The Honor Of God

Bill Samuels gives his thoughts on the recently issued Evangelical Manisfesto and his problems with evangelical with a capital E.

Why I am evangelical but not an Evangelical

The catalyst for this post was An Evangelical Manifesto, which I reflected upon in my last post. And my perspective on the subject is deeply informed by two traditions/movements within the Christian church with which I have been heavily involved. One is Quakerism in which I spent much of my life. Another is what is often referred to as the Emerging Church conversation or movement. While I have only formally been a member of an Emerging Church for three years, I was part of a group which had much of the same perspective long before the term Emerging Church had been dreamed of. That little spiritual community which became known as Friends in Christ melded Quaker and what now would be called Emerging Church perspectives in a way that could be called an early precursor of the loose Convergent Friends movement of today. Here I will note that in the long list of Manifesto signatories I could not identify any Quakers or any of the prominent public faces in the Emerging Church conversation. 

As I indicated in my earlier post, I fully identify with the definition in An Evangelical Manifesto: “Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.” Playing off that document’s insistence on capitalizing Evangelical, I am saying I am evangelical in terms of the root meaning of that word expressed in that Manifesto definition, but I’m not comfortable with some other aspects of the description of Evangelical, in which the Manifesto is faithful to the tradition of that part of the Christian church. That leads me to seeing myself as fitting the term if left lower case, but not really accurately defined when it is upper case.

The Bible and Authority

The Manifesto, and here it is indeed representative of Evangelicalism, refers to sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone), the “supreme authority of the Bible,” and “the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice.” It claims this is shown by “Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude.” This is a Manifesto, not an apology, and it doesn’t do references, so I’m not sure what they rely on for that.

I find Jesus saying in scripture that I am the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:6, NIV) This is a radical statement, and one hard for us humans to accept because we want to be able to package up truth in a neat, rational box. Jesus tells us this impulse is wrong. The people that he has such conflict with are precisely the religious leaders of his day who wanted to tie up faith in a neat little box. Relying on purely the written word of the Bible as the Truth doesn’t really quite succeed in achieving the goal of the neat little box, but the urge to make the book supreme is an attempt to move in that direction. Evangelicals also proclaim Christ is Lord, but their emphasis on the written word as the sole determiner of Truth tends to contradict that. I am not an Evangelical because, in the end, I’m not sure that Evangelicalism is really centered on Jesus Christ.

I believe the premier Quaker apologist, Robert Barclay, put this question of authority well in his Apology for the True Christian Divinity. He states that the scriptures do contain revelations of God to the saints, but notes that, “because they are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners.” Barclay notes “that the Spirit is that Guide by which the saints are led into all Truth” and goes on to make this key argument:

If by the Spirit we can only come to the true knowledge of God; if by the Spirit we are to be led into all Truth, and so be taught of all things; then the Spirit, and not the Scriptures, is the foundation and ground of all Truth and knowledge, and the primary rule of faith and manners 

I find Barclay’s arguments convincing. (See also Friends (Quakers) and the Bible.)

My immersion into the Emerging Church conversation has provided me with further insights into understanding the scriptures. I have learned about narrative theology. To me, this provides a way to better explore the richness of the scriptures than a doctrinally centered theology. I can observe that Jesus taught largely by telling stories, and by the story of what he did. Looking at the whole Bible, I can see that it is predominantly stories. By taking the narrative approach rather than a literalist approach, we are better able to explore the many facets of the stories in the scripture and to translate them into lessons for how we can live more faithfully.

The narrative approach sees the narrative as continuing, not stopped at some point in time with what’s in the canon, which is consistent with the early Quaker reluctance to embrace the idea of a fixed canon. When I participated in the Journey Seminar, the membership class for Cedar Ridge Community Church, I appreciated the approach of a journey which included what was recorded in scripture, the history of the Christian church in its many variations, and the life of this particular local faith community. It gave me both a sense of the “cloud of witnesses” and of the importance of the continuing spiritual journey in which I can participate. At the end, to become a member, I signed a sheet of paper that was committing myself to principles of living out the journey with Christ within the context of this particular community, but did not contain doctrinal propositions. This felt right to me.

