At first glance the very mention of ecumenism, in the same sentence with the word evangelical, seems oxymoronic. Modern evangelicals have a well-deserved reputation for being less than excited about serious, modern ecumenical dialogue. I know this because I have lived my entire Christian life inside evangelical Protestantism, expressed in several different varieties or outward forms.
I have come to see that I am the adult child of a dysfunctional ecclesial culture. My evangelical subculture historically prided itself on being truly faithful to the gospel of Christ, thus entirely separated from those Christians and churches who compromised the gospel that we preached and defended.
I lived, and even preached, among people who loved to quote Galatians 1:6-9 as a kind of war cry:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! (NRSV).
This text was quoted to draw a clear line of demarcation between what we believed and what everybody else believed who was not one of “us.” Sometimes we said this and sometimes we didn’t but in almost every case we believed that we alone preached the true, pure, biblical gospel. We used a quote attributed to Luther that says: justificatio est articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae—”justification is the article by which the church stands and falls.” Though Luther did not precisely say this it is quite close to what he did say. We tie this kind of thinking to the Galatian heresy and then we can say, “We stand on the gospel. They
This kind of appeal did several things for us insiders:
- It made us feel really good about our team and our views, which were of course always right.
- It stopped us from thinking about whether or not there were any other ways to sort out these considerably complex theological assumptions that we made without having to be seriously challenged.
- It gave us a sense of group security since we knew we were insiders and we were quite sure who the outsiders were.
- We could connect ourselves to the Reformers, respond aggressively to the Council of Trent (being quite sure that we understood the Council of Trent correctly), and then defend the Reformation as if was a new “birthday” of the Christian Church. Popularly many of the laity who followed this thinking never stopped to ask, “Where was the church and gospel for the previous 1,500 years?”
- At its worse we could tell people who was a true believer and who was not. More than one such Reformation Christian told me that I was not a Christian. Sadly, I know this form of “true believer” messaging firsthand.
Some years ago an esteemed theologian said to me, “A person who does not understand sola fide, or who has never confessed it knowingly, could be a real Christian in site of their ignorance of this central truth. However, anyone who understood it and then rejected it is NOT a Christian.” I found that statement shocking and appalling, both then and now. This same person believed in the security of the (true) believer but if the believer rethought sola fide (not denying it in principle but understudying it differently) he/she was lost! This thinking also allowed this person to respond to me in an angry and unsettling way that showed me anything but the love of Jesus.
When some evangelicals see that I am speaking at a place like the National Workshop on Christian Unity (see yesterday’s blog), and speaking no less as an “evangelical” Protestant, they believe this is the final straw. I have proven once and for all that I have left the gospel. I have embraced works over faith, merit over grace.
What do I say to this response?
- I urge you to study Galatians 1 for yourself. Do not read modern debates back into this text. Do not assume that the Catholic view of justification, grace, faith and spiritual transformation equals the Galatian heresy. (I do not agree with the Catholic view of justification but I believe it is easily misunderstood by evangelicals. Many think they understand the Catholic dogma without even working in the field of serious theology.) Read good commentaries, from across a very wide spectrum, including Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars. You can then get a good feel for what is really going on in Galatians 1 if you do this. Then stop searching for your favorite polemical tool to use against your brothers and sisters. If nothing else a serious study of the text will likely help you to see that you have misunderstood Paul. You may also see, as I did when I engaged in this issue without my strong confirmation bias, that the Catholic Church is not teaching salvation by human works.
- Spend time personally and actively loving other people who are not like you. Learn to listen to people you do not agree with and then ask if you can pray with them. Stop letting your fears guide about who you can love and how you respond to people. Get to know people for who they are and let them tell you what they really believe. Only when you can state their views well enough that they agree that you have understood them correctly have you truly heard them. This is true in all good communication but especially in ecclesial debate.
- Avoid polemical arguments like the plague, at least in most cases. Rarely are such polemics necessary and the words they engender almost always burn those who engage in them. There is a time and place under heaven for everything, including polemics. “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven” (Lamentations 3:1). Polemics may prove necessary in rare cases but most of the time “speaking the truth in love” (without the fire of polemical words) is far better. Those who feed on polemics enjoy a fight and those enjoy a fight will not become peacemakers. This is not a matter of “peace at any price” but rather of Godly prudence and practical holiness. Both Catholic and Protestant history is littered by the polemical fallout of the sort that has destroyed many for whom Jesus died.
- Stop reading church history looking for the parts that support your own views and beliefs. Read for the “big picture” and get a sweeping overview of what God has been doing for two thousand years. See how he used people of many different persuasions to do great good and to build up his flock. Read writers from long before the Protestant Reformation and then remind yourself that these men and women were great Christians before your Protestant heirs were even born. Read solid modern Protestant historians like Mark Noll, George Marsden, Harry Stout, Nathan Hatch, Martin Marty, etc.
