SoulWork
The Confidence of the Evangelical
On a recent trip to Durham, North Carolina, I was asked, "What do you make of all the evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism?" What immediately came to mind was two recent and well-known conversions of evangelical scholars: Christian Smith, sociologist at Notre Dame, and Francis Beckwith, who at one time was president of the Evangelical Theological Society. Other well-known conversions to Catholicism in my generation—by men whose writings have been important in my intellectual growth—include the late Richard John Neuhaus and Robert Wilken (not from evangelicalism as such, but from Lutheranism).
These are not minds to trifle with! We're talking about men who were and are at the top of their intellectual games, in sociology, theology, and church history. And none of their motives are to be questioned. When it comes to momentous conversions, we usually don't know our own deepest motives. These are often discovered only long after the fact, or maybe never (at least not until we find ourselves in the presence of our Lord—Ah, so that's what I was doing!).
What I can comment on is the tug of Catholicism on the evangelical heart. Because it is a tug that I must admit has pulled at me and many close friends. But there are tugs and there are tugs. Some tugs come from the Holy Spirit, and these naturally are not to be criticized! But other tugs deserve a little scrutiny.
Like the longing for authority. One of the most frustrating things about being Protestant, and especially evangelical, is that there is really no place to turn when you are ready to end a conversation on a controversial point. There is no authority figure or institution that can silence heterodoxy. No one has your back—well, except the Holy Spirit (we'll come back to this in a moment). The more Protestants there are, the more churches and theologies are birthed. As soon as we say, "The Christian church believes …" we hear someone say, "Well, I'm a Christian, and I don't believe that!" To be an evangelical used to mean one stood for certain theological convictions—penal substitution, inerrancy, and so forth—but now many evangelicals take delight in defining themselves over and against one of these formerly cardinal doctrines, while insisting on the right to be called evangelicals.
So, we understand the pull of the Catholic magisterium. We'd love to be able to say, "The church believes X," and then back it up with a papal encyclical. We want "evangelical" to have clear and firm boundaries, so that when someone says they believe something outside of those boundaries, we can tell them definitively and assuredly that they are no longer evangelicals. We're tired of arguing, of having to prove our point through the careful examination of Scripture and patient deliberation. Frankly, we've given up depending on prayer to change hearts and minds. We want to be able to say, "The church teaches …" or "The Holy Father says …" or "All biblical scholars believe …" in a way that separates the sheep from the goats.
The Holy Spirit set the pattern for what church would be like at the day of Pentecost. And it looked like this: Massive confusion. So much confusion that when onlookers tried to describe it, they called it a drunken party (Acts 2:13). When Peter interprets what was happening, he says this:
And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17–18)
SoulWork
In "SoulWork," Mark Galli brings news, Christian theology, and spiritual direction together to explore what it means to be formed spiritually in the image of Jesus Christ.
Mark Galli
Galli is editor of Christianity Today and author of God Wins, Chaos and Grace, A Great and Terrible Love, Jesus Mean and Wild, Francis of Assisi and His World, and other books.
- Christian Athletes Are Not Role Models
- On the Death—and Life—of Innocent Children
- Closer than Ever to the Breath of God
- Making Non-Sense of the Colorado Shootings
- Mastering the Golf Swing of Life
Star Trek Into Darkness
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 85 comments
See all comments
Scott Hennis
I think Mr. Galli misses the point by invoking the Holy Spirit as the deciding factor in all things Christian. In one sense the Holy Spirit is the final arbiter, but He works through institutions comprised of men (universal sense) and not from a mish mash of differing opinions falling on the side of what is orthodox vis-a-vis a consenus of the essentials of mere Christianity. In essence, there has to be a final arbiter on Earth and the Protestant faith simply does not have the mechanism in place for such decisions. Protestants cannot even decide on the essentials of mere Christianity much less decide on issues not mentioned in the text of Scripture, such as embryonic stem cell research. As to essentials of the Faith, such as the canon of Scripture, one of the more thoughtful Protestants had to reduce that decision of The Holy Spirit to a fallible collection of infallible writings. One can see where this would lead, but the author was one of the more thoughtful Protestant folk.
Don Schenk
"Thus there have ever been and will be men who, after having submitted some portion of their religious belief to the principle of authority, will seek to exempt several other parts of their faith from it and to keep their minds floating at random between liberty and obedience. but I am inclined to believe that the number of these thinkers will be less in democratic than in other ages, and that our posterity will tend more and more to a division into only two parts, some relinquishing Christianity entirely and others returning to the Church of Rome." Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America" (1840) Volume II, first book, chapter VI: "The Progress of Roman Catholicism in the United States" See also Acts 2:14, 41-42, and 1 Corinthians 14:8.
Nate Rinne
Mark, I appreciate your thoughtful piece. I read your comments on the Called to Communion blog to. You focus a lot on consensus, and I am not sure that is the way to go, at least if we think we need to continually uphold the Reformation. I suggest Jesus Himself taught His disciples to dissent from religious leaders when what they said mitigated the goal of the Scriptures (see John 5:39) or placed their oral teachings higher or on the same plane as those clearly revealed in the Scriptures. For example, Matthew 23:2,3 is often quoted to show that Jesus told His followers to obey the leaders of the visible assembly of believers of his day (those who sat in “Moses’ seat”). And yet, just note that all over the rest of the N.T. Jesus also says the Pharisees are teaching falsely. The leaven is hypocrisy *and* false teaching. Teaching can include behavior as well (we teach by our lives) but clearly Jesus is not excluding the content of the Pharisees teaching, which can be shown by several clear examples: A) Even in Matthew 23 he confronts the Pharisees for their false teaching (verses 16-22) b) When Jesus confronts the Pharisees over their false teaching… (Matthew 16, Mark 7, corban, etc.) c) The Pharisees obviously teach falsely about who Jesus is (John 5:39) d) The Pharisees reject the teachings of John the Baptist. e) Jesus and his disciples disobey the head authorities in the Church as regards things like man-made Sabbath Laws (not the Scriptural ones) and the washing of hands…? f) In Matthew 5 Jesus repeatedly says “you have heard” and “but I tell you”…. in the Sermon on the Mount (not bringing new teachings) and “John 5:39 disavows us of any notion that the Pharisees, generally speaking, understood the Scriptures.” They were like the Sadducees, who did not know the Scriptures or the power of God. More detail on all these points can be found here: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/round-3-with-rc-apologist-da ve-armstrong-a-few-good-pharisees/ In other words, the writings of the Apostles of Jesus themselves (which they say are a “safeguard” against those who would claim oral traditions that might mitigate the true tradition found in Scripture), and those who spoke in agreement with them are the arbiters of moral and theological truth. We can say, “sure, but who determines that?” Here, I think there is indeed room for authorities, even infallible authorities. The point is that we can’t necessarily know that simply because a person holds an office (Rome) or because a majority recognizes the truth (i.e. “consensus” in EO). Both of these ways have little room for Acts 17 Bereans conservative Protestants rightly keep pointing to…