Protestant?

While what I have just written about is the primary reason for my reluctance to consider myself an Evangelical, there is another (albeit related) concern. Evangelicals hold strongly to being Protestant, in contrast with the alternatives of being Catholic or Orthodox. I feel a reluctance to limit my Christian understanding to just one of the main divisions of the Christian church. This view, too, has been heavily impacted by my involvement in both Quakerism and the Emerging Church conversation.

There has been a debate about whether or not Quakers are Protestants. (See Are Quakers Protestant?) Early Quakers contrasted themselves with both Catholics and Protestants (Orthodox were simply not a part of the religious conversation in 17th century Britain where the Quaker movement started, but I’m sure Quakers would also have contrasted themselves with the Orthodox if they had been), essentially regarding both streams as apostate. In some areas, they saw Protestants as having moved from part of the errors of Catholicism, but not all the way. As regards the scriptures, their argument was in fact primarily with Protestantism.

While identifying with the Quaker reluctance to put themselves in one of the big boxes of Christianity, I became increasingly reluctant to see that solely as rejecting those major streams. My participation (1993-94) in the Spiritual Nurturer Program of the School of the Spirit greatly contributed to that. While the Program was Quaker, the majority of the readings were from the monastic tradition, which has been writing in depth about spiritual nurture for many centuries. I found that I really identified with most of what I read from the monastic tradition. That did not make me want to convert to Catholicism, but it did result in a great appreciation for the spiritual richness within that tradition.

At Cedar Ridge, the teachings and practices draw from all three major divisions of the Christian church. All are seen as part of the story in which we see ourselves. While in the Emerging Church conversation we recognize many ways in which all three traditions have gone astray at various points in history, we don’t have the unrelenting negativism towards them that marked the early Quakers. We also see a lot of spiritual vitality in all of these streams of Christianity. I identify with this perspective.

Visit Bill at his interesting blog >>>>>   http://billsamuel.net/blog/

That may seem to be an absurd question. After all, Hagee is the founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, a non-denominational evangelical church with more than 19,000 active members. So why would I ask such a question?

Well, Carl E. Olson* wrote a very intriguing post at Ignatius Blog in which he states:

While growing up in a “non-denominational” fundamentalist environment in the 1970s and ’80s, I knew very well by the time I was eight or years years old that the Catholic Church was “apostate” and was either part of or was the “great whore of Babylon” described in the Book of Revelation. This was an integral part of the “Rapture” theology that informed nearly every aspect of my thinking about Jesus, the Bible, and the world. Anyone familiar with books such as Dave Hunt’s A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994), is familiar with this rhetoric, which has been around for centuries, dating back to at least the Reformation era, and which has been readily embraced by dispensationalist writers since the inception of that belief system in the 1830s.
An obvious example can be found in the popular non-fiction work of Dr. Tim LaHaye, creator and co-author of the Left Behind series. In Revelation Unveiled (Zondervan, 1999), a revised version of Revelation Illustrated and Made Simple (Zondervan, 1973, 1975), his commentary on The Apocalypse, LaHaye made his case for the belief that “Babylon the Great” of Revelation 17 is a system of false belief clearly identified with the Catholic Church. Drawing on Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons and Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, LaHaye (who was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church) condemns the “mystery Babylonian religion” of the Catholic Church, (go here and here for details) and then writes:

After reading the above quotations, you may be inclined to think me anti-Catholic, but that isn’t exactly true; I am anti-false religion. … In some respects the religion of Rome is more dangerous than no religion because she substitutes religion for truth. Human beings would be better off with their God-given desire for truth unfulfilled that they might seek after Him. Romes false religion too often gives a false security that keep people from seeking salvation freely by faith. Rome is also dangerous because some of her doctrines are pseudo-Christian. For example, she believes properly about the personal deity of Christ but errs in adding Babylonian mysticism in many forms and salvation by works. (p 267)