Related Posts
Comments
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
As someone who enjoys a good argument – as you and other FB friends may have noticed – I feel challenged by your call to refrain from needless polemics. Thank you.
Well put John H. Armstrong…thank you for your clarification.
:-)…love the reference to ACOA as the isms are lethal to love. Your prescriptions lead out of ism into dialogue where we find humility and patience and kindness waiting for us. There we become different kind of adults- maybe ones we’d rather be ourselves.
Just great, John.
Great piece John.
I posted yours on their blog. For your comment…http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/reformation-over/
I didn’t post this to start a battle, only to show the contrast in views. Both of these men are respected by me, and I believe both are in the arms of Christ forever. Philippians 1:6.
I’d love to see John and RC (Sproul 🙂 that is) in a dialogue.
I thank God for the many evangelical men who have spoken into my life these past 37 years. I have paid careful attention to creeds and doctrines because they are important. But when the Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox approach the gates of Heaven, I don’t expect that they will be seated in desks to complete an entrance exam on creedal fidelity. Many of them will already be known by their first names, embraced as family, and lead through the Pearly Gates toward the Throne. So, I don’t want to be identified by what I am against, but what I am for. I want to go from being a “protester” to what the Bible emphasizes instead…a reconciler; a peacemaker. I look for fellowship with those who by faith, are chasing after God with grateful love in their hearts. I won’t make the Bible an idol, but I will worship the One who spoke it, and everything else into being.
I appreciate your post John. As a layperson I heavy lean to Reformed doctrine as RC Sproul,
T Keller, J Piper and others have articulated in sermons and teaching. Not being a scholar and with little
research from primary sources themselves, I trust more learned than I on their rendering of classical positions
taught of reformed thinkers whom RC Sproul says there is an agreeing consensus among conservative scholars
such as Edwards, Calvin, Luther, and Augustine (I think). Although I’m not fluent in distinguing the differences in divergent theologies across the ecumenical divide, I try to understand and to”tune in” to see if a person I converse with has a true inner knowledge of fellowship with God as understood from what a scriptural relationship is. If there is an obvious connect than we’re brothers or sister and a joy of fellowship exists. If the person is Catholic and knows great. This admittedly is a simple understanding and living out of a Christian walk with God for myself and perhaps many at my level of understanding. I do see that it will be always necessary to hash out theological points but do get your point of that of finding fellowship and unity in essentials. That for your expanded clarifications on your thinking.
Thomas Hoye, you have understood me on the whole I think. I have no desire to quarrel with those you name, all of whom I know personally. I am simply following my conscience which requires me to receive brothers and sisters in the Lord wherever they are and not where I think they should be. I can give opinions about theology but that is what they are, my opinions. Theological language itself is problematic because it is an exercise in human language, something that is never perfect. For this reason no system of teaching can capture the divine mind and will perfectly. “We all see through a glass darkly.”
John H. Armstrong, how long have you known Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Hobbes? Sorry brother, couldn’t resist.
You couldn’t resist, Bryan. I was thinking the same thing:-)
Bryan Prosser, of course I was referring to Sproul and Piper. 🙂
RT @JohnA1949: I Am the Adult Child of a Dysfunctional Ecclesial Culture: At first glance the very mention of ecumeni… http://t.co/b4mJKG…
@JohnA1949 my meditations in May, awaiting Ascension & Pentecost- Gal 5 Having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh?
@JohnA1949 this question is from 3:2, and his answer in 5- nothing matters more than the basic dynamic of “faith working through love” (vs6)
We must learn how to argue without breaking fellowship.
Sarah Gillert liked this on Facebook.
BG Allen liked this on Facebook.
Thomas Nathan Smith liked this on Facebook.
Michael Bradley liked this on Facebook.
Dan Brennan liked this on Facebook.
Denise Murphy Plichta liked this on Facebook.
Daniel E Arciaga liked this on Facebook.
Robert J. Evans II liked this on Facebook.
Clay Knick liked this on Facebook.
Kyuboem Lee liked this on Facebook.
Forrest Lee Horn liked this on Facebook.
Sharon Schafer liked this on Facebook.
Tom Burns liked this on Facebook.
Barry Bruce liked this on Facebook.
Ed Holm liked this on Facebook.
Richard Kidd liked this on Facebook.
LifeCoach Gwen Griffith liked this on Facebook.
Russell Almon liked this on Facebook.
Terry Wood liked this on Facebook.
Andrew Martin liked this on Facebook.
John Ross liked this on Facebook.