited a few minutes and then I could have just dittoed you. ;-)

[David Gray]

>That would hardly work for Stuart.

True. I was thinking for those raised evangelical who have a view similar to SMH.

[Bill R]

" was thinking for those raised evangelical who have a view similar to SMH."

(Hand raised.) I like Hardshell Evangelical. (But can I still like my beer?) ;-)

[GL]

I like Hardshell Evangelical. (But can I still like my beer?) ;-)

Only if you look both ways before sneaking a drink. ;-)

[Bill R]

"Perhaps Lewisian Evangelicals"

Or "C.S.L.-vangelicals"?

[Reid]

If we are to stick with terms from Lewis, I would suggest Old Narnians or, better yet, Badgers.

[LabriAlumn]

It is a problem. Ever since Norm Geisler had to leave the ETS because the ETS would no longer support basic monotheism over and against temporal henotheism, one wonders if we can save the word 'evangelical'. I wish we could. Unfortunately, when you get successful enough, everyone wants to use your name.

Fundamentalist won't do, for evangelicals are not the anti-culture isolations, and of course, the MSM have destroyed the term, anyway.

The problem with confessional*ism* is that it is schismatic against the one holy catholic and orthodox church, usually elevating a local man-made document above Scripture as a sort of paper magisterium. And evangelicals believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible supra omne.

Evangelical really -is- the best term, and the neo-orthodox, the existentialists, and the temporal henotheists really need to develop some basic honesty as to their beliefs.

All of the ancient churches believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, just not supra omne, all believe in the importance of personal conversion to Christ, at least in theory. Perhaps that one difference, from which any others flow, which is more epistemological than anything else, is the key. But how would we turn that into a usable and non-confusing name?

Personally I prefer wines, ciders and ales to beer. ;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Antimissionary Baptists were not actually against missions, but believed that the cooperation of different congregations for the purpose of missionary support, was a dangerous step towards hierarchy and so, ultimately, corruption and heresy.<<<

How odd. From the Catholic and Orthodox perspective, hierarchy is supposed to protect us from corruption and heresy. It doesn't always work out that way, but it works a lot better than congregationalism and anarchy.

[David Gray]

>It doesn't always work out that way, but it works a lot better than congregationalism and anarchy.

Obviously not everyone agrees.

[smh]

"Evangelical" is, of course, one of those "essentially disputed" terms. Just let a post-fundamentalist American Protestant try trotting it out in front of a Lutheran as something he has a right to call himself--while the Lutheran might not! In German-speaking countries it is practically synonymous with "Protestant." The Protestant church in town may be Reformed or Lutheran confessionally, but it is the "Evangelical" church as over against the Catholic one.

I used the word in my dissertation (a comparative study of the epistemologies of Karl Barth and Carl F.H. Henry) in the way it is most commonly used in North America--and put in a nearly half-page explanatory footnote for my mostly-Lutheran committee--but spent perhaps twenty minutes in verbal defense of my usage when it was opposed by Donald Dayton, a Baptist who insisted that the word is properly applied only to the Wesleyan-Arminian-Pentecostal strain, and emphatically not to the Calvinistic ascendancy that had claimed it in the forties. Fortunately, I had read his book on the subject and was able to interact with it. The point was "defended," but not, Professor Dayton thought, successfully.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Obviously not everyone agrees.<<<

The proof, as always, is in the pudding.

[luthien]

>>>Jack-Evangelicals won’t work either.<<< Perhaps not, but I think Jackangelicals has a nice ring to it.

[joe]

win·kle (wngkl)
tr.v. win·kled, win·kling, win·kles Chiefly British
To pry, extract, or force from a place or position. Often used with out. From winkle(from the process of extracting periwinkles from their shells).

How about "Winklings"?

A play on the "Inklings."

It is also descriptive of (both old and new) evangelical Protestant epistemology: the extraction of what they feel is the "meat" or essence of the Gospel from the Body of Christ: the Church.

[Gintas]

How about "Reactionary Hobbit"?

[Stonechurch]

The term “evangelical” is simply a term derived from the Greek work for “Gospel”, which in turn literally means “good news.” “Evangelical” means someone who focuses on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news that Christ, through His death and resurrection, has won forgiveness for sinful human beings and offers salvation as a free gift.
Today the term “evangelical” is used to refer to a wide variety of more-or-less conservative Protestants. For all of their differences, Baptists, charismatics, Calvinists, Wesleyans, and the various non-denominational “para-church ministries” do stress salvation through Christ and emphasize “evangelism,” so the term is apt. But originally, the work “evangelical” meant “Lutheran.”
In the years following the Reformation, “evangelicals” were those who followed Luther, as opposed to “reformed,” who followed Calvin. (A later attempt to bring the two factions together resulted in the “Evangelical and Reformed Church,” today an American denomination.) Even today in Europe, churches that follow a Lutheran theology call themselves not “Lutheran” – a term Luther himself hated, not wanting Christ’s Church to be named after him – but “Evangelical.” The American usage of the term for any Bible-believing, salvation-preaching Christian is starting to catch on in Europe also, but American tourists at times get confused when they go into a German or Scandinavian church with “evangelische” on the sign, expecting revival songs and altar calls, only to find chorales and liturgy.
Though others are entitled to call themselves “evangelicals,” Lutherans are at least the first evangelicals. Keeping in mind the fact that Christians have always focused on the Gospel, from the New Testament days through the early Church and even through the Middle Ages – a time when, Protestants contend, the emphasis on the Gospel and its implications became somewhat confused – Lutherans were the first to be called evangelical.

Excerpt from the book “The Spirituality of the Cross, The Way of the First Evangelicals” by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.

[Bill R]

It's easy to take the term "evangelical" for granted, as if it were a permanent part of the Christian scene. But evangelicalism isn't a denomination or a creed. It's a movement of renewal. If it can't renew, it will die. What we may be seeing is the institutionalization of evangelicalism--a contradiction in terms. Opposition couldn't kill evangelicalism, but "success" may. Renewal of the church will continue, whatever name it is given.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How about "Reactionary Hobbit"?<<<

Redundant

[jb]

Some years ago I coined the term:

Radical Genesis Evangelicals

I'm still partial to it

[Michael]

Way back in the early 1980s Francis Schaeffer wrote of the changes in meaning of the originally-good word evangelical, and said in a speech "I don't know what to call myself anymore!" - that is, he found concerns about the drift in meaning of both fundamentalist and evangelical. Then he said he had decided to call himself a "Bible-believing Christian".

[A]

"Bible-believing Christian" has the same feel to it that I sense any time I meet an Orthodox Presbyterian (my roommate freshman year was OP; as an Anglican believing predestination we got along okay aside from what I'm talking about here...) which is: We are the ONLY ones who have the absolute truth of the Bible, the rest of you are apostates because of crucifixes, real presence, baptism, soteriology, whatever.
Of course we ARE Bible-believing Christians, but I think we'd have a hard time defending ourselves to non-Christians who asked, "If you all believe the Bible, why do you disagree so much?"

[mairnéalach]

I prefer "protesting catholic".

Browsing for an advent calendar in the neighborhood Catholic bookstore yesterday, I overheard the proprietor recounting to one of her patrons an incident of anticatholic sentiment in the context of her business. To give her a chuckle, I remarked within earshot-"I'm an evangelical, and I wouldn't be caught dead in an evangelical bookstore". We then had a wonderful conversation about our mutual hope for unity. As I parted, she asked for my prayers for the bookstore, as its economic future was uncertain next year. I vowed to pray for her.

Perhaps I should go further and conduct some sort of sabotage against all the Lifeway & other evanjellyfish stores in the neighborhood, then find some surreptitious way to funnel my evangelical friends to this lady's store. Hmm....

[GL]

mairnéalach,

I browse in a Catholic bookstore all the time, and frequently buy something. I also do the same at a Presbyterian bookstore, located in the church building.

Lifeway does have some good material, but you have to wade through a lot of junk to find it. Their philosophy seems to be that if the vendor slaps a Christian label on something and it is G-rated, then they'll hawk it. If it sells, they'll keep hawking it; if it doesn't, they won't. You can guess what kind of stuff sells best by looking at what you have to walk past at the front of the store to get to the quality stuff in the back.

[Jeff Sawtelle]

Jack Evangelicals? Wasn't C.S. Lewis' nickname
"Jack"? I thought that Lewis never claimed to be an evangelical.

My main gripe with evangelicals is that they hold to two contradictory propositions: (1) that the Bible is authoritative, and (2) that the Bible teaches that all Christians are commanded in e.g, the Great Commision, to evangelize the world. If one points out that the Bible (#1), correctly read, does not bear out #2, they don't know what to say.

My reading indicates that the notion that the Great Commission applies to all Christians and is a commandment to evangelize the world dates from the radical Anabaptists of the 16th century. Both Calvin and Luther was opposed to the idea, not to mention traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The more traditional reading is that Jesus is there commissioning His Apostles and confiding to them the ministry of Word and Sacrament. I agree.

It seems that the self-styled evangelical churches I have dealt with are in the revivalist tradition, which tries to make the Church into a perpetual revival machine and bends all other activities towards that. Thus, (as Touchstone has often noted) the Sunday morning service becomes an evangelistic service rather than a gathering of believers for instruction and edification.

Fr. Patrick has written that the true Gospel is threefold: (1) to the outsider, it is "repent and be converted, (2) to the believer, it is "be ye conformed to the image of Christ, and (3) to those transitioning from the Church Militant to the Church Universal, it is about the Life Everlasting and the Christian's Hope.

To some preachers I have sat under, the "Full" Gospel is (1) to the outsider, "repent and believe," (2) to the believer it is "maybe you'd better recommit yourself just to be sure and drag every warm body you can into the Church so they can be saved, and (3) to those impending transfer, it is to use their body as a prop in order to drop the Gospel bomb on those attending the service who otherwise might not be in church.

The Great Commission has a line in it about teaching the new disciples to observe everything that Jesus commanded. To the evangelmaniac preacher, the only thing that Jesus said that seems to bear repeating is His supposed commmand in the Great Commission to evangelize the world.

J.I. Packer, in this learned journal, has said that the evangelical church has a stunted ecclesiology. Yup.

[LabriAlumn]

I don't know why it should be so hard to defend - look at all of the varying interpretations of what Catholic teaching is!

Why do we disagree? Many factors, including that while God's Word is inerrant, we who read are not, we are finite, we forget things, due to our biases we force readings that the text won't support, or we have a system to make Scripture comply to, or our biases causes us to emphasize things differently than the Bible itself does, and so on. Which is why we have the hermeneutical spiral and a collegeality of interpretation: "show your work".

But that is true in any of the Christian communions, regarding -their- sources of teaching authority.

Jeff, you are describing not evangelicalism, but the seeker-sensitive movement, which is relatively recent, and much disputed.

[Matt Anderson]

I have sometimes heard such old-style evangelicals referred to as "The Regressive Element." It is the most fitting name I know, and I wish I could take credit for making it up.

[Wolf Paul]

On the use of "Evangelical" in the German language:

Of course the German word, which the (German-stock) Lutherans who came to North America translated as "Evangelical", still is the main word for "Protestant" in the German-speaking world. That word is "evangelisch", and a Protestant church is an "evangelische Kirche".

That is why Evangelicals (in the the CT/NAE sense of the word) don't use it, generally, to describe themselves; they use a re-Germanized form of the word "Evangelical": "Evangelikal" (stress on the last sylable). An evangelical church in the CT/NAE sense would be an "evangelikale Gemeinde" (since German-speaking Evangelicals prefer the term "Gemeinde" (congregation/assembly) to "Kirche" (which has a more institutional connotation, or else describes a clearly recognizable church building, although German-speaking Evangelicals have rediscovered the word in the context of the House Church movement (Hauskirche)).

An exception to this is the name of some denominations and of the Evangelical Alliance; both the EA's name and some denominational names predate the creation of the term "Evangelikal" and as such retain "Evangelisch".

In Austria, btw., the united Lutheran and Reformed "Evangelische Kirche in Oesterreich" has a court-supported monopoly on the term "evangelisch" as an organizational naming component, which is only now slowly being eroded. They have actually sued groups outside their own denomination which tried to use the term and have until recently prevailed in such suits.

In Germany, those who would be the equivalent of what you call "progressive Evangelicals" above (i.e. leaning in an egalitarian direction, considering ID not much better than "fundamentalist" Creationism, etc.) are not all that keen on being identified as "Evangelikale" or Evangelicals.

Hope this is of interest to some.

[David Gray]

>It seems that the self-styled evangelical churches

Which church is not "self-styler" in their claims?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Which church is not "self-styler" in their claims?<<<

Those who can trace their descent in an unbroken line of episcopal succession back to the Apostles.

Sorry, David, you're a great straight man.

[David Gray]

>Those who can trace their descent in an unbroken line of episcopal succession back to the Apostles.

Okay, nobody.

>Sorry, David, you're a great straight man.

Scandinavian blood helps...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Scandinavian blood helps...<<<

The Apostles were Norwegian? That explains so much!

[Gene Godbold]

Yeah, that's it...the apostles were Norwegian!Garrison Keillor could really run with that one.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>To the evangelmaniac preacher, the only thing that Jesus said that seems to bear repeating is His supposed commmand in the Great Commission to evangelize the world.<<

Jeff, this seems like a rather harsh way to characterize all "self-styled" Evangelicals, even if you really are limiting it to only those with whom you've had contact. I wish the general Touchstone guideline of leaving criticism of a community to its members wasn't so often thrown out the window when it comes to Evangelicals.

While it's easy to see how a purely evangelism-centric church focus attenuates the Gospel, it's also the case that Evangelicalism has done an awful lot of good in bringing people to Christ who would not otherwise have heard of Him. Evangelicalism may tend to do only one thing, but it does that one thing well. The only trouble is in thinking that the one thing is everything, which is not an attitude everywhere present in Evangelical circles.

[David R]

I wish the general Touchstone guideline of leaving criticism of a community to its members wasn't so often thrown out the window when it comes to Evangelicals.

Amen to that!

[LAbriAlumn]

Paleo-evangelical? ;-)

Stuart,
What church could not so trace? Did any of them spring up all by themselves?

[Ethan Cordray]

Labrialumn, not to put words into Stuart's mouth, but it's a little hard to have an unbroken line of episcopal succession in a church with no bishops...

This is not to say that I agree with his conclusion as to the importance of such a line, but we Evangelicals can't exactly claim to have the same type of pedigree as the Orthodox or the Roman Catholic. If we're honest, we need to recognize that we're operating under a different set of criteria when we claim descent from the early church: doctrinal, as opposed to institutional. I haven't a firm opinion myself yet as to which position is better, but they are certainly different.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart,
What church could not so trace? Did any of them spring up all by themselves?<<<

Well, first decide on a definition of "Church". The Church of Rome uses a definition that includes (a) fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition, including administration of valid sacraments; and (b) an unbroken line of episcopal succession. Everything else is classified as an ecclesial community.

Using the Catholic definition of Church, you are right--a true Church must have Apostolic Succession.

On the other hand, a lot of ecclesial communities call themselves churches, yet lack sacraments (and in some cases, reject sacramentalism) as well as episcopal succession (when they have bishops or a sacerdotal ministry at all).

Apostolic succession can be broken at some point along the line, either by an absence of bishops to ordain their successors; or by an abandonment of the Tradition making the ordination of successor bishops invalid. Thus, the Anglican orders were problematic but not necessarily invalid--until the ordination of women to the Episcopate. From a canonical standpoint, that act breaks with Tradition and thus places into question the acts and ordinations made afterwards. Certainly, any priests ordained by female bishops would not have valid ordinations, hence any of them elevated to the episcopate would not be valid bishops, thus beginning a chain reaction of illegitimacy that would poison the waters thereafter.

The issue of the origin of denominations, sects and the like has bedeviled the Church since the second century, when anti-heresiarchs like Irenaeus initiated the concept of determining a Church's orthodoxy by looking at the antecedants of its bishops. The true Church had bishops who were ordained by bishops who were ordained by Apostles. The heretical sects did not.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>The true Church had bishops who were ordained by bishops who were ordained by Apostles. The heretical sects did not.<<

Probably a good criterion for the time, but I wonder if it's as applicable two thousand years later. There are a great many more intervening generations, and a lot more opportunities for even rightly ordained bishops to go astray.

This would be, of course, the sort of thing a Protestant would be expected to say.

[David Mills]

I wish the general Touchstone guideline of leaving criticism of a community to its members wasn't so often thrown out the window when it comes to Evangelicals.

I think Ethan's comment applies to the man to whom he's responding, Jeff Sawtelle, and not to the magazine, where it remains, so to speak, in the room. Most of you who respond on Mere Comments clearly don't feel bound to it, and we have never insisted upon it. Not that it would do much good if we did.

That said, I will admit to wincing whenever someone turns a discussion into yet another argument between the traditions, too often conducted as a fight rather than a conversation. When conducted as fights these arguments get everyone's blood boiling and raise the number of comments, but I don't think they're often very helpful to anyone.

On another matter, and for what it's worth, in response to one of Stuart Koehl's earliest comments, we use "Evangelical" with a capital "E" for the party or movement. For two reasons: 1) to give it orthographic parity with Catholic, Baptist, etc.; and 2) to remove the suggestion that only Evangelicals are evangelical.

On a third matter, Ethan Cordray has written for us a review of Michel Houellebecq's biography of H. P. Lovecraft, which should be appearing in the March issue.

[Bill R]

"Most of you who respond on Mere Comments clearly don't feel bound to it, and we have never insisted upon it."

No, but it's still the "house rule," so to speak, and I think most of the regular commenters try to observe it.

"[W]e use "Evangelical" with a capital "E" for the party or movement. ... to give it orthographic parity with Catholic, Baptist, etc."

I have generally refrained from capitalizing because I've regarded "evangelical" as a movement, not a church or denomination. But "orthographic parity" sounds so neat that I'm willing to change my practice.

"On a third matter, Ethan Cordray has written for us a review of Michel Houellebecq's biography of H. P. Lovecraft, which should be appearing in the March issue."

You see, Ethan, I told you that you wouldn't be unemployed for long! ;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Probably a good criterion for the time, but I wonder if it's as applicable two thousand years later. There are a great many more intervening generations, and a lot more opportunities for even rightly ordained bishops to go astray.<<<

That depends on whether you believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit is fortified through he laying on of hands and conveys a particular charism. It also helps to remember that, despite what some people think, there is more to the Apostolic Succession than purely legalistic criteria. A bishop must not only be ordained by bishops (a minimum of three, to signify that this is an ecclesial and not a personal action), but the bishop must also adhere to the fullness of the Tradition. He is, in fact, bound by it and cannot deviate from it in any substantive way; he cannot pick and choose which doctrines he will uphold, but must uphold all of them, for he has a special charism to teach the true faith. If he does not, he ceases to be a bishop. A bishop's standing is recognized through his communion with other bishops, which shows that he believes what they believe, and they believe what he believes. In the Eastern Churches at least, when a bishop is ordained, he must exchange a "synodicon" or confession of faith with all the other bishops in the Church. Thereafter, the recognize his authority and dignity by commemorating him in the Liturgy. If, at some poiint, they feel he has ceased to believe or teach what he professed, then they can cease commemorating him, effectively "breaking communion". Until he is reconciled or justified, he is not recognized as a bishop.

This approach stresses several things. First and foremost, the continuity of the Church and its Tradition from the Apostles to the present day. Second, the fullness of the local Church constituted as a Eucharistic society focused on the bishop celebrating the Eucharist together with his priests and deacons, and surrounded by the people. Third, the unity and universality of the Church through the communion of all orthodox (right believing) bishops with each other.

And, since the good tree bears good fruit, one has to say that this system works. One can trace the continuity of the Apostolic Churches and their doctrine back to the earliest days. Yes, there has been elaboration and variation, but the core doctrines and practices of each not only are similar to each other, but are also similar to those of the Church of the first century (and indeed, some of the prayers and services of those Churches are remarkably unchanged since then). Yes, the local Church is still the nexus of the faith, the Eucharist is still the center of the Church's spiritual life. Yes, the universality of the Church is still manifested through the communion of the heads of the local Churches, even though there are divisions between families of Churches (which, with God's will, will be healed in the near future). Yes, the Apostolic Succession guarantees the teaching of true doctrine and the maintenance of the true faith.

[James A. Altena]

Amen to Stuart's last post. Tactile (institutional) successsion and doctrinal succession is not an either/or situation, but a both/and one. A man may be a "bishop" titularly in an institutional sense, but not truly a bishop in any substantive by virtue of having placed himself by heresy outside the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

One of the most pernicious diseases within the ranks of my own Anglican communion, whether the heretical TEC or the more orthodox but sectarian "Continuing Churches," is the reduction of apostolic succession to the tactile dimension of pedigree or formal "validity." "Well, yes, he's a heretic [e.g. on women's ordination], but his orders are valid" is the line typically heard. The sacraments, particularly ordination, are superstitiously reduced to what one (formerly Anglican, now Orthodox) priest I know correctly and tartly referred to as "a magical pair of hands." And if one dares to challenge this, one is immediately and falsely accused of the Donatist heresy for allegedly denying the validity of the heretic's orders. There is seemingly no understanding that: 1) "validity" is a merely formal, not material, criterion, and is in and of itself insufficient for apostolic successsion; and 2) the refusal (except in extremis) to receive the sacraments at such hands rests not on subscription to Donatism, but to a combination of godly discipline and sound witness to the world, in accordance with Articles XXVI, XXXIII, and XXXIV of the 39 Articles in the Book of Common Prayer.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart,

Thank you for the clarification. I cannot say that I agree that the doctrinal abuses that Protestants believe ourselves to have experienced at the hands of ordained bishops justifies doing away with the office altogether. Yet what can be said about the phenomenon of certain non-episcopalian "ecclesial communities" cleaving closer to the Gospel than others which do trace their apostolic succession (TEC, most obviously)?

It is, of course, impossible to justify the existence of non-episcopal Protestant bodies (such as the vast majority of Evangelical churches) under the Catholic concept of apostolic succession. But I want to point out that such bodies do not try to do so. Instead, they take a purely doctrinal approach, holding fidelity to the gospel as something superior to and indeed separate from the continuity of the particular office holders.

Now, I speak of this all in the third person because although I participate in such a body (the Evangelical Free Church, historically founded upon just such a belief), I have not yet decided whether I find such an approach convincing. I think I would like to be an Anglican, if there were any orthodox ones in my area (mid-Missouri).

[Bill R]

"Now, I speak of this all in the third person because although I participate in such a body (the Evangelical Free Church, historically founded upon just such a belief),..."

Howdy, neighbor. I'm in your sister denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church.

"I have not yet decided whether I find such an approach convincing. I think I would like to be an Anglican, if there were any orthodox ones in my area (mid-Missouri)."

Not to put to fine a point on it, Ethan, but if you didn't know that BCP means "Book of Common Prayer," such a decision may be a bit premature. At least half the wonderful people in the world seem to be Anglicans, but they aren't without their problems as well. But as to that, ask the Anglican commenters (we have a lot--I'd suggest James Altena).

[James A. Altena]

Dear Ethan,

Your point is well taken. Tactile (institutional) apostolic succession is no automatic or ironclad guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. As St. John Chrysostom said, the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. One of the Anglican FiF (Forward in Faith) bishops in England states that when he put on his purple shirt, he looks in the mirror, wags his finger, and says "I don't trust you!" And there's also an old Anglican witticism: Why is the sign of a bishop a crook, and the sign of an archbiship a double-cross?

More seriously, I think the basic answer to your question is that the greater overall fidelity of some non-episcopal churches to the Gospel compared to certain episcopal bodies is that it's one of God's means to witness to the latter, to keep them more humble and faithful. Pondering the sayings to the seven churches in Rev. 2-3 is a good idea here.

I have a directory of orthodox Anglican churches in the USA. When I get home I'll look in it to see what's closest to you. Feel free to e-mail me with a more precise location (city name and telephone area code would be helpful).

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill R.

"At least half the wonderful people in the world seem to be Anglicans."

A compliment we Anglicans don't begin to deserve. In one sense, of course (that of C. S. Lewis), ever person is wonderful as made in the image of God. In your sense, all faithful Christians of any stripe are wonderful. Touchstone and Mere Comments are a testimony to that.

And thanks for your recommendation of prickly ol' me to Ethan.

Finally, condolences on the loss of your colleague, mentioned in another blog. You didn't say if he was a Christian, but we also pray for his soul and for his grieving family.

[Bill R]

"Finally, condolences on the loss of your colleague, mentioned in another blog. You didn't say if he was a Christian, but we also pray for his soul and for his grieving family."

James, he was Jewish, and, so far as I'm aware, of the secular variety. Which only adds to my anguish. But I'm reminded of another incident in my office a few years ago when our office manager, a former lawyer and judge, was diagnosed as terminally ill. I did make a point of explaining the Gospel to him (he had no discernible religious background), but he told me, quite casually, that even in the midst of his last illness he had no belief whatsoever in God, and so no need to consider what I said. It was chilling to hear. He died a few days later.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

This brings to mind the account of David Hume's final hours as observed by James Boswell. Of course, most deathbed conversion stories are fanciful fictions; one generally faces death as one has faced life.

[Ethan Cordray]

My inability to recognize "BCP" is doubly ironic, considering I've got one sitting right next to me as I type. Incidentally, can anyone help me figure out which version it is? It doesn't have a publishing date that I can find, but it does have a "Certificate" of conformity by John Wallace Suter in the front dated 1945, which would seem to rule out the 1979 revision.

James, and any young women who might care to know, I'm in Jefferson City, the capital, in the heart of German Catholic territory.

Anyhow, back to the original topic, I've always though that Evangelicalism ought to be a movement within the various traditions rather than its own thing. Sadly, it seems to have arisen in this country at the same time as the old Protestant bodies were rotting from modernism, and instead of rejuvenating them it mostly split off. I've heard from many friends in Catholic and Orthodox circles that the converts from Evangelicalism are the future of their churches. Perhaps we're going back where we belong.

[Bill R]

“Anyhow, back to the original topic, I've always though that Evangelicalism ought to be a movement within the various traditions rather than its own thing. Sadly, it seems to have arisen in this country at the same time as the old Protestant bodies were rotting from modernism, and instead of rejuvenating them it mostly split off. I've heard from many friends in Catholic and Orthodox circles that the converts from Evangelicalism are the future of their churches. Perhaps we're going back where we belong.”

History is full of seeming serendipity. Luther didn’t intend to found a new church (merely to reform the old one), but we still have the Lutheran Church 500 years later. Evangelicals likewise (by and large) intended to reform left-drifting denominations, and now we have evangelical denominations (such as, ahem, yours and mine). In most of these cases the reformers didn’t want to leave, but often they were booted out (the case of Luther is known by virtually everyone; as to evangelicals, just look at J. Gresham Machen). Yes, I too hear friends in Catholic and Orthodox circles saying the same thing, which is genuinely a new thing: bring the enthusiasts back in! It may be too soon to tell, but when all the parties get desperate enough, no doubt the Holy Spirit will act in ways as yet unforeseen.

[Gene Godbold]

Dear James,
I liked the "sign of the bishop" quip. The rector of the first Anglican church I attended, a former Methodist told us newbies that the difference between Anglicans and Methodists is that Methodists consider bishops unnecessary, but a good thing, while for Anglicans it was reversed.