There is another variation of this approach that is, however subtly, somewhat different from this approach. This variation—which may or may not (depending on the particular “prophecy expert”) condemn Catholic Church as she now exists—focuses more on figuring out the Catholic Church’s role in the future, when the “prophetic clock” is restarted by the Rapture. This is hinted at, for example, in a booklet titled The Coming World Church, published in 1963 (and again in 1978) by Back to the Bible, a fundamentalist organization, James DeForest Murch describes the “Coming Great Church” and renounces the ecumenical movement as apostate and inspired by Satan. He writes:

Evangelicals who are prophetically inclined are now warning us that we are witnessing the creation of an organization which is pictured in the Bible, not as the Bride of Christ, but as the adulterous woman bearing on her forehead the name, “Mystery Babylon.” They see the ecumenical movement as a stage on the road which can eventually lead to the creation of an ecclesiastical body which has all the admixture of truth and error found in the Church of Rome, universal in scope, and eventually heading up the Romish abomination itself. (p 22)

In the late 1990s I had a couple of conversations with the pastor of the largest Baptist church in the state of Oregon. He had given a sermon on the “church of Thyatira”, which is described in Revelation 2:18-29, and is often interpreted by fundamentalists as a description of the Catholic Church. The pastor used many of LaHaye and Company’s standard anti-Catholic talking points, but his real interest was in trying to ascertain the role played by the Catholic Church during the seven years of Tribulation he believed (as most dispensationalists do) will come between the “Rapture” and the Second Coming. When I spoke to the pastor on the phone about his anti-Catholic rhetoric, he was both very polite and very unapologetic. His position, in essence, was that while he believed some Catholics are “saved,” he was convinced that the unique size and influence of the Catholic Church strongly suggested that it would be, after the Rapture, the key institution of an apostate One World Religion. You simply cannot underestimate how obsessed such folks are with figuring out all of the details of their “end times” system!

That pastor’s interest in the future is, from what I can tell and what his quote above suggests, similar to Hagee’s stance. Which is, again, why I recently emphasized that while the issue of Hagee’s offensive remarks is important, it needs to be understood in the light of his seriously flawed theological beliefs. And, just so I’m not misunderstood or misrepresented, I’m not dismissing or making light of Hagee’s offensive remarks; on the contrary, I’m saying that as bothersome as they are, they aren’t nearly as troubling as his entire theological system, which is shot through with notions and presuppositions that are not in keeping with basic Christian doctrines, especially his belief that Jesus is not the Messiah of the Jews, his belief in a “Rapture” event separate from the Second Coming, and his belief that Christians will not endure the final tribulation.
 

Although Carl is careful to point out that he is not stating that Hagee is outside of Christianity, nevertheless there is available to us very clear and revealing material regarding this interesting topic:

 I do come close to that line but it is one I’m reluctant to step over. From what I can tell, Hagee believes in the Incarnation and the Trinity, which are, of course, the two central dogmas of Christianity. But his beliefs about a lot of other important matters are certainly “out there,” to the degree that some Evangelicals—mostly from the Reformed tradition— would say that he and other dispensationalists aren’t true Christians (I talk about this in my book)  i.e.  Will Catholics Be “Left Behind? A Catholic Critique of the Rapture and Today’s Prophecy Preachers (Ignatius Press, 2003)

 

*(Catholic, husband, father, author, editor, apologist, smart aleck, illustrator, designer, music collector, book lover, and lousy tennis player. He is the editor of the online magazine IgnatiusInsight.com and moderator of the Ignatius Press web log, the Insight Scoop blog.  He is also the author of Will Catholics Be “Left Behind? A Catholic Critique of the Rapture and Today’s Prophecy Preachers (Ignatius Press, 2003) and co-author of the best-selling The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code (Ignatius Press, 2004). He has written numerous articles on apologetics, theology, literature/art, pop culture, and religion, as well as several book reviews, for publications including The Catholic Answer, CatholicExchange.com, Catholic World Report, Catholic Parent, Crisis, Envoy, First Things, National Catholic Register, National Review Online, New Covenant, Our Sunday Visitor, Saint Austin Review, This Rock and Touchstone. He currently write a weekly Scripture column, “Opening the Word,” for Our Sunday Visitor, as well as regular pieces for Ignatius Insight.)

http://www.carl-olson.com/Site/Welcome